The Dumbest Generation & C.S. Lewis

On my birthday (August 15) I did what I love to do. I went to the bookstore and spent time browsing. I bought a book called "The Dumbest Generation". It is unfortunately about my generation--the generation raised on TV, the generation who was introduced to Internet in our teen years, the generation with by far the most knowledge at our fingertips then any generation in history, but which does not show that we any smarter or better off than previous generations. The book explores the perplexing question of how this could possibly be the case.

The author (Mark Bauerlein) points out study after study that shows my generation (which watches an average of 5 1/2 hours of television per day!) does not know basic knowledge such as the significance of 1776 (its an American book), who the British Priminister (its Gordon Brown, by the way) and who made the first electric light-bulb (I am not going to help you with this one).

Bauerlein states the paradox this way:

We have entered the Information Age, traveled the Information Superhighway, spawned a Knowledge Economy, undergone the Digital Revolution, converted manual workers into knowledge workers, and promoted a Creative Class and we anticipate a Conceptual Age to be. However overhyped those grand social metaphors, they signify a rising premium on knowledge...a knowledge economy. Any yet while teens and young adults have absorbed digital tools into their lives young [people] today are no more learned and skillful than their predecessors, no more knowledgeable, fluent, up-to-date, or inquisitive, except in the materials of youth culture. They don't know any more history or civics, economics or science, literature or current events. They also read less on their own. (Mark Bauerlein, The Dumbest Generation, [New York: Penguin Books, 2008], 8-9).

Much could be said about how scary all of this is. I think his point about youth culture is important. Our generation does know and do more about this specific reality, which, though some may argue against this, I can categorically say, is, in the large scheme of things, less important to know about, and at times even destructive to our thinking, living and acting.

Youth culture is at times culture created to be consumed at a mass scale and thus shoots for the lowest common denominator. Think of movies directed to this audience: poo jokes, penis jokes, more poo jokes; music videos: half-naked girls dancing in the desert, cut to boat no one can afford, party scene, chains, watches; and these are the moguls which then want to shape voting (Remember P. Diddy's "Vote or Die") world views. I am all for artist being political and offering prophetic critique to a culture that has lost its way, but not artist that convey such ridiculousness on a day to day basis.

To conclude my thoughts on this I though I would hold up as an example of what I am talking about an extreme example of brilliance, but I am not sure that he was a complete anomaly in his time. C.S. Lewis. Here is an excerpt from a letter that he wrote to his best friend when he was 17-year-old:

12 October 1915

"You ask me how I spend my time, and though I am more interested in thoughts and feelings, we’ll come down to facts. I am awakened up in the morning by Kirk splashing in his bath, about 20 minutes after which I get up myself and come down. After breakfast & a short walk we start work on Thucydides a desperately dull and tedious Greek historian (I daresay tho’, you’d find him interesting) and on Homer whom I worship. After quarter of an hour’s rest we go on with Tacitus till lunch at 1.

I am then free till tea at 4.30: of course I am always anxious at this meal to see if Mrs K. is out, for Kirk never takes it. If she is I lounge in an arm chair with my book by the fire, reading over a leisurely and bountiful meal. If she’s in, or worse still has ’some people’ to tea, it means sitting on a right angled chair and sipping a meagre allowance of tea and making intelligent remarks about the war, the parish and the shortcomings of everyones servants. At 5, we do Plato and Horace, who are both charming, till supper at 7.30, after which comes German and French till about 9. Then I am free to go to bed whenever I like which is usually about 10.20.

As soon as my bed room door is shut I get into my dressing gown, draw up a chair to my table and produce, like Louis Moore, note book and pencil. Here I write up my diary for the day, and then turning to the other end of the book devote myself to poetry, either new stuff or polishing the old. If I am not in the mood for that I draw faces and hands and feet etc for practice. This is the best part of the day of course, and I am usually in a very happy frame of mind by the time I slip into bed.

So glad you too like the ‘Faerie Queen’, isn’t it great? I have been reading a horrible book of Jack London’s called ‘The Jacket’. If you come across [it] anywhere, don’t read it." (The Letters of C. S. Lewis to Arthur Greeves (1914-1963) , ed Walter Hooper (NY: Collier Books, 1979), pp. 84-86.

This, I hope the experience of more and more young people, not to mention my own children, as we move forward in our world. My hope is they work to bring the healing power of Jesus to a lost and hurting people. That by saturating themselves in Scripture, prayer, Christian community and even by expanding their mind by reading good cultural expressions that they would "appear as lights in the world to a crooked and perverse generation" (Philippians 2.15).

Captain Formidable! (A film by Mark Clark)

Since I was a kid I have always made movies. I also have written multiple scripts (including a sequel to Titanic!). My best friend and I would shoot movies of all kinds of different stories and then spend hours in his editing suite editing them. He went on to live in Hollywood and now works on TV shows and with MTV, I on the other hand ended up in BC as a Pastor).

This year I took on a film project for our church. It was supposed to be a kind of training video for a mission trip (to an island in BC called Saltspring), but I shot it in the form of an epic movie.

I loved directing, editing and even having a cameo in this movie and I am thankful to all those who spent time being involved in this project especially Chris Finch, Britney Broadhead, Jordan Scott and Paul Johnson.

This is the link: Captain Formidable movie

Enjoy!

Rick Warren & The President(s)

"Now we believe in the separation of church and state but we do not believe in the separation of faith and politics."

--Rick Warren

On Saturday night Pastor Rick Warren held a civil forum at his church in California (Saddleback). He interviewed the two presidential nominees Barak Obama and John McCain. He did it in a different, but, I think, a very effective way: he interviewed Barak first for one hour and then interviewed McCain, asking the same questions. McCain was isolated so that he could not hear the questions or Obama's answers, in what Warren called a "cone of silence". There is a bit of controversy stirring around this actually (for more on this) -- supposedly Larry King will address this question tonight (August 18) on his show.

The point of these interviews was to expose the candidates to the evangelical Christian community. Which, of course, is hugely important for both candidates as this is a huge voting block (estimated at between 20-40 million people). The issues that were discussed were those which have become extremely important to evangelicals over the last 20 years:personal faith, abortion, evil, morality, supreme court justices, and gay marriage.

Here is a sample of what they said on a few of these issues.

Christian Faith
Explaining what it meant to him to be a Christian, Obama, a long time member of Trinity United Church of Christ, in Chicago, said he works on

walking humbly with our God...I know that I don't walk alone, and I know that if I can get myself out of the way, that I can maybe carry out in some small way what he intends.

He also paraphrased a line from the New Testament to answer Warren's question about what had been America's greatest moral failure saying:

We still don't abide by that basic precept of Matthew that whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me.

McCain, an Episcopalian who attends a Baptist church in Phoenix, when asked what it meant to be a Christian, said:

It means I'm saved and forgiven.

Abortion
Obama said,

I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.

He then offered an explanation of his views, saying he supports the landmark abortion-rights decision Roe vs. Wade, adding to that a stress upon his commitment to reducing the number of abortions.

McCain, when asked by Warren "At what point does a baby get human rights?" immediately responded that a baby's rights begin at conception. Adding also, in light of his recently criticized comments that he's open to a running mate who favors abortion rights:

I will be a pro-life president and this presidency will have pro-life policies.

Moral Failure
Obama's greatest moral failure, he said, was his use of drugs and alcohol as a youth.

McCain said his greatest moral failure was "the failure of my first marriage," alluding to his 1980 divorce from his wife Carol McCain, of fourteen years, because of admitted affairs after returning from Vietnam, and the meeting of his present wife Cindy.

Gay Marriage
Obama called marriage "a sacred union," drawing laughter and applause when he added, "God is in the mix." But he also said he did not support a constitutional amendment to ban Gay Marriage, a position he shares with McCain, who believes it is an issue best left to the state.

Obama did express support for civil unions, which McCain does not support. Obama said:

...historically, we have not defined marriage in our constitution. It's been a matter of state law. That has been our tradition. I mean, let's break it down. The reason that people think there needs to be a constitutional amendment, some people believe, is because of the concern about same-sex marriage. I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions. I do believe that we should not — that for gay partners to want to visit each other in the hospital for the state to say, you know what, that's all right, I don't think that in any way inhibits my core beliefs about what marriage is. I think my faith is strong enough and my marriage is strong enough that I can afford those civil rights to others even if I have a different perspective.

When asked to define marriage McCain said

Union - a union between man and a woman, between one man and one woman. That's my definition of marriage.

Warren then asked McCain about California's Proposition 8, which hopes to overturn this year's gay marriage win. Saying he believes the state's Supreme Court made the wrong decision, McCain reiterated his support for federalism - the state's right to determine its same-sex fate.

In my state, I hope we will make that decision, and other states, they have to recognize the unique status between man and woman. And that doesn't mean that people can't enter into legal agreements. That doesn't mean that they don't have the rights of all citizens. I'm not saying that. I am saying that we should preserve the unique status of marriage between one man and one woman. And if a federal court — if a federal court decided that my state of Arizona had to observe what the state of Massachusetts decided, then I would favor a constitutional amendment. Until then, I believe the states should make the decisions within their own states.

Conclusion
At the beginning of the debate Warren made it clear that its purpose was to promote dialogue and discussion without a systematic demonization of candidates. I think this is a great goal. And one to keep in mind as the debates and discussions move forward from here to November and beyond, both on a national and personal level. Especially in the midst of our Christian communities.

We as Christians have things that we value and care about, some of which were included in this discussion, and many that were absent, or which were not discussed as much (war, the environment, social justice, AIDS relief, and so on) -- and because we care we must be engaged in the democratic process of discussion, questioning, accountability and voting. And in this way we live out the teachings of Jesus and proactively "give to Caesar that which is Caesar's". Existing as good citizens in both the City of God and the City of Men as St. Augustine said, to the glory of God.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

The world learned recently of the sad passing of who many consider to be the greatest writer of Twentieth century, a Russia and a genuine prophet: Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Humanity will forever be in his debt for exposing the horror of Soviet totalitariainism and the moral bankruptcy of Marxist-Leninism.

Here is a link to one of many obituaries to come. It contains a wonderful quote comes from the Russian writer Aleksandr Genis, who described the Solzhenitsyn as "the last remaining prophet in the abandoned temple of absolute truth".

Solzhenitsyn was a devout Christian and a critic of evil wherever he saw it. He was a dissident Russian writer and Nobel laureate whose portrayals of Josef Stalins labour camps and political oppression helped undermine the Soviet grip on power. He was 89.

He died of heart failure. Solzhenitsyn revealed to the Western world the inner workings of the gulag, the network of prisons and camps that held as many as 20 million people during Stalins reign of terror and killed at least 1.5 million. He became a thorn in the side of Soviet authorities and was an icon for Russian intellectuals, helping trigger the demise of the communist regime with his calls for social conscience and historical justice.

He criticized the West for its godlessness, hedonism, moral relativism and shallow consumerism. Here is a link to his famous Harvard Commencement Address "A World Split Apart," which caused him to fall out of favor with Western liberal intellectuals.

My favorite quote from this speech:

"It would be retrogression to attach oneself today to the ossified formulas of the Enlightenment. Social dogmatism leaves us completely helpless in front of the trials of our times."

He rejected both of the great religions to emerge out of the European Enlightenment as replacements for Christianity: Capitalism and Marxism. He was a prophet. He will be missed but never forgotten and his writings live on.

source Craig Carter

Dark Knight Curse?

There is talk of a Dark Knight curse. Some may say "Curse? The movie has made 400 million dollars in 17 days. That is anything but a curse!"

To put that in perspective Titanic made 1.5 million dollars in the same amount of time -- it is this bloggers opinion that The Dark Knight will become the biggest domestic grossing film of all time; Titanic is presently the biggest with 600 million dollars; yet I think Titianic will remain the largest international grosser with 1.8 billion dollars.

The talk of curse comes from elsewhere, however. I was in the grocery store two days ago and saw the front of the National Enquirer and its title read Dark Knight Curse. The article was about the fact that both of the big stars of the film have undergone bad experiences: Heath Ledger, of course, dying of an accidental drug overdose in January and Christian Bale's recent arrest and accustion of assault on his own mother and sister. Both stars suffering tragedy.

And then something strange happened. I came home today from a town parade, sat down on my couch and turned on CNN, and the first thing that came up was the following story:

Hollywood Actor Morgan Freeman Seriously Hurt in Car Accident:

Oscar-winning actor Morgan Freeman said to be in a serious condition after the car he was driving flipped over several times late on Sunday. Freeman was driving near his home in Charleston, Mississippi, at the time of the accident. The actor and a female companion were cut free by emergency workers before being airlifted to a hospital 90 miles away in Memphis, Tennessee.

Kathy Stringer, a spokeswoman for the regional medical centre in Memphis, described the 71-year-old actor's condition as "serious".
The editor of the Charleston Sun Sentinel newspaper, who arrived at the scene shortly after the accident, said Freeman had been conscious and talking to rescuers. "They had to use the jaws of life [hydraulic cutters] to extract him from the vehicle."

Don't get me wrong I don't think there is curse. But I hope that this bad run for the cast of this film stops.

I hope and pray that Morgan Freeman is alright.

The Dark Knight: A "Nuanced" Review (9/10)

I agree with the critics, this is one of the best superhero movies ever made. But I would still say (with only one viewing of it mind you) that it is just below its predecessor Batman Begins. Maybe because it is an origins story, which I am a sucker for, but there are other reasons (see Problems below). That being said, this movie is amazing and there is one major reason, which everyone has already heard and is talking about, but for good reason: The Joker.

When the movie is over and you are chewing on it (there is a lot to chew on later), you think back to his scenes and there is only one response: utter amazement. They are the best scenes in the movie, flawlessly performed, and haunting. He is nothing short of brilliant in every shot he is in. Every line, facial expression and movement is thought-through. In those respects it reminded me of such roles as Forrest Gump, and Hannibal Lecter. Not to just sound like everyone else but one cannot escape it: Ledger is brilliant and makes this movie.

The plot is what makes this movie great as well: Harvey Dent, Batman and Jim Gordon trying to take on Gotham's underworld.

In a very real sense The Joker is the product of Batman because of escalation. Batman Begins ends with precisely this projection:

Gordon: You really started something. Bent cops running scare. Hope on the streets... [But] What about escalation?
Batman: Escalation?
Gordon: We start carrying semiautomatics, they buy automatics. We start wearing Kevlar, they buy armor-piercing rounds... And you're wearing a mask and jumping off rooftops. Now, take this guy. Armed robbery, double homicide. Got a taste for the theatrical, like you. Leaves a calling card [shows The Joker's card].

This theme, so deeply impeded in the Batman story, is the great strength of the paradox that is Batman. I actually heard rumors (who knows if they are true) that they were thinking about Batman: Escalation as a working title for the movie). Batman is good for Gotham, yet he is bad for Gotham. How will the criminals respond to a man who dresses up like a bat and takes justice into his own hands? They will dress up, raise the stakes, create chaos in order to break him and the hope that he represents.

The Joker only can (and wants to) exist as the parody of Batman. He says multiple times that Batman's existence legitimates his own. That they are both "freaks", and that he needs Batman to play along with him as he goes about making chaos. When one man threatens to reveal the identity of Bruce Wayne as Batman, The Joker counters saying that he will kill people if someone does not kill this man within 60 minutes. The Joker does not want Batman's identity to be know. Nor, it seems, does he care to know his identity. Its more important for his own existence that Batman exist as he is.

There is also here the question of the best way to bring about justice. Batman sees that long-term it is through normal and democratic means, hence why he "believes in Harvey Dent". Batman wants to retire, to do what is best for Gotham, to let Dent, Gotham's White Knight, take control and be the symbol of hope. Together they try to defeat chaos personified: The Joker, but they can't, precisely because there is no logic, no rhyme or reason to his madness.

The film has been being compared to Michael Mann's Heat in regards to its crime-drama genre and scope. I think the comparison is accurate. It really is a story about the mob, bank robbers, and murders needing to be found and brought to justice in a big city. The sweeping shots of the city are awesome and ground it in reality. Just like Heat the city itself is part of the story (in this case Gotham not L.A., of course).

We need more good filmmakers like Christopher Nolan (who to this point has not made a bad movie), who are first and foremost story tellers. But though he is that, he stills blows you away with amazing action sequences, including stuff we have never seen including a great sequence when an 18 wheeler turns over and the Batpod reverses up a wall in a split second -- you have to see it to understand.

The film really is so good in so many way. It is almost perfect. But not quite.

Problems
The problems I have with the film likely come because I put this movie on such a high pedestal. It pretty much would have had to be perfect in every respect to get a 10 and live up to me expectations, and well, it was not perfect.

1. The first and by far, the biggest problem with The Dark Knight is Two-Face. This character alone brings the film down into view for legitimate criticism. I cannot begin to describe how out of place and horrifically bad this CGI/Make-up debacle is. In a movie/franchise built on realism, subtly and grittiness this is such a huge misstep. His face does not look real at all and it is way over the top. Two-Face could not get off the screen quick enough in my opinion. When I first saw him I almost burst out laughing at how bad it all looked. Ridiculous. Right when he appeared I started thinking "Please die quickly please die quickly."

He also turned evil far too quickly and easily. He goes from so good (and such a great character that we all root for and believe in) to a total criminal too quickly. He Loses a loved one and has one conversation with The Joker and he is done for good. No set-up, no progression. There should have maybe been an earlier scene when he angered quickly or something so we see that he has a temper, or is at least fallible. But here he is just totally white and then totally dark. Total polarity.

2. There was little continuity with Batman Begins in regards to Gotham. This movie feels like it is set in a totally different city than the first movie. There is no good establishing shots of Wayne Tower or the Train System that made up such a central part of Batman Begins. It is as if the Gotham of the first film has been left for another place altogether.

Most people might not care and might not see this as a legitimate criticism but I think it is. Gotham is its own character in the Batman story. Described as a city in decline, run by criminals and totally corrupt. How would a city like that look? Many might say like Tim Burton's vision. I think that that is one thing Burton had right, but that is not to say Nolan should go a different direction which he did, making the beautiful city of Chicago (where he grew up), with its bridges, rivers, Gotham. With no sign of dirt, grim, or corruption. It was beautiful looking for sure, and I loved the towering shots, and the scope of chaos which was city-wide no doubt, but the lack of continuity was just maybe an oversight I found bizarre.

3. The social commentary and philosophy is a little explicit. Themes such as terrorist-negotiation, wire tapping/spying on people for their ultimate good, are spoken of multiple times. The commentary (arguments?) of the film have been seen, by many, as an apologia (a defense of) present US administration policy in relation to both issues (see here). Whether you agree with the politics of the film or not is not, for me, whats important -- my point is simply that the commentary is a little too obvious.

This is not helped by the fact that often there is the subtle, yet not so subtle, philosophical discourse between characters catching the audience up on the deep questions the film is raising. i.e: After the ferry experiment does not play out the way The Joker wants Batman says "You were trying to prove that the world is just like you but it is not it is filled with good people, you are alone!" (or something along these lines)... This is surely not the worst part of the film, just something upon reflection that stuck out in my mind as a little odd.

4. I thought the Sonar thing (if you haven't seen it you will get it) with the Bat-eyes was a little over the top. I know I know it is a movie, and it is based on a comic book, but maybe that is where the blend does not work for me: When your watching Heat you know you are watching an amazing crime drama unfold and Pacino is not going to walk into a room where all of a sudden he has the ability to track the conversations of thirty million people at once, through a throw away explanation about sonar and cell phones.

Conclusion
This is still the best movie of the year, (in spite of its problems), just edging out Iron Man. Both somewhat realistic movies, which I love more than anything. Which is why I am such a fan of the new James Bond as well, re-thought, fresh, subtle, gritty and above all else, realistic.

Be ready though to be exhausted by the end of the Dark Knight, and it does live up to its name of being dark indeed.

And, like its predecessor, it has a great ending, where we find out why Batman is called the Dark Knight, not only one of the deepest philosophical (and I may say theological) themes of the film -- the idea of a representative figure vicariously taking on himself the hatred and judgment of Gotham for Gotham's own good -- but also provides a set up for the final film of the story arc -- a Dark Knight chased by Gotham's finest and its people.

I am looking forward to the final installment and with The Dark Knight setting Box Office records (18 million Thursday night and 66 million by Friday night, and 158 million its opening weekend) I am sure Warner Bros. will be planning one. The question is: Can Christopher Nolan top the Dark Knight? He put everything into this. He said in an interview recently: "I can only think of a couple movies whose sequels are better than the original: The Godfather Part II and The Empire Strikes Back." As for a film series in which the third film was the best? Unheard of. Christian Bale in a recent interview hinted that this reason alone may be enough of a challenge to bring Nolan back for a third film. I sure hope so.

I have heard rumors of all kinds of things, including Philip Seymour Hoffman as a mobster named The Penguin.

That sounds like a good start.

Re-introducing Jesus

As a Pastor of a church that has been through a lot of stuff in recent years (Church split, In-fighting, etc.) it is refreshing to come back and re-calibrate our hearts toward Jesus and out of that to have been given a fresh vision and mission as a church. When our new Pastor came on in November we started talking about priorities as a staff: What should our specific focus be as a church over the coming years? We thought, talked and prayed about it in our time together, went away on a retreat and focused our attention on what God was calling us to do. We walked away from that time not with all new revelation about the nature of God or anything, but with a better, more focused priority list than we previously had.

We decided there were a few things we needed to do as a church over the next 7 years:
(1) We needed to organize our infrastructure so that it was functional and most efficient for what we are trying to accomplish. That means looking at staff structures and ministries with fresh eyes to see who's who, what's what and where's where? This is a foundational step in everything else that then follows.

Included in this is looking at our present ministries and assessing how effective each one of them are. How effective are our church services (morning and evening)? How effective is our small group ministry? How effective are our youth and young adult ministries? "Effective", of course, needs defining when speaking about ministry and I will get to that.

(2) We wanted to minister to the poor and broken in our immediate community in way that we had not been doing. This led us to develop some plans for what we call Compassion Ministry including building a Hospitality House on our church property to help support and guide the broken (physically, spiritually, emotionally).

(3) We need to reach out beyond the scope of Delta. In an age where the gospel is being replaced by feel-good theology, and the good-news is being replaced by good-advice, it is necessary to plant churches, multiply campuses that teach and embody the raw, authentic gospel of Jesus. Study after study has concluded that "Planting new churches is the most effective long lasting form of evangelism available to us today." It is based on that reality that we have as a goal to plant three churches by 2015. The first of these plants will be launched in Fall 2009.

The churches will begin as Campuses, thus benefiting from the stability of an already established Eldership, Monetary support, etc. The connection between the churches (campuses) will help to provide people to lead in different areas of ministry until the church can exist on its own, at which time we will assess which areas of support can be pulled back. The goal is to have these campuses as self-sustaining as soon as possible.

Which brings me to our Mission Statement: We exist to Re-introduce Jesus one person at a time. I believe in this mission with everything I am. This statement is specific to our Canadian context. We live in a post-Christian Canada that needs to hear the gospel for the second time. It needs to be re-evangelized with the gospel of Jesus. C.S. Lewis described this post-Christian world (20th Century England) by comparing it to the difference between a virgin and a divorced person. The "virgin culture" has never been married (heard the gospel) and so marriage begins for them something new. The "divorced culture" has been married (heard the gospel) and rejected outright, now scared and nervous about. They have even been pained by it seeing all the dissension and pride and judgmentalism within it. They do no want anything that even looks remotely like Christianity as they know it.

Thus the need for us to bring them back gently and carefully to see that what we are proposing is not more religion or tradition or whatever, but we are taking all of religion off the table and putting Jesus on the table and asking them to follow him, to give their life to him and thus be given eternal life that begins in the hear and now. Thus, we are re-introducing Jesus to a culture that thinks they know him, and have met him before...but, though they may have caught glimpses of him, they need to take a second, third and fourth look. They need to be challenged to look through the pain the historic (present?) church has caused and evaluate Christianity not on its failed and fallen people, but on its Lord and Leader.

We have as our mission to re-introduce Jesus one person at a time. That is my heart and I will give my life for it.

Jesus For President (Shane Claiborne): A Book Review by Tad Delay

I think I just converted to Christianity. Oh, I said a prayer forever ago, and I've served my time in ministries and such. But reading Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw's new Jesus For President is making a whole new believer out of me.

First, I keep hearing people say this (and I think I honestly agree), that this may be one of the top five Christian works of the past century. It's concise (only a 350 page read), provocative, heavy on history and back-story, and compelling. The book offers probably the most in-depth back-story to the Scriptures that I've ever seen offered in a non-academic work.

Content aside, this book is worth the price of purchase just for the artwork and creativity throughout. Every single page's background imagery is uniquely crafted to fit the text to lend a more holistic understanding of the message the authors seek to convey. I remember two particular pages at a tense moment in the text, and I noticed what looked like tear drops on the page, as if the authors were conveying weeping over the message. But as my eyes turned to the next page, the tears turned to splotches of blood- evoking the subtle imagery of Christ weeping intense tears of blood in His last hours. It's that type of thought that goes into every page of this book.

Claiborne/Haw trace the Christian story from the Patriarchs of the Tanak up through the early church until the alleged conversion of Constantine. They present the Judaic/Christian story as a story of a people constantly rejecting a love covenant in favor of empire and control. It happened in the Garden. It happened under the old kings. It certainly happened under Constantine. The implication is that man has a tendency, no matter how "saved" he sees himself, to reject humility or power-under in favor of domination and power-over, and this runs contrary to the ideals of Yahweh. They trace how Christianity emerged as a politically polar opposite to Rome and empire, causing the religiously highly tolerant Rome to have to outlaw the Jesus movement full of men and women who would not pledge their allegiance to anything/one but Christ. It was this movement of people who would not serve in the military or any public office connected with killing, and a people who would not pledge allegiance to king or country that Rome found traitorous and needing extinction.

Claiborne/Haw have a section that I've heard Claiborne speak much of, "Amish For Homeland Security." As much as he's talked it up, I was surprised it was a mere couple pages of the book. But it conveys the point. He refers to the way, after the 2006 massacre in a schoolroom, the Amish community embraced the murderer's family. Several of the Amish even went to his funeral in an impressive show of solidarity. They even asked that a portion of the money donated to the Amish for support be given to the killer's family. The world watched such forgiveness with awe, seeing a deep picture of reconciliation. Claiborne/Haw play around with the question of "What would it have looked like if exhibited this Amish style, Matthew-5-esque forgiveness and creativity after 9/11?" What if instead of bombs, we have devoted the same money to building schools, supplying water, helping with food, etc. It's very hard to hate someone who's providing you with food and water and taking nothing in return for themselves. It is this creativity, love, and hope that is at the very heart of the gospel.

Jesus For President ends with a mountain of small suggestions and glimmers of hope for how this theology and idealism can practically flesh itself out in the world we find ourselves in. I loved the extremes you see here in how far these guys go to live out the theology and idealism they preach. These guys are ordinary radicals, with home-tested pragmatism to back up (or push forward?) their theology of hope.

I'm recommending this book to everyone I talk to. This will absolutely challenge the way you understand history, Jesus, violence, gospel, idealism, empire, allegiance, pragmatism, economy, social action, creativity, and the list goes on. But fair warning: it may kill your esoteric, uber-spiritualized version of a politically apathetic Jesus. ----

The Earth Destroyed by Fire?

Concerning the idea that the earth will be consumed in a great conflagration at the end, Michael Wittmer writes in Heaven is a Place on Earth:

This popular, though misguided notion likely arises from a misunderstanding of 2 Peter 3:10-13:

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare. Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness.

During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the best available Greek manuscripts of 2 Peter 3:10 read that “the earth and all of its works will be burned up.” This is how every translation of that period, including the King James Version, rendered the verse. It is easy to see how whole generations of Christians learned from their Bibles to expect a future fire that would annihilate the entire world.

However, scholars have since discovered older, more reliable Greek manuscripts, and these texts say that rather than burning up, “the earth and all of its works will be found.” Instead of being destroyed, this term “found” implies that the quality of our works will be “laid bare,” discovered for all to see. Much like gold passing through a smelting furnace, the good that we do will be purified while our less noble efforts will slough off. Read this way, Peter’s vision of a coming conflagration seems to be purging rather than annihilating fire.

Perhaps this is why Peter compares the coming “destruction” by fire with the world’s previous “destruction” by water (2 Peter 3:6-7). Justas the Great Flood did not annihilate the world but primarily cleansed it of its numerous sinners, so the impending fire seems to perform an ethical cleansing rather than an ontological annihilation. In short, if the “destruction” of the flood did not annihilate the world, why should we think that the future “destruction” by fire will do so?

Peter’s point is that since the coming conflagration will purge the earth of its impurities, strive to live such good lives that when you and the works of your hands pass through the refining fire, both you and your cultural contributions will survive. Thus, rather than give cause for despair, Peter’s admonition inspires hope that our highest cultural achievements, such as the Mona Lisa, Westminster Abbey, and Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, will make it through to the new heaven and new earth.

The Great Omission: Discipleship vs. Conversion

There is one book that is shaping me more than any other right now: The Great Omission by Dallas Willard. This is a book that must be read slowly and deeply. It is not a hard read, or rigorous on Biblical exegesis or anything, it is just that every sentence is thought through, and infused with beautiful, life-challenging, Jesus-centered meaning. Ever sentence.

What is it about? It can be summed up in its first sentence:

The word 'disciple' occurs 269 times in the New Testament. 'Christian' is found three times and was first introduced to refer precisely to disciples of Jesus.

The books goes on to challenge us to be people who are apprentices of Jesus, practitioners of his teachings, disciples (lit. Learners) of the Greatest Rabbi who ever lived. The foundation of this book is a challenge to easy-believism and a Christianity that focuses on conversion without focusing on transformation into Christ-likeness. He argues that Biblically there is no such thing. The following are three paragraphs from one chapter. The depth of which has effected my thinking deeply.

There is absolutely nothing in what Jesus himself or his early followers taught that suggests you can decide just to enjoy forgiveness at Jesus' expense and have nothing more to do with him. Some years ago, A.W. Tozer expressed his "feelings that a notable heresy has come into being throughout evangelical Christian circles--the widely accepted concept that we humans can choose to accept Christ only because we need him as Savior and that we have the right to postpone our obedience to him as Lord as long as we want to!

This heresy has created the impression that it is quite reasonable to be a "vampire Christian." One in effect says to Jesus, "I'd like a little of your blood please. But I don't care to be your student or have your character. In fact, won't you just excuse me while I get on with my life, and I'll see you in heaven." But can we really imagine that this is an approach that Jesus finds acceptable?

Only constant students of Jesus will be given adequate power to fulfill their calling to be God’s person for their time and their place in the world. They are the only ones who develop the character, which makes it safe to have such power. But, someone will say, can I not be “saved”—that is, get into heaven when I die—without any of this [discipleship]? Perhaps you can. God’s goodness is so great, I am sure that He will let you in if He can find any basis at all to do so. But you might wish to think about what your life amounts to before you die, about what kind of person you are becoming, and about whether you really would be comfortable for eternity in the presence of One whose company you have not found especially desirable for the few hours and days of your earthly existence.

Iron Man: Best Movie of the Year!

Is it possible to create anything fresh or new in this genre of film (Comic book to Film)? The answer, is an astounding Yes! This is by far the best movie of the year (which is not really saying much at all I guess); but I predict that nothing, except The Dark Knight, will even rival it all summer (including Indiana Jones and Prince Caspian). This is the most fun you will have at the movies this summer for sure, possibly all year.

The story/plot is great (which usually is weak in these movies), the effects are flawless, and the acting (Robert Downey Jr.) is superb (though playing a rich playboy was likely not a stretch at times, but the other aspects of the role demanded some subtle acting that really worked great.

The movie is interesting, fast-paced, and funny. It also does not over-do it; in fact it actually leaves you wanted much more Iron Man action, which will surely come in the sequel which is basically promised by Tony Starks (Iron Man) friend (Terence Howard), when he looks to Iron Man's old suite desiring to fly with him and say "Next time baby." That promise is what the audience looks forward to the entire time.

Prince of Peace, God of War

This is a movie that I look forward to seeing. It is a small budget movie and does not have much of a release. I will work to find it and when I do, I look forward to showing it at church and then having some good conversations about it.

I believe violence and non-violence a very important issue for the Church to wrestle with, at all times and in every age.

The Bible is clear here: I am to love my neighbor as myself, in the manner needed, in a practical way, in the midst of the fallen world, at my particular point of history. This is why I am not a pacifist. Pacifism in this poor world in which we live - this lost world - means that we desert the people who need our greatest help.
- Francis Schaeffer

The crucified Jesus is a more adequate key to understanding what God is about in the real world of empires and armies and markets than is the ruler in Rome, with all his supporting military, commercial, and networks... Jesus renounced the legitimate use of violence and the accrediting of the existing authorities; renouncing as well the ritual purity of noninvolvement, his people will encounter in ways analogous to his own the hostility of the old order.

-John Howard Yoder

3 Thoughts from Brilliant and Deceased Henri Nouwen

"More and more, the desire grows in me simply to walk around, greet people, enter their homes, sit on their doorsteps, play ball, throw water, and be known as someone who wants to live with them. It is a privilege to have the time to practice this simple ministry of presence. Still, it is not as simple as it seems. My own desire to be useful, to do something significant, or to be part of some impressive project is so strong that soon my time is taken up by meetings, conferences, study groups, and workshops that prevent me from walking the streets."

"It is difficult not to have plans, not to organize people around an urgent cause, and not to feel that you are working directly for social progress. But I wonder more and more if the first thing shouldn’t be to know people by name, to eat and drink with them, to listen to their stories and tell your own, and to let them know with words, handshakes, and hugs that you do not simply like them, but truly love them."

"The parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15) is a story that speaks about a love that existed before any rejection was possible and that will still be there after all rejections have taken place."

Empire Remixed (A Good Friday Reflection) by Brian Walsh

We have sat at the feet of the one who teaches us not to fear because he knows where this story is going; who gives a new commandment that fulfills all the commandments; who retells Israel’s story of wine and vines so that it applies to the community he leaves behind. And then we listened in as Jesus exercised his priestly ministry in a prayer, a high priestly prayer, for his disciples … for us.

In that upper room we have met Jesus as Prophet and Priest.

On Good Friday we meet Jesus the King.

Pilate: ‘Are you the King of the Jews?’

Jesus: ‘Do you ask this on your own, or did others tell you about me?’

Not a king who will give a straight answer to what appears to be a straight and unambiguous question.

Jesus: ‘My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here.’

Pilate: ‘So you are a king?’

Jesus: ‘You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.’

Pilate: ‘What is truth?’

Israel wanted a king like the nations, and Pilate knew just what a king like the nations should look like.

But Jesus was not going to be a king by any such terms.

Pilate knew where imperial authority resides, he knew where it came from.

But Jesus says, that’s not the kind of kingdom that I bring.

It’s not from this world.

It is not dependent upon the political or military or economic machinations of this world.

Israel’s Torah said that if they were to have a king then his main task was to meditate upon Torah, to be a king who was so immersed in the truth of God’s word, that he would rule in such truth.

Jesus redefines kingship as a matter of testimony.

I testify to the truth.

Rome and Israel want kings who will rule by might and by force.

Jesus offers a kingdom rooted not in arms but in truth, embodied truth.

Pilate and the people of Jerusalem understand that kings exercise sovereignty and control over their people.

But Jesus says that if you belong to the truth, you will listen to him.

Pilate: Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?’

All: ‘Not this man, but Barabbas!’

Barabbas we can understand, Barabbas plays by the rules of violence that both Israel and Rome know.

‘Hail, King of the Jews!’ – slap

‘Hail, King of the Jews!’ – whip

‘Hail, King of the Jews!’ - punch

Pilate: ‘Where are you from?’

But Jesus gave him no answer.

Pilate: ‘Do you refuse to speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you, and power to crucify you?’

Open your eyes, Jesus, take a look at your situation.

You may talk about truth, but power is truth.

Jesus: ‘You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above’

Your power, Pilate, like all power of all empire, is parasitic.

Your power has been given to you by the one who has sent me, not the one who has sent you.

From then on Pilate tried to release him, but the Jews cried out,

All: ‘If you release this man, you are no friend of the emperor. Everyone who claims to be a king sets himself against Caeser.’

Pilate hung up and trapped by the very imperial ideology he has come to uphold

Pilate: ‘Here is your King!’

All: ‘Away with him! Away with him! Crucify him!’

Pilate: ‘Shall I crucify your King?’

All: ‘We have no king but Caeser.’

We have no king but Caeser.

No more devastating words had ever been uttered by children of the covenant.

Then he handed Jesus over to be crucified.

Pilate also had an inscription written and put on the cross. It read, ‘Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.’

Then the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate,

All: ‘Do not write, “The King of the Jews”, but, “This man said, I am King of the Jews.” ’

Pilate: ‘What I have written I have written.’

What is written, is written.

What is done, is done.

On the cross we meet the king of the Jews.

On the cross we meet truth embodied and bloodied.

On the cross we meet kingship redefined.

On the cross Jesus remixes the empire.

Oprah-Religion: New Age Spirituality with an Oprah Flare

If anyone wishes to come after me he must deny himself, pick up his cross and follow me. Whoever wants to save his life will lose it. But whoever loses his life for me and for the sake of the gospel will save it. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his own soul?
--Jesus, Mark 8.34-36

This past Monday Oprah Winfrey, considered by many to be the world's most influential woman, began a ten-week long online course on the best-selling book, "A New Earth," by New Age guru, Eckhart Tolle. "A New Earth" has already sold some 3.5 million copies worldwide, thanks largely to the publicity given to it by Oprah. According to Oprah, 500,000 people from across the world signed on to the first segment of the online course, to spend an hour and a half listening to Ekhart and Oprah talking about chapter 1 of the book, and taking calls from participants.

In recent years Oprah has been inviting an increasing number of representatives of new age spirituality onto her talk shows, including figures such as Marianne Williamson, Barbara DeAngelis, LaVar Burton, Richard Carlson, Betty Eadie, and many others. Oprah has strongly endorsed many of their works, and has included some of them in her "Book Club" list. Since the beginning of this year Oprah has offered daily classes on her XM radio station on the book "A Course in Miracles." "A Course in Miracles" (or ACIM for short) was written by another major player in the New Age movement, Helen Schucman, who claims that the book was dictated to her by an interior voice, which she identifies with Jesus Christ. In that course, the listener is taught that there is no sin, is told not to make the "mistake" of "clinging to the old rugged cross," and that the name of "Jesus Christ as such is but a symbol."

Oprah, who is a self-labeled "Christian", was recently named the "most dangerous woman in the world" by Bill Keller, considered by some to be the world's leading Internet evangelist. He accused Oprah of peddling the equivalent of "spiritual crack." Keller has been warning the subscribers of his Daily Devotional for years about Oprah and how she uses her TV program to promote every New Age philosophy in the world, including the wildly popular book and DVD last year, "The Secret," which teaches readers or viewers that simply by desiring them strongly enough, one may obtain wealth, health and happiness.

However, rarely has Oprah shown more enthusiasm for a New Age guru than for the so-called Eckhart Tolle, who takes his first name from the well-known 13th century Catholic Rhineland mystic, Meister Eckhart. Tolle is the author of several books including "The Power of Now," and, most recently, "A New Earth."
Much like many other New Age systems, Eckhart's "spirituality" is a vague, ethereal blend of spiritual theories and ideas, gleaned from all of the world's major religions. Eckhart promises the attainment of "inner peace" and a higher state of consciousness by utilizing methods of meditation that plunge one into the "now." He also says that mankind is in a moment of crisis, in which the race must either achieve the next stage in its evolution by attaining "higher consciousness", or destroy itself and the planet.

The title of his newest book, "A New Earth," is taken from Chapter 21 from the Book of Revelations, in which the Biblical visionary says that he "saw a new heaven and a new earth." Throughout his newest book Eckhart sprinkles quotations from Scripture, and he frequently speaks about Christ and Scripture in his talks.
The core of Eckhart's teaching is a religious relativism, in which he eschews all rigid doctrine or exclusive claims to truth as dangerous and manifestations of "egoiic consciousness." "The moment you say 'only my belief' or 'our belief' is true, and you deny other people's beliefs, then you've adopted an ideology," Eckhart told the participants in Monday's online class. "And then religion becomes a closed door."

Eckhart explains away conscience and feelings of guilt as but the consequence of years of conditioning. He told one caller, who confessed that she still feels guilt when she decides against going to church on Sunday, that she must recognize that "the voice" which tells her to go to church is simply the result of social conditioning.

One caller into the show told Oprah that she was a Catholic, and was having trouble seeing how Eckhart's teachings could be reconciled with her Catholicism. Oprah responded that the caller must simply realize that Christianity is but one of many ways to achieve the "higher consciousness," and that the belief that one must follow a set of doctrines is a consequence of "egoiic consciousness." While Christianity is a valid way to achieve high states of spirituality, it must not be considered a unique way, or a "correct way".

"Jesus," said Oprah, "came to show us Christ-consciousness…Jesus came to show us the way of the heart…Jesus came to say, 'Look I'm going to live in the body, in the human body and I'm going to show you how it's done.' These are some principles and some laws that you can use to live by to know that way"

Oprah also indicated that there are many names that one might give to that which she calls "God", including "energy," "consciousness" and "life." Oprah also contrasted what she called the "old" spirituality vs. the "new" spirituality, as espoused by Eckhart. "The old way is the hierarchy has the authority. Church authorities tell you how to worship in church and how to behave outside of church. The new spirituality is that you are your own best authority as you work to know and love yourself, you discover how to live a more spiritual life."


One writer on the message board on Oprah's website wrote a message with the subject line, "Scared I'm replacing my religion, which I love." "I just started the book" she wrote, "and I love the idea of the book but I guess the question I keep repeating in my head is will this be replacing my religion? How do the two work together. Can someone please help ease my mind that I'm not turning on the lord."

However, Keller, and a number of other Christian pastors have begun to actively warn Christians that Oprah and Eckhart's teachings are by no means compatible with Christianity. "Oprah is now trying to be the spiritual guru to this nation," said Keller in an appearance on Fox.

Another pastor, James A. Smith Sr., writing in the Florida Baptist Witness, criticized Oprah's "spirituality" for its emphasis on the power of the individual to define truth and reality, and to totally control one's own life. "What this fails to acknowledge is that man dos not define reality; man does not determine what truth is," wrote Smith. "The source of truth for our decisions and power is the one true God of all reality and He has communicated plenary propositional truths to us in the Bible and remarkably, uniquely in His incarnation in Jesus Christ.

WorldNetDaily columnist Chuck Norris, wrote about Oprah and The New Earth, "The reason Tolle's psychology and spirituality is marketed so easy is that it is an eclectic mix of conventional and unconventional wisdom, and Western and Eastern beliefs, presented in a tolerant, non-threatening, and non-sectarian way. In other words, it's 'Religion Light,' in which one can be spiritual with 'little down and no credit.'"

Norris recommended that his readers simply sit down and read a Bible, rather than "A New Earth." "One could easily save the purchase price of 'A New Earth' and subsequently avoid misleading remarks by reading a Bible, which gives a much more thorough and accurate picture of life's purpose and methods for overcoming its obstacles," said Norris.

Source: http://www.christianity.ca/frame.asp?http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/mar/08030701.html

Telus Stinks!

"In the Greco-Roman world during the height of the Roman empire, individual nation-states were weak, and large cities (Rome, Corinth, Ephesus) operated virtually as independent city-states. Cities, not national governments, ruled the world. Today, technology and mobility are again weakening the control nation states have on their own territory. It is becoming impossible to control the flow of information or capital in and out of countries. Multi-national corporations operate out of major cities but do not submit to or serve the interests of any country."
--Tim Keller, "Advancing the Gospel into the 21st Century"

It baffles my mind how ridiculous some corporations and companies really are. The bigger they get, the harder they are to manage. And one thing always suffers: customer service. Of course I will name names, but I will not recount our story in detail because it would take too long. Suffice it say: "Oh yes we will have your stuff set up for you on Sat March 1--they day you move, no problem" (Feb 8); "Oh no, I am sorry, people do not work on Sat.'s. We can get you someone next Wednesday" (Feb 28);

"A manager, no sorry you can't talk to a manager, but they can't do anything anyway...(10 mins later) Oh yes I guess my manager can do something for you, his name is Frank here is his personal line, someone can come out today and get it done for you" (March 3);

"I am sorry you sat around all day waiting for someone to come and hook your stuff up...no one came you say?" (March 3) "Yeah I don't know why Frank didn't call you back...but we can book a person to come...the first available time is Saturday" (Oh so people do work Saturday's now! So when were you lying last week or now?);

"Well sir..." No I am asking a direct question that has two options: do people work Saturdays or not? "Well, we only have one guy who does your area, and he can't come until Saturday." But you said he doesn't work on Saturdays before. Okay, let me just talk to a manager. "We can't do that sir."

What do you mean you can't do that? You mean you won't do that! You are a multi-billion dollar telecommunications company of which I am a customer and you are saying I cannot talk to a manager, nor can you send someone out to hook up the very service you exist provide! You exist for no other reason than to do this one thing--and you have one guy who does it for my area?

"Well we would have to send someone out to you all the way from Vancouver sir."

All the way from Vancouver? Can I ask you a question? Where are sitting right now?
"Calgary."

Calgary! Well that is helpful. Do you know how far my town is from Vancouver? Do you know how long it would take a Telus guy to drive to my town?

"No sir, I do not."

Twenty minutes.

"Twenty minutes?"

Yes.

"Oh. Well I don't see why that shouldn't be able to happen."

But it won't will it?

"...........probably not."

So, one month after letting this massive telecommunications corporation know that we are moving to a new house and we will need telephone, internet and television in our new home by March 1 we are without it, and without it until Saturday (the day no one supposedly works!),

They told us even yesterday they would be coming (never happened), calling (never happened) and consulting (yeah right!). These people are paid to never let us talk to a manager, never let us off contracts we have signed even if they are negligent, and never to just provide a basic service to their customers--they are too removed from reality, they don't understand life. That we don't have time to sit on the phone with them, sit at home and wait for them, and when we do commit that time they show us great disrespect for not showing up or even calling.

This is a company that made $400 million dollars in profit just in the fourth quarter of 2007! And guess what city they are based out of...Guess. Vancouver.

First off, care about your customers more. Don't talk to them as if they are at fault when the fault clearly lies with the company--it is the oldest play in the book: reverse psychology and manipulation. Talk with enough angst in your voice and confuse the situation until the customer thinks its their fault to take the heat off the company. The only way this useless, disaster of a company got off the hot-seat yesterday was (frustratingly!) because when they had put my wife on hold for the tenth time to "check something" our phone rain out of batteries. If it hadn't she would still be on the phone with them trying to get an allusive manager.

All of this confusion, this chaos these big companies create for the little guy, the red tape, the made-up confusing explanations of reasons for problems for things that have simply solutions (not enough guys in the area, useless people booking moving dates, breakdown in communication), is reason for me to ask: why? Why can't they just be helpful, provide their customers with basic services? Why does everything need to be a big friggin' mess all the time with these people? Have you ever had a normal quick conversation with telecommunications companies?

I understand more and more why the argument against big corporations is quality of service. The guy at Walmart does not know how to fix your car, know what kind of cat food your new kitty needs, how to fit you in a pair of jeans, buy you new snow tires and help counsel your family while, not matter how they market themselves. The guy at Best Buy sometimes has no idea what he is talking about! (Believe me I used to work in retail and I would lie all the time when I didn't know the answer to something, which was every day).

The human element disappears in the big lights of corporate mergers, and we, the customer always get the short end of the stick when it comes to customer service. I know there are great advantages to these massive companies and they services they are able to provide as well, but customer service is not one of them.

"We can't send someone out from Vancouver." What a joke.

Well Done, Mr. President (By Brian Mclaren)

In recent weeks, we've been watching Senator Obama and Senator Clinton try to disagree honestly without being too nasty in the process. This week, we saw Senator McCain come to the defense of Senator Obama when a warm-up speaker stooped to some low political rhetoric. Maybe the stale air of partisanship and "gotcha" politics can be replaced by some clean, fresh cooperative air ... for a while at least?

In that spirit, I think we all - Democrats, Republicans, and others - should stop what we're doing to honor President Bush for his ongoing commitment to Africa. I think Bono recently summed up what many of us feel regarding our president's concern for AIDS treatment, malaria prevention, education, and multifaceted economic development:

President Bush has every reason to be proud of what he and so many others have accomplished in Africa. From AIDS treatment once thought impossible, to millions of bednets to keep kids from dying of a mosquito bite, to new African jobs created with trade policy, to billions in old debts erased. And back in Washington, a political shift has taken place with Democrats and Republicans working shoulder to shoulder to partner with people of Africa as they work to lift their continent out of poverty, putting 29 million children in school in the last five years, with the help of debt cancellation.

Some will quickly say that more could and should be done. Yes - in fact, you'll hear from one of those voices today on the blog. But we should also acknowledge that much less could have been done. We should celebrate whenever good and beautiful things happen in this world, and President Bush has done some good and beautiful things for Africa. Kudos to him, and to all members of Congress of both parties - and to all Americans who can feel good that a portion of our taxes are being invested in this way.

Bono added,

These are accomplishments the next president must build on. ... I hope that the next president, whoever that is, will get to experience firsthand this beautiful and entrepreneurial continent that is rising to all of the challenges being sent its way.

Let's also pause a minute to pray that our next president and Congress will continue and expand what's being done. The pain and need in Africa are so great that it will take governments, businesses, churches, NGO's, individuals, and intergovernmental agencies, all doing their best - assisted by the powers of heaven - to make substantial and ongoing progress. Thanks be to God for the good that has begun to be done. God bless Africa.

My Predictions for the The Academy Awards 2008

Here are my predictions for the winners of the Oscars this weekend.

Best Supporting Actor

Javier Bardem, No Country for Old Men

Best Actress

Julie Christy, Away from Her

Best Supporting Actress

Cate Blanchett, I'm Not There

Best Animated Film

Ratatouille
Best Director

the Coen Brothers, No Country for Old Men

Best Screenplay (Adapted)

the Coen Brothers, No Country for Old Men

Best Screenplay (Original)

Juno

Best Actor
Daniel-Day Lewis, There Will be Blood

Best Picture
There Will be Blood (they will possibly vote No Country for Old Men but I will go with There Will be Blood)

My favorite film of the year was There Will be Blood. It is brilliant in all respects. And while among my friend there is debate whether No Country for Old Men is a little bit better I disagree. When you are watching this film, or maybe after you watch it. Three things stand out. First, that every shot matters and there is no such thing as even a two dimensional character--all of them have three dimensions!

Second, the story is deep on so many levels. It is about oil, it is about greed, it is about selfishness--but it is also about family, and is a depressing commentary on the sacrifices people as individuals and we as a society make for success (more specifically, success and exploitation of people based on a thirst for oil that does not end). And the plot grows on you over time. I have thought of different angles and presented them to people and had them agree and say "I never thought of that." I have said to many people, who are confused about the movie and their expectations about violence, that my feeling was that "blood" in the title is a metaphor for oil--the blood of the earth. No one has fully agreed yet, but they do not fully disagree either. The fact that the story it was based on is entitled Oil! might help this argument.

Third, and most important. While you watch the movie you literally sit there and say to yourself: I am watching a historical performance right now. Daniel-Day Lewis as Daniel Plainview is possibly the most extraordinary acting I have ever seen in my life. People are saying that it is one of the greatest performances ever. Up there with Gregory Peck in To Kill a Mockingbird, Orson Welles in Citizen Kane and Marlon Brando in (while just about everything he did: On the Waterfront, Streetcar Named Desire, and Godfather). This is not about whether Day-Lewis deserves the Oscar for this performance...there is zero doubt that he deserves and will get that. The question is: is it deserving of something better than that? I don't even know what that means. But after Sunday when he has an Oscar, if you have seen the movie I think you will be saying...but that's it? That performance deserves something more.

I am interested to see hot I do out of 9.