The Bible in a Minute

King Solomon's Mine Found?

WASHINGTON — Legend has it that King Solomon's mines held a treasure of gold and diamonds, but archeologists say the real mines may have supplied the ancient king with copper.

Researchers led by Thomas Levy of the University of California, San Diego, and Mohammad Najjar of Jordan's Friends of Archaeology, discovered a copper-production center in southern Jordan that dates to the 10th century B.C., the time of Solomon's reign.

The discovery occurred at Khirbat en-Nahas, which means “ruins of copper” in Arabic. Located south of the Dead Sea, the region was known in the Old Testament as Edom.

Research at the site in the 1970s and 1980s indicated that metalworking began there in the 7th century B.C., long after Solomon.

Industrial copper slag mound excavated at Khirbat en-Nahas with a building and layers above it dating to the mid-9th century B.C. and its deposits dating to the 10th century B.C. (Thomas Levy, UC San Diego)

But Dr. Levy and Dr. Najjar dug deeper and were able to date materials such as seeds and sticks to the 10th century B.C.

“We can't believe everything ancient writings tell us,” Dr. Levy said in a statement. “But this research represents a confluence between the archaeological and scientific data and the Bible.”

Their findings are reported in this week's issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Christian Martyrdom: Happening Now

"45 million Christians were martyred in the twentieth century."
-- Oxford's World Christian Encyclopedia.

This week I got an email from someone I know in the Muslim world who reported something that the NY Times, almost exclusively, reported, because the mainstream media is busy with other things. There is a kind of genocide that is happening in India right now (a beautiful country that I visited two summers ago). There is presently a kind of religious genocide happening to our Christian brothers and sisters there. Here is the link.

Christians are forced to renounce their faith in exchange for safety, or else face marytrdom. This has been going on for weeks in India. This ought to be stunning to us since India is the world's largest democracy and officially a tolerant secular state. Hindus make up the majority of citizens in India, whilst Christians are only about 2% of the population or so.

The eastern state of Orissa, "in Kandhamal, the district that has seen the greatest violence, more than 30 people have been killed, 3,000 homes burned and over 130 churches destroyed, including the tin-roofed Baptist prayer hall where the Digals worshiped. Today it is a heap of rubble on an empty field, where cows blithely graze."

The private email I got speaks of dozens of Christians tribes being slaughtered.

"In a nearby Catholic orphanage, the mob locked up a Priest and a computer teacher in a house and burned them to death. Many believers have been killed and hacked into pieces and left on the road.... even women and children."

"More than 5000 Christian families have had their homes burned or destroyed. They have fled into the jungles and are living in great fear waiting for the authorities to bring about peace. But so far, no peace is foreseen."

"This will continue for another 10 days.... supposedly the 14 day mourning period for the slain Hindu priest. Many more Christians will die and their houses destroyed."

We really do find it hard to connect with this as Western Christians whose biggest problems revolve around not being able to build 20 million dollar add ons to our massive church structures, and people not making us the center of attention and serving my needs. But we must try to reflect on these things. We must allow our hearts to break, to cry out on behalf of these amazingly beautiful people.

One potent and deep Scripture comes to mind when I think of these people facing persecution today, as I sit in my heated office complaining about my cough-due-to-cold.

Describing men and women in the past who suffered martyrdom for their faith, the writer of Hebrews says:

"They were stoned, sawn in two, put to death with the sword, being destitute, afflicted people of whom the world was not worthy" (Heb. 11.37-38).

That last line is important. People who get killed who remain faithful to Jesus, Scripture is saying, are more valuable then the world could ever understand. The world in all of its confusion, upside down values, and systems of thought and practice. It is no longer worthy to host the kinds of people God decided to take through martyrdom. They are that loved by God and valuable in his sight.

Discipleship of the Mind

Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind and with all your strength.
(Mark 12.30)

I have always felt a calling to it, but I never had a name for it before. I do now. Discipleship of the Mind. I have always felt that this was my passion; my role within the church. Some people are called to disciple the heart, others the soul, still others the strength. My passion is to disciple the mind. Not as a separate reality from the rest, it is all connected of course.

Why does the discipleship of the mind matter? Well, because ultimately our behavioral patterns follow our thinking patterns -- we do what we think. So, we may mourn the destructive patterns that our family and friends are living in, and we may try to help them stop acting that way, but the reality is, Scripture says, they need a renewal. A renewal of what? A renewal of the mind. That is the only way they will be transformed. Paul says, "Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind" (Romans 12.2).

Often people look at this in the context of people who are already Christians. "Yes, teach Christians the basics of the Bible, and theology -- that's important" they may say.
They would agree with A.W. Tozer, as I would that

The gravest question before the Church is always God Himself, and the most important fact about any person is not what he at a given time may say or do, but what he in his deep heart conceives God to be like…That our concept of God correspond as nearly as possible to the true being of God is of immense importance… A right conception of God is basic not only to theology but to practical Christian living… I believe there is scarcely an error in doctrine or a failure in applying Christian ethics that cannot be traced finally to wrong thinking about God.

But I want to push things further than that. I want to propose that discipleship of the mind is something we need to focus on as a point of our mission, our evangelism -- its is central to how the gospel impacts and changes a people. This is why, when Jesus gave the Great Commission, he said that the disciples were to do two things as they went: baptize and teach (Matthew 28.16-20). According to Jesus, teaching people was part of the mission. You must teach people how to think, and what to think. Think about what? Everything: God, Humanity, Sin, Death, Life, Salvation, Origins, Meaning, Value, Destiny -- this is about constructing a worldview for people.

1980, Charles Malik came to speak at Wheaton College about evangelism, at the opening of the Billy Graham Center at Wheaton College. He said this:

At the heart of all the problems facing Western civilization—the manifold perversions of personal character; problems of the family; problems of economics and politics; problems of the media; problems affecting the school itself and the church itself—at the heart of the crisis in Western civilization lies the state of the mind… The true the task of the evangelical world is not only to win souls, for if you win the whole world and lose the mind of the world, you will soon discover you have not won the world. Indeed it may turn out that you have actually lost the world.

Our message to those outside the church is that the gospel is not about one aspect of your lives (some private corner of your heart, in some sentimental way), no, the gospel offers you a new Mind -- a different way to view everything!

As Ravi Zacharias often says: “God not only changes what we do, he changes what we want to do.”

There is so much more to say... but this is enough for now.

Television & Elections: Has the One Destroyed the Other?

It's election time in both Canada and the U.S. and that means attacks ads, political commercials and televised debates. I have heard so much discussion lately around Harper's knit-sweaters, Dion's glasses (not to mention Palin's), and how the TV hurts and helps both candidates in the U.S. Every night when my wife turns on Showbiz Tonight there is a segment, a long segment, called the Palin Factor--which talks about her latest clothes, hair-do and glass. When I hear the discourse of our culture revolving around such things it makes me laugh, and then it makes me kind of sad, and then scared pitless. During these times I always think back to a book I read years ago, which though published in 1984, before the invention of the Internet, still carries with it a great reminder to our culture about the ramifications of having our public discourse--whether it be about politics, religion or news--centered around such trivial things.

The book is Neil Postman's (1931-2003) celebrated and oft-quoted book Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business wherein he argues that political philosophy cannot (and thus should not) be done on television. "Its form" he says "works against the content." Here are four points he makes. And I do not make these points in regard to one candidate over another (in either country)--because one could argue that television has helped and hurt all candidates.

First he says "Because we live in an image-centered culture it would appear that fat people are now effectively excluded from running for high profile office. Probably bald people as well. Indeed we may have reached the point where cosmetics has replaced ideology as the field of expertise over which a politician must have competent control... Someone like our twenty-seventh President, the multi-chinned, three-hundred pound William Howard Taft, couldn't be put forward as a presidential candidate in today's world. In reality the shape of a mans body is largely irrelevant to the shape of his ideas. But it is quite relevant on television. Television gives us a conversation in images not words."

Secondly he says "Public figures were known largely by their written words, for example, not by their looks or even their oratory. It is quite likely that most of the first fifteen presidents of the United States would not have been recognizable had they passed by the average citizen in the street... To think about these men was to think about what they had written, to judge them by their public positions, their arguments, their knowledge. Think of Richard Nixon or Jimmy Carter or Billy Graham or Albert Einstein what will likely come to your mind is an image, a picture of a face. Of words, almost nothing will come to mind. This is the difference between thinking in a word-centered culture and thinking in an image-centered culture."

Thirdly, he says in our move away from a print-based epistemology to an image-based epistemology much has been lost: "Under the governance of the printing press, discourse in America was generally coherent, serious and rational; but under the governance of television, it has become shriveled and absurd.... This shift in epistemology has had grave consequences for public life; we are getting sillier by the minute."

Postman believed that this leads to a kind of cultural death: "When a population becomes distracted by trivia, when cultural life is redefined as a perpetual round of entertainments, when serious public conversation becomes a form of baby-talk, when a people become an audience, then a nation finds itself at risk; culture-death is a clear possibility."

Fourthly, he makes a suggestion about political commercials: "I am particularly fond of John Lindsay's suggestions that political commercials be banned from television as we now ban cigarette and liquor commercials. I would gladly testify before the Federal Communications Commission as to the manifold merits of this excellent idea. To those who would say such a ban is a clear violation of the First Amendment I would offer a compromise: Require all political commercials to be preceded by a short statement to the effect that common sense has determined that watching political commercials is hazardous to the intellectual health of the community...Television serves us most usefully when presenting junk-entertainment; it serves us most ill when it co-opts serious modes of discourse--new, politics, science, education, religion--and turns them into entertainments packages. We would all be better off if television got worse not better. "The A-Team" and "Cheers" are no threat to our public health. "60 Minutes," "Eye-Witness News" and "Sesame Street" are."

The reality is that we are an image-driven culture at every level -- the question is: has this helped us or hurt us in regard to the most important parts of our civilization?

Its Not Death to Die

Pastor Terry Stauffer's (Edson, Alberta) daughter was murdered this past week. I went on his blog and read his response to this terrible event (see here).

Interestingly enough (in relation to my last blog entry about the importance of John Piper, he said this: John Piper (and others) stress the need for Christians to build a foundation in good theology in preparation for suffering, for suffering will indeed come. Juanita and I have lived an easy life in so many ways - blessed with healthy children, a great church and a sweet marriage. God was good then, and God is good now.

As I prepare this week to speak to the deep and meaningful question of evil and suffering in the world this Sunday, I pray that God will keep realities such as this before me. I agree with Terry; the question that is raised in the midst of a world such as this is about God's goodness. Which is why Terry's only hope is to say it outright: God is good...God is good -- it is this very thing that is brought into question at times like this.

A foundation of good theology, he said, is necessary. Such a good perspective to have. Theology is the stuff of life, it is not something other than life, something academics do so they don't have to work real jobs, something pastors do to pass the time -- theology sets up how you deal with the good, the bad, and the ugly in life. That is partly why it is important -- a proper view of God, Ourselves, and the World is everything including practical!

Terry shared the lyics to a meaningful song that has helped his family the last couple days, from a worship album they bought a short time ago. These are the lyrics - they are deep with meaning and put into perspective that those who have faith in Christ weep, and mourn, but not like those who have no hope -- we know that we move on to meet with Jesus forever and that gives our lives, not to mention our deaths, meaning at every level.

It Is Not Death to Die
It is not death to die
To leave this weary road
And join the saints who dwell on high
Who’ve found their home with God

It is not death to close
The eyes long dimmed by tears
And wake in joy before Your throne
Delivered from our fears

O Jesus, conquering the grave
Your precious blood has power to save
Those who trust in You
Will in Your mercy find
That it is not death to die

It is not death to fling
Aside this earthly dust
And rise with strong and noble wing
To live among the just

It is not death to hear
The key unlock the door
That sets us free from mortal years
To praise You evermore

O Jesus, conquering the grave
Your precious blood has power to save
Those who trust in You
Will in Your mercy find
That it is not death to die

This song affirms that the Christian story is the greatest offer of hope that any worldview has to offer. It is not ultimately about becoming a spirit-being and floating around in heaven for ever. It is about having our humanness restored in the reality of the Resurrection. It is true, and glorious, that we go and be with God in spirit for a time, when we die, as we await the dawning and birth of the New Creation. Paul says that when we are away from the body we will be "at home with the Lord" (2 Cor. 5.8). My friends mother is in the process of dying right before her eyes right now. She said she had a conversation with Jesus the other day about whether she was ready to come home. People are often skeptical about things like that, saying it must be the Morphine -- but I strongly disagree; I think God speaks to us even more intimately in our sufferings. As C.S. Lewis once said, suffering is God's megaphone to get our attention. We hear him most clearly in the midst of it.

But this going to be with the Lord in spirit for a time, while glorious, is not the End. There is life after " life after death." There is a second phase: Resurrection. The Bible says "The Lord Jesus will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of his glory" (Philippians 3.20-21). Again, "We shall be changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye...the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed" (1 Corinthians 15.51-52). Where will we live? The last book of the Bible, the book of Revelation, tells us: "I saw a new heaven and a new earth...coming down out of heaven from God" (Revelation 21.1-2). Yes, the final state will be thoroughly physical. We will be with God in a way never experienced before, even by Adam and Eve in Eden. It will be more glorious than that.

That is the hope. New Life, in a New Creation. And the promise that comes next is one of the most important promises in all of history, that I hold on to closely: "and He shall wipe every tear from their eyes; and there shall no longer be any death; there shall no longer be any death; there shall be no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain..." (Revelation 21.4).

Amen.

Why I Love John Piper (By Mark Clark...& Mark Driscoll)

This week my wife and I went through a grueling Church Planting Boot Camp which tested us at every level to see if others would confirm our calling to church planting, in unity with our present church. Two people that have inspired me (and thousands of other young pastors) in relation to church planting are Mark Driscoll (Marshill Church, Seattle) and John Piper (Bethlehem Baptist Church).

For years I have been inspired and learned from John Piper as a preacher. He is the most passionate preacher that I know of -- and is one of the best in the world. Recently I ran across Pastor Mark Driscoll's blog, who knows him well, which spoke of this very thing. Here it is. For an interview Driscoll did with Piper see here.

______________________________

Soon I (Mark Driscoll) will be heading out to speak at a Desiring God Conference for Dr. John Piper. He has asked me to speak on Christ, controversy, and cutting remarks, or something like that. Basically, the gist is that no matter what I say, the critics who forget the whole plank-speck thing Jesus talked about will make every effort to turn it into controversy with their cutting remarks. Should be fun.

Admittedly, the topic is not my first choice because it’s enough rope from which to either swing or hang depending upon how the session goes. But I took the invitation in large part to get some hang time with Dr. John Piper. To be honest, he’s even better off the stage than he is on. I mean that in no disrespectful way because he is one of the greatest preachers on the planet and I think he could hold my attention reading the phone book. But as a man off the stage over a meal when the crowds are gone and the microphones are off, I have found him to be even more enjoyable, encouraging, helpful, passionate, and compelling. As an example, we recently posted a long interview I did with him at the Resurgence and in it he was so genuine and honest that at points the interview is somewhat raw. I sent him the finished interview to get his permission before posting it out of respect, and true to form he edited nothing out. So, out of love for a man I consider a great mentor and friend, I thought it would be fun to share four reasons why I truly and deeply appreciate John Piper, before I head out to speak at his conference.

1. He is the most passionate guy I think I’ve ever met.

Of course, he is first and foremost passionate for the glory of God. But he is pretty much passionate about everything. For example, the first time we had him preach at Mars Hill Church the nuts we had out were unsalted. I learned that he is passionate about salted nuts.

2. He does not seem to really care about his approval ratings.

He does not own a television, and I would bet he spends less time checking what people say about him through Technorati and Google than he does watching television.

3. He has a father’s heart.

Unlike so many older men who are threatened by, competitive with, or critical of young men, I have repeatedly seen Dr. Piper have a father’s heart to encourage, exhort, and empower young men. The few times we’ve been able to sit down together have been incredibly transforming. On a few occasions he has been gracious enough to sit down with the young church planters in our Acts 29 Network with no microphones and very honestly answer the painful questions about life, ministry, and family. In those moments, from his heart and off the cuff comes pure gold that my brothers in Acts 29 still talk about. Especially noteworthy was the question from Jonathan McIntosh at The Journey Church in St. Louis, who asked what he would have to offer as final wisdom to young pastors. Piper buried his face in his hands to think and pray for a few minutes while the rest of us held our breath and waited. He then lifted his head and forcefully encouraged us to gouge out our eyes before looking at a woman lustfully (other than desiring our wives, of course) and chop off our hand before touching a woman other than our wife. Personally, I will never forget the time he told us about holding his stillborn grandchild around Christmastime as tears rolled down his face, describing how he prayed for God to resurrect the baby from death. As I looked around the room I saw dozens of young pastors, myself included, fighting back buckets of tears.

4. By not trying to be cool . . . he’s cool.

I cannot confirm it, but I think Dr. Piper may only have one jacket. I see him preach in it all the time and it’s a tweed coat with more than a few years of faithful service. I also think he may own one belt because I’ve only ever seen one. He drives a simple car, lives a simple life, does not have a tattoo (at least that I’ve seen), does not skateboard, and likes to read stuff by dead guys a lot. But by trying to just be himself rather than being cool, he has curiously become cool because he’s about Christ and that’s always cool.

Richmond Jones and the Hidden Kingdom

This is my latest film: Richmond Jones and the Hidden Kingdom

It is a project for a school that my friend Jason (Richmond Jones) teaches at, and goes along with a series of messages that he is doing at the school about seeking the kingdom of God.

Part II will be "written" and shot soon. Jason and his son Eli (the violent hunter) did a great job. And look for me in a stellar black and white cameo as well -- I'm kind of like Hitchcock like that.

Enjoy!

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.