Some Comments About Job

As odd as it sounds, I'm rather a fan of the book of Job. There are many people who cannot stomach the book, and even more that reduce it to the detriment of its point.

In any case, it is the most misunderstood book of the entire Bible. Its very premise angers us, and its conclusions deny us our sense of control, and challenge our very notions of justice. It is a hard book to digest, but I believe the primary reason is that we do not treat it as a whole: focusing on the beginning narrative, and skipping the vast majority of the book which constitutes dialogue. If we are to understand Job, we must first recognize that the meat of the book is in the dialogue, and not in the story.

The Purpose of the Narrative

The purpose of the narrative intro is not to tell the moral of the story, though it certainly anticipates it. The purpose is the same as any other kind of intro, to set the context of the book. First of all, the subject: theodicy, or more specifically in this case, why do good people suffer. This is a complex question, and the book doesn't actually set out the answer it, as we will see.

But the narrative sets up many different things. First of all, it rules out a possibility which is very important. Job does not suffer because of anything wrong with Job. Job is completely righteous. If you don't get this down, you miss everything.

Indeed, in most interpretations I hear of the book, people keep trying to get around this initial fact. However, to try and find out why Job needed to go through this trial, or why he deserved it, is to contradict the entire premise that the book is founded upon: Job is righteous, and does not deserve what he receives in any fashion.

Second of all, we see why Job does suffer. There is a wager between God and Satan. This is something else we tend to try and get around, saying that God wasn't really wagering with Satan, but simply manipulating him to accomplish His goals for Job. However this contradicts the plain sense of the text. According to the text, the wager happens because of God's faith in Job. I repeat, God had faith in Job. He trusted Job to come through. Mind you, He has the advantage of omniscience, yes, but that doesn't change the fact that the reason why Satan wishes to attack Job is because God has faith in him.

This cannot be extrapolated into supposing this is why all good people suffer. The text doesn't lend itself to that. Indeed, Job is treated as a special case. Therefore we must conclude that this is simply the context for Job. We must also recognize that God is right, and Job does not betray Him. Even in Job's strongest laments and deepest anger, he does not loose faith in God, but merely seeks God for an answer.

The Dialogue

If we are to consider the dialogue the thrust of the book, what is its message? There are three opinions that are basically stated: the friends/Elihu, Job, and God. Job is insisting on his innocence, demanding an audience with God to settle the matter. Job's friends and Elihu are criticizing Job for this claim, and telling him to admit that he is a sinner and repent.

But what is most interesting is God's opinion. God doesn't stake a claim on the issue at all. He merely rebukes Job's criticisms of His character, but punishes Job's friends for their horrendous theology.

Then what can we conclude is the message?

Answer

I would say that the book as a whole is a rebuke of a popular theology, namely the one expressed by Job's friends. There is a truth that says that God blesses the righteous, and brings the sinner to ruin (Proverbs 11:21). However, what many do is flip this truth around and conclude that those who are blessed are therefore righteous, and those who are in ruin are sinners. This causes one to praise the rich and powerful and look up to them, while condemning the poor and disenfranchised. (Remember when the disciples thought that the blind man was a sinner, or when they were shocked that it was difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven?)

The book of Job stands in strong contrast to this theodicy. Indeed, the entire context of the story is a righteous man in ruin! When have that in our minds as we read, we see how terrible the comments of Job's friends really are, as they attack the man they are supposed to be comforting.
Also, Job maintains his goodness. Though he criticizes God many times, he never curses God, but instead seeks an audience with Him. He demands that God answer his questions, much like some of the laments in the book of Psalms. Though God never answers these questions, He comes to Job personally, and demonstrates His power. What's more, Job submits! He is satisfied that God is in control, and he need not worry.

Conclusion

One of the greatest mistakes that we make is to try and figure out why this needed to happen to Job. Sometimes we conclude that there was a hint of pride in him. Other times we conclude that God provided this as a means of Job becoming closer to Him. I think both of these undermine the premise of the book. The first is to side with Job's friends, the very ones that God condemns at the end of the book. The second flies in the face of the prologue.

As Christians, we should not be shocked by the book of Job. Doesn't Jesus promise that we will suffer for His name? Doesn't He promise persecution? Then why are we shocked that things don't go wonderfully for Job? Why are we shocked that Satan attacks him? A Christian should instead recognize in Job a similar situation that we are called to be in.

Calvinist Humility

The Tale of the Great King

There once was the Great King who ruled his land with strength and confidence. Throughout all the land, he maintained peace with an iron hand and a calculating mind. The people feared him. He made war on many lands, and no one could withstand his might.

Then, out of the north, came another king, a Glorious King, that the Great King did not formerly know of. This king rode on a white horse, and held a power that the Great King had never seen before. The Glorious King outwitted and overpowered the Great King at every turn, until finally the Great King was defeated.

In awe, the Great King fell on his knees before the Glorious King. He said, "You are far greater than I have ever been, and ever shall be. I humble myself before you, willing to be your servant for whatever you ask of me."

The Glorious King replied, "Indeed, and from this day forth, you shall no longer be known as the Great King, but as the Humble Servant, for I have conquered this land and humbled you, not because I needed it or because I needed you, but because I wanted you. I have known you long before you have known me, and I have cared for you, waiting for this day when you shall rule beside me. I have territory for you to govern. It is for this purpose I have conquered you."

The Humble Servant was overjoyed to hear this news. Truly he had been humbled by this king, and truly he will be devoted to him all his life. He knew he didn't deserve this territory that the Glorious King gave him, and decided that he would do his utmost to devote all that he would do to the glory of the Glorious King.

Therefore, in the King's name, the Humble Servant ruled that territory with strength and confidence. Throughout all the land, he maintained peace with an iron hand and a calculating mind. The people were afraid. He made war on many lands, and no one could withstand his might.

Being Humbled and Being Humble

The point of the story is to demonstrate the difference between being humbled and being humble. The Great King, even after he became the Humble Servant, was not a humble man. He still treated the subjects under his rule with the same arrogance and tactics that he had before. However, that doesn't mean that there was no change at all. He was humbled by the Glorious King, and his humility before the Glorious King was a true humility.

Calvinist Humility

Ever since I started looking into the Calvinism/Arminianism debate, I've had this frustration with what I can only call "Calvinist Humility". Often they would go on and on about how humble Calvinism has made them. However, these were often the most arrogant and prideful people I had ever met. The two didn't make sense to me, so I simply assumed that they were deceived about how humble they were.

Then today, something occurred to me. They are humble, but only before God. All of their talk of humility was always the same: they are dirt, God is perfect; they are clay, God is the potter; they are evil, God is good. However all this talk of humility has to do with their relationship to God. When it comes to other humans though: they are elect, we are reprobate; they believe in Scripture, we believe in philosophy; they are wise, we are foolish. I don't know what to call this other than arrogance, because no matter how much we demonstrate our loyalty to God, no matter how much Scripture we reference, no matter how hard we try to reason with them, their preconceived ideas of who we are and what we believe cannot be undone. They are too stubborn to listen. And it is not that I'm saying they must believe what we believe to be humble. I'm talking about how tightly they latch on to their caricatures of us.

When it comes right down to it, the problem is that they are humble before God, but not humble with other humans. Now, I'm not saying that all Calvinists are like this, but isn't this a natural result of Calvinist theology? In Calvinist theology, the human begins with in a place of Total Depravity. Fine, I start there too. No problems so far. But, God only gives that grace which is necessary to come out of that state to a select few. Therefore, we have a class distinction: the elect and the non-elect, or reprobate. Therefore, the elect are better than the reprobate because they have been regenerated, enlightened, and chosen. There's nothing innate about them that makes them better. God made them better, glory be to God...

Reality

Now, look, I am not going to deny that humility before God isn't something that Scripture teaches. Indeed, it is the primary use of the word in Scripture. But surely Scripture also calls us to be humble as a basic character trait. We should do the second without forsaking the first. This doesn't mean that we allow every form of teaching that passes by us the same level of credance. I don't mind that a Calvinist may assume I'm wrong as an a priori. That's fine. I'm settled on certain issues too. But to attempt to tell me what I believe, when I've told you already that I don't, or to simply ignore what I am saying for the sake of being able to go on a rant about how great your theology is, or to accuse me of every heresy known to the church just because I disagree with you on one issue, this seems over the top to me.

And if these discriptions do not apply to you, great! This post wasn't for you. There are lots of good Calvinists out there who are humble, and love those who love the Lord, regardless of whether they agree with them on these issues. But there are a lot of Great Kings out there, humbled before almighty God, who push the unseeing reprobate here or there. To be honest, it's very tiring, but not very productive. I mean, does it really hurt to listen?

The Machine Gun Hermeneutic

Many Calvinists have accused Arminianism as being more devoted to human philosophy than Biblical truth. I not only believe this to be false, but my experience often shows that those who make these accusations are the ones most guilty of them. Many of these Calvinists mishandle Scripture, choosing to ignore the nature of the book in favor of asserting the power it gives to their own proclamations.

Since I have been debating on the internet, there has been one particular use of the Bible that I have seen them use again and again. I have come to call it the machine-gun hermeneutic. Hermeneutics is the study of how to interpret Scripture, and a hermeneutic is a particular method of interpretation.

I post this as a warning to all those who may see this technique being used. Do not be fooled. It does not demonstrate that an argument is biblical, but instead quite the opposite.

Argument from Verbosity

An argument from verbosity, or argumentum verbosium, is when someone provides an enormous amount of proof as well as a complex line of reasoning, so as to overwhelm the audience. The hearer is unable to examine all of the proof mentioned, or untangle the line of reasoning, so accepts the argument without truly challenging it. However, this does not mean that the proofs were strong (or even relevant) or that the line of reasoning was logical: it just means that there was too much for the hearer to take in and evaluate.

For example, if I wanted to convince you that flying is too dangerous, I could quote you the number of planes that have crashed in the past 5 years, the number of people that have died, and then break down by airline, in the end quoting 25 different stats. Believe me, I would sound convincing. But this wouldn’t change the reality that flying is the safest way to travel because in this case the number of crashes isn’t nearly as relevant as the percentage of crashes. However, I would have quoted you enough stats that you would be unable to actually examine the validity or applicability of those stats. That is an argument from verbosity.

The Machine-Gun Hermeneutic

The machine-gun hermeneutic is essentially an argument from verbosity using Scriptural quotations. I could break down the entire chapter of Hebrews 10, and demonstrate how the entire context, as well as the intention of the entire book, demonstrate that it is possible that a true believer can fall away from the faith. Then the Calvinist responds by quoting 5 Scripture verses, without discussing their context, and then claims victory. I’ve seen this many times. However, those 5 verses usually have nothing to do with the context at hand, or teach something incredibly different than what the Calvinist says. It doesn’t really matter, because I now have to sort through the context of 5 different verses, explain how none of them match up to what the Calvinist says, and my original point gets lost. The Calvinist still ends up winning.

I began referring to this as a machine gun hermeneutic based off a conversation I had once. My opponent essentially quoted 6 or 7 different verses at once, and then insisted I respond to every single one of them. I refused, because I knew it really wouldn’t be effective anyway, since he would ignore whatever exegesis I offered by simply quoting more texts (he had done it before). He claimed that I didn’t respect Scripture. I responded, saying that I believe Scripture to be a sword, not a machine-gun, and it is disrespectful to Scripture to treat it differently than how it was designed.

You see, a sword takes an incredible amount of skill. If you do not angle the sword exactly right, it doesn’t slice, it only nicks. Often even the higher sword masters do not slice every time they connect with the sword. This is not even considering all of the necessary parrying and thrusting techniques.

A machine gun on the other hand only takes as much skill as is necessary to keep the user safe. The techinique is simply to shoot a spray of bullets and to hope that one of them connects.
The machine gun hermeneutic works similar. One simply quotes as many Scripture verses as possible and hopes that the shear volume is sufficient to get a hit. However, this ends up discouraging one from actually reading the Scriptures. The contexts of the verses are never considered. The verses are simply memorized so that they can be quoted when needed.

Now quoting Scripture isn’t bad. It's not that I need to discuss the context of every verse that I quote. But it is the context of the verse which determines whether my quoting it was valid, and that is impossible to determine when I have 6 verses to sort through at once. In the end, the Scripture itself is ignored, but its presence causes the statement to sound offical.

Also see this posted at SEA.

The End of the Reposting

Finally I am done simply reposting what I have posted on my previous blog. I hope that you have enjoyed going through this material as much as I have. It is always interesting looking back on what you have written in the past.

My intent with the rest of this blog is simply to get out my ideas with feedback. I think by talking and through discussion. Therefore, I do not see this as a mode of converting people to my opinion, but as a mode of thinking. By writing the ideas down, I shape my thoughts better, and if and when people challenge those ideas, I am able to address those challenges, and either correct or improve upon the original thought.

I had one professor in seminary who said that he was afraid that the seminary failed me to some degree but not allowing me to come to my professors in private more with my thoughts. Though I wouldn't have used language that strong, I do agree that I am a person who needs to work out his thoughts with other people, often changing my opinion in conversation, much to the annoyance of my wife.

So please, feel free to comment, as I do enjoy conversation. However, please be warned, I will converse back. Also, a couple of rules for commenting: Nothing dirty. I'll crop that out quickly. Also, please stay on topic, expecially on the older posts. I have this set so that I only moniter posts 10 days old and older. After that point, I'll be strict on seeing people stay on topic. However, on newer posts, I'm giving freer range of discussion, since they are new, and I want to generate discussion.

So, let the true blog begin.

Movie Review: Dark Knight

As I said before, I am a big movie fan, but I am also a big Batman fan. Batman discussions were common in my household, as we would often compare notes and thoughts on the various psychological profiles of various villains. Yes, this was my childhood. I posted this August 10th, 2008.

Overall Reaction

I was excited to hear of the coming of the new Batman film for two reasons: I'm an avid Batman fan to begin with and the fantastic treatment of the character in Batman Begins. I was hoping for a film that was on par with Batman Begins, but I was unsure of whether or not they could do it. They were going to change an essential aspect of Joker's identity (bleached face for makeup) and maintain the Hollywood mistake of not sticking to one Batman villain per movie. So how did it fair?

It was amazing! Fantastic, action-packed, psycho-dramatic, thriller. One of the best movies I've ever seen.

Comparison to the First Movie

There were many things about this film which demonstrates a style for the entire series when compared with Batman Begins.

One, both movies resisted having an opening theme song, or even title screen. Instead, both opted for creating the Batman symbol only, in a highly stylized fashion. The first one formed it with a swarm of bats, the second by a blue fire. This thrusts the audience right into the movie.

Also, both movies have a very strong color scheme, which is first seen in the Batman symbol shot. The first one was brown and black, with some other earth tones. The second one was more blue and grey, with some other urban colors. There are scenes which are an exception to this, but these strong color patterns are certainly prevalent.

Also, the plot movements are very different. The first movie was very linear, almost episodic in nature. You might consider the first movie to have 4 episodes:

1. Bruce Wayne training and dealing with his past (ends when Ras 'al Gul's house explodes and Bruce meets Alfred at plane)
   
2. Bruce Wayne creating Batman and taking down the Falcone (ends with Rachel and her boss discussing prosecuting him. 'Baton' is passed when Scarecrow is introduced)
   
3. Batman investigating the drugs and fighting Scarecrow (ends with Bruce Wayne coming to his party)
   
4. Batman fighting Ras 'al Gul

Note how in each episode he is dealing with a different villain, has different kinds of challenges, and even the feel of the movie itself is different.

The Dark Knight is more monolithic in feel, with more of a cyclical structure: Joker instigates a challenge, Batman, Gordon, and Dent react, over and over with slight changes with each cycle. The only exception to this could be the incident with the Chinese accountant, but even with that, its the three good guys reacting to a challenge presented by the accountant. Also while the first movie was about the creation of Batman, for the most part, this one focused on the relationships between Batman, Gordon, and Dent, and how those relationships deal with the Joker crisis.

There is also the idea of theme. The theme of the first movie is fear and symbol. This second movie, the theme is hero and order. Throughout the movie, Dent and Batman are compared as two kinds of heroes. The final monologues of Gordon are the most conspicuous of this, using the same wording to describe the two, as well as the two titles: White Knight and Dark Knight. Gordon is also displayed as a hero to some extent, but never truly, because he is too pragmatic to truly be a hero.

Order is also treated, but not to the same extent. This is treated more on the villain side of things. You have the mob essentially trying to regain order. Also, to some extent, the good guys trying to create order for the first time. Then you have Joker trying to destroy order: an agent of chaos as he calls himself. Then, finally, Two-Face; a man who has lost he belief in order, and finds solace in the only thing he can still find reliable: chance.

Intensity

There are two ways to gauge intensity: the quality of the action and the strength of the suspense. On a scale from one to ten, I would rank the action as a 7.5. Most of the tight shots made it difficult to tell what was happening in the fight scenes (especially when he was in the building in the last confrontation with Joker). Most of the other kinds of action were very short scenes. The scene that ranks the highest for action (and I would rank it about a 9.5) would be the car chase scene. Car chases, cool new vehicle, bazooka, explosions, trucks getting slammed, and an 18-wheeler flipped over its front. Now that's action my friend.

However, for suspense, I would rank this movie overall as a 10. This is clearly more where the director was going. Its a strong cross between a thriller and an action movie. Never quite knowing what Joker is going to do, always on the edge of your seat, not knowing who will live or who will die, and Two-Face making every decision by the flip of a coin. Very high suspense. Combine this high suspense with the action that was in the movie, and you have a very intense film.

Characters

Every true Batman fan knows that its all about the psychosis. A Batman movie without psychosis as a focus is like Star Wars with Jar Jar as the comic relief. Just bad. This movie got is right with each character hopelessly complex. Let us examine them starting with the least, and moving to the greater:

Mob bosses: The head mob boss in this movie is Maroni. In the comics, Maroni was the guy that threw acid on Harvey Dent, making him Two-Face. Here, Maroni is actually a very quiet man, more of a victim of circumstance than a real threat to anyone. He gets forced into a corner by Batman, Gordon and Dent, then pushed around by Joker, abused by Batman's interrogation, and finally trapped by Two-Face. Though he is the "head of the mob" he is very passive in the movie.

The other mob bosses are the closest thing you get to two dimensionality. They are concerned with money, respect and power. Not much more. Like Maroni, they are easily harassed, conned, and eventually destroyed by the main characters.

The Mayor: The mayor was a really great character. The actor impressed me with his American accent since I'm already familiar with him and know that he has a very thick spanish accent. The guy sounded completely different. In either case, the Mayor character was just brave enough to let Gordon and Dent do their attack on the mob, but wasn't nearly as confident about it as they were. Strong, but cautious. Also quirky in how he expressed himself, making him interesting to watch. Overall, I felt that I would really like him as my mayor.

Alfred: It is a shame to me that I must treat Alfred so soon, but he's not really that important in this movie. Alfred takes a bit of a back seat in this film. Alfred has always been, to some extant, an exposition character. Essentially a character whose close enough to the protagonist that at necessary points, the protagonist can plot-dump, verbally wrestle with inner-demons, or explain what he's thinking without it looking too hokey. This is essentially the only role that Alfred really has in this movie, even serving as an expositional excuse for Rachel at one point.

However, though he's an expositional character, he's not a passive one, sometimes even implanting the very thoughts that Batman is going to act on eventually. Alfred demonstrates a constant concern for Wayne's well being, as well as source of normalcy, but also possesses a profoundly insightful objectivity, being the first character to really grasp what the Joker is about. He's comic relationship with Bruce also makes the necessary exposition scenes run comfortably.

Rachel Dawes: Rachel is a character made up just for the movies. This makes her presence interesting to me as a Batman fan, since I have no precedent to judge her by. What's great about her in this movie is that she is so different than the last movie, due to a change of actress. I don't mean to say that Gyllenhaal's Dawes was better than Holmes', but I think it was good to see this kind of change in the second film. This gives the series permission to do something similar later on when other main actors finish with the series.

Overall, this Dawes is happier. Her dream is coming true: Gotham is becoming safe. Additionally, she is in with the very men causing it to happen: Bruce Wayne, Harvey Dent, and even Jim Gordon who she calls a friend. To some degree she is the damsel in distress, much like she was in the first movie, but also like in the first movie she fights back, and displays bravery and passion. She presents herself as a woman of principle in both movies, and this is how she remains consistent between the two.

Lucius Fox: I'm not sure if I like how involved Fox is in this movie. Quite frankly, I felt that way about the last movie, and this one took it further. Still, given what they did in the first movie, what they did here was quite appropriate.

Two things of note (spoiler alert). First, there is the way that Fox handles both the asian accountant, as well as the guy that figures out Batman's identity. It showed a rhetorical cleverness and gave you a lot of respect for him. The second bit is how Fox helps Batman in working the radar system, for lack of a better word. Classically, that would be something that Alfred would do. Here, it is an opportunity to show Fox's integrity in that he doesn't like the idea of the power that it gives Bruce, and it shows Bruce's confidence in him, as well as Bruce's expectation that he would react the way he did. We receive a very competent, reliable man full of integrity.

Jim Gordon: Jim is much more heavily featured in this movie than in the last one. In the first one, Gordon is simply established because he is part of the Batman world. In this movie, Batman, Dent and Gordon are the main characters. That triad is the primary subject of film.

Here, Gordon is the pragmatist. He's the guy that does what he can do in order to get the job done. He's not really a hero because he compromises on his ideals to get the job done. One of the big plot points is that Gordon has assembled a highly trained detective force in order to take down the mob. However, most of this force consists of officers that were investigated by Dent when he was in internal affairs. At one point, Dent criticizes Gordon for this, and Gordon says, "If I didn't let detectives you investigated on, I wouldn't have anyone at all." This best demonstrates this pragmatist attitude.

Two things of note (spoiler alert). The whole thing they do with Gordon getting shot is simply awesome. First of all, even I was really unsure as to whether or not he was dead. Second, when he comes back, the entire theater cheered! And that scene with him and his wife was absolutely fantastic. It also sets up for what happens later, since the reason why Gordon does this is to protect his family.

The second thing of note is Dent going after Gordon. It is kind of surprising since Gordon wasn't corrupt and wasn't involved in the kidnapping of Rachel. But Dent saw Gordon as partly responsible because it was members of his force that did the kidnapping. Therefore, the very thing that Gordon was protecting from Joker was now attacked by Dent, and Gordon was completely helpless. When he insists on thanking Batman and the last speech that he give about Batman to his son shows that he is now committed to Batman, regardless of what else happens. It will be interesting to see what the do with him in the next movie.

Harvey Dent/Two-Face: Before Dent becomes Two-Face, his is a tough guy. A no fear district attorney who is committed to ending corruption and the mob. There is a purity about him in that his motivations are so honest. They often play with the idea that Dent leaves things to chance, hinting toward Two-Face, except that he really isn't since he is using a double-faced coin. The one "interrogation" scene is absolutely awesome, comparing Batman's technique and Dent's. Dent, even without Two-Face, is an awesome character, and because he was so honest, it is a real tragedy when he falls.

Bruce Wayne even completely believes in him, saying to Gordon that he was the best of the three. What is interesting is that Dent believes in Batman just as much, often acting as his one apologist in a world that is primarily critical of him. His comparison of Batman to the Roman dictator, which was a temporary position held by one man in only extreme circumstances who was above all rulers and laws is particularly telling. His sole purpose was to get Rome out of a crisis. The point of this comparison was both the perceived temporariness of Batman's mission as well as his need. This comparison also seems to be what persuades Bruce Wayne into much of his choices throughout the movie. (Side note, the mention of the Roman dictator as well as the direct reference to Caesar could also be a reference to the First Triumvirate which was a powerful political alliance in Roman times consisting of Caesar, Cassus, and Pompey. This could be compared to the alliance of Batman, Dent, and Gordon, perhaps relating Batman and Dent to Pompey and Caesar who eventually became enemies. Hero to villain allusion also foreshadows Dent's eventual fall).

Then he becomes Two-Face. First of all, this is a very different Two-Face than in the comics. The Two-Face that we've all come to know and love is marked with a multiple-personality syndrome. Essentially, you have Dent (good) and Two-Face (bad). Two-Face is the stronger personality. The Two-Face personality isn't so much as evil, as he is selfish, like most simple criminals. What makes the character fascinating is the dual interest. The Two-Face personality is a mob boss interested in money and revenge. Dent remains an attorney seeking justice and goodness. One's selfish, the other is selfless. Indeed, this personalities are so different that they can only truly agree on one standard by which to judge their actions: chance. Thus Two-Face uses a coin to determine which of his two personalities he will act upon.

In the movie, Two-Face doesn't possess multiple personality. (spoiler alert)Instead, Two-Face is truly Harvey Dent, but a broken man. It is the lose of the love of his life, and the injustices surrounding that lose, which causes him to loose his faith in institutional justice. Mark that. Two-Face's criminal activity isn't merely a selfish criminal, but a man seeking justice. He is a vigilante. Indeed, Dent, through out the movie, is compared to Batman, and here we are comparing Batman's form of vigilantism with Two-Face's. In Batman Begins Ras 'al Gul describes a vigilante as "a man lost in the scramble for his own gratification." That is exactly what Two-Face here is, while Batman remains above this description, constantly willing to sacrifice himself and his reputation for good of others. Two-Face is seeking gratification over the loss of Rachel, and is specifically targeting those he feels are responsible. The use of the coin is that chance is the only form of justice left. It's almost a love hate relationship with chance, since he sees his own misfortune as a product of it.

The targeting of the two corrupt cops and Maroni makes a lot of sense. Also the coin toss for Joker. These are the ones directly responsible for Rachel's death. What is interesting is that he then goes after Gordon. This is where he really passes from being a tragic misguided vigilante to being a villain, though he still sees himself in the form of a vigilante. He's reasons for going after Gordon is a move from direct responsibility to indirect. Gordon is responsible because he allowed corrupt cops into his unit. However, he intends to hurt Gordon the way that he was hurt. This is a different MO than what he did with the others he hunted. What makes the most sense to me, is that Gordon was that Gordon had the audacity to think that he was sorry. He had to prove to Gordon first that he wasn't really sorry, and in order to do that, he had to inflict Gordon with the same pain that he felt: the loss of a loved one. Eventually he turns on Batman and himself after Batman makes the point that all three of them are responsible since they went after the mob, starting the whole thing going.

Joker: Ah, the Joker. The Joker is everyone's favorite villain. Here are the things that make Joker Joker:

• Unpredictable
  
• Commits crime out of pleasure rather than personal gain
  
• Crimes have an artistic vibe.
  
• His "calling cards" are an actual joker card, and a forced smile on his victims faces
  
• He has a permanent smile on his face
  
• He makes you laugh while feeling horrified.
  
• Incredibly vain. He shows off, and loves to explain his cleverness, especially to Batman.

There are several things that make this Joker different than the typical one. First of all, instead of bleached skin and a huge red smile, he wears makeup and has scars from what's called a Glasgow smile. A Glasgow smile is where you make cuts from the corners of the mouth to the ears. This is his permanent smile, as well as how he leaves a forced smile on his victims (the traditional Joker uses a venom or gas). This is probably in an attempt to make the Joker more realistic, which seems to be an overall objective of the series.

The other marked difference between this Joker and the traditional one is appearance and demeanor. Having a sort of grunge look, this Joker looks messier, as if he doesn't care what he looks like. The traditional Joker is far more interested in the concept of "presence", something that Batman is a master of. Also, this Joker isn't as much of a physical rival as the traditional one. The original Joker story has Joker as the first person to defeat Batman in hand to hand combat, though only to be defeated shortly there after. This Joker has a conspicuous limp, as well as a vague way of speaking, as if he doesn't always entirely know what his thinking or going to say. This gives off the appearance that he doesn't know what he's doing, resulting in people underestimating him.

It is difficult to pinpoint the motivations of this Joker. He seems just to enjoy chaos. One cannot trust anything he says about himself since it is constantly changing, and often it seems that he believes what he needs to believe about himself at the time to achieve his objective.

(spoiler alert) His brilliance in the movie is his ability to be several steps ahead of everyone else, often having his next scheme already underway during his current one. For instance, when he is attacking Harvey on the road, he already has planned his break out of prison, and the kidnapping of Harvey and Rachel, despite the fact that he is supposed to think that Harvey is Batman at the moment. This is why I don't really take him seriously when he talks to Dent saying that his objective is to prove the schemers how futile their schemes are.

Personally, it seems to me that Joker is simply attempting to prove his superiority. Prove that his perspective on morality is better than the common man, that his position on money is better than the mob, and that he is smarter that the Gotham Triumvirate. All other explanations he gives seem merely to be a pretense.

In some ways his simpler in psychology to the usual Joker. However, his planning skill seems to be equal to him, if not surpassing him.

Batman: Not as much time was spent on developing Batman's character in this movie as last movie. That's a natural consequence of spending so much time with Dent and Joker. Hollywood seems unable to realize that if they don't burn through Batman's whole rouge gallery in three movies, that they can have a lot more blockbusters, as well as more character enriched plotlines. Ah, well.

What I love most about Batman is a particular trait that I share with him. We are both cynical idealists. What I mean by this is that I am cynical about the world: about the motivations of humans and ability of humans to fix things. However, I am idealistic about God and the church. I believe the church can fix anything because it is organized and run by God. It has not achieved this so far because we keep usurping Him, but God is all powerful, all wise, and benevolent. Therefore, though I constantly see depravity and darkness around me, I choose to hope.

Likewise, Batman is cynical about people, government, even himself. However, he still fights for an ideal: he lives for it, and is willing to die for it. That ideal is that one man can make a difference. That ideal is that humanity can be saved from itself. And he believes this, despite that absolute corruption that is around him.

This movie shows off Batman's idealistic side a lot. First of all, he believes that he will not have to be Batman forever. And believe me, no one wants Batman Forever. Once Gotham is on its feet again, and the system begins to actually work, Batman can retire. The second thing is that he believe Harvey Dent is the one who can accomplish this. He says Harvey is the hero that Batman could never be: a symbol of hope instead of fear. However, it is Batman and not Harvey that lives up to this standard. An agent of self-sacrifice and unwarranted hope, Batman continues to fight and live for a better Gotham, even after Dent falls.

The Relationship Between God's Sovereignty and Human Free Will

I posted this on my website July 22nd, 2008. It represents my fundamental view of God's sovereignty. I posted it then after I had first submitted it to SEA. It still has not been published there, but once it is, it will include a link here for comment. Please, I'm truly interested in feedback on my views here.

I'm Free and God Is Still Sovereign
by Martin Glynn

Over and over and over again I am told that I do not truly believe that God is sovereign. Sure, I think I believe it, but God can't really be sovereign if He doesn't minutely control every little thing that came to pass. Besides, didn't King George's sovereignty mean that he caused each blade of grass in his kingdom to move? I digress.

My intent here is to define as succinctly as possible my personal perspective as to the relationship between God's sovereignty and our freedom to choose. This does not define the position of all Arminians, or even all the members of SEA. This is my understanding. Let any flaw you find be on my head and no others. Let us begin.

Sovereignty

Pure and simple, sovereignty means that you are king, hence the King George comment above. I find it interesting that Calvinists have attached attributes to the meaning of sovereignty that could never apply to an earthly king. It is alright to say that such attributes are a logical result of God being king, but it is a gross error to attach them to the definition of the term. However, what makes one a king?

A king is one who has the authority, right, and power to demand, and there in cause, his will to be manifested within his realm with the objective of maintaining the quality of life for the citizens within that realm.

So what would it mean for God to be king? It would mean that whenever God decrees something to happen, it will happen. Here's the rub: it does not demand that everything which happened God decreed. That is an illogical leap. This is also important, if God did not decree everything, that means if something happens which He did not decree, it does not necessarily go against His sovereignty.

Ok, let's say, I accidentally drop this fantastic cup of milk which I am drinking. If God decreed that I shall drop the cup, and I drop it: God is still sovereign. If God decreed that I shall hold on to the cup, and I drop it, then I have just undermined God's sovereignty. However, if God has said absolutely nothing about whether I drop the cup or not, and I drop it, then God is still sovereign as long as we maintain the fact that He could have decreed it if He had wanted to.

God has the right and power to do whatever it is He pleases, and if God pleases not to decree something one way or the other, it is His right and power not to. We have no right to say that he must decree it or He forfeits His sovereignty. That's silly! (at best) No, we declare God to be sovereign, regardless of how He chooses to do things or not to do things.

Free Will

I don't like to talk about free will too much. I don't think it is an apt focus for what it is we are trying to say. I would agree with the definition of free will as contrary choice, but even then, I would say that the basic point is that our will has true consequences on what will be in the future, no matter how slight those consequences may be. Therefore, what I prefer to talk about is human contingency.

Human contingency is the understanding that God has determined that particular events and ends shall be contingent upon the human will. What is important to note is that only particular events and ends are contingent, which means that others are not. The ones which are and the ones which aren't are determined by God. However, those which are are truly contingent.

Now there are a lot of things which are left up to the human will. For instance, I agree with Martin Luther that the color of my socks were probably determined by me. What's important to the Arminian position is that the whether or not one will have saving faith is contingent upon the will of that one. After all, that's what makes us Ariminian. But the point is that those things are contingent on our will because God either let's them be because He doesn't care about the color of our socks, or because God explicitly decrees that this end will definitely be contingent because He wants it that way.

But, no human will is completely free. We are restricted by boundaries. Think of a baby in a play pen. Within that play pen, the baby can do whatever he wants, but there are boundaries set up by the sovereign parents that prevent the baby from certain activities. Additionally, what else is in the pen is determined by the parents, not by the baby. Likewise, God puts boundaries on us, that we cannot cross. The general ones are as follows:

1. Natural laws: God has set up His universe in a very particular way that we cannot change. I cannot fly under my own power, shoot lasers out of my eyes or lick my own elbow. There are physical laws, established by God, that prevent me from doing so.
   
2. Particularity: Each of us are born to a particular place, at a particular time, as a particular gender and nationality, and with access to a particular set of people. I cannot meet George Washington. I cannot become a woman. I cannot be something other than Irish (though why would I want that anyway). No, I was born here and now because God caused me to be born here and now, so that I may seek Him, as the Word says. I cannot change this. It's part of what makes me human.
   
3. Consequence: Though there are events which are contingent on my choice, there are established consequences for that choice. Some are written in the physical world like splatting if I choose to jump off a building, or going bankrupt for making unwise investments. Others are exacted by God, for He is the judge of the universe, and He judges what we do both in this life and the next.
   
4. Established events and ends: God allows particular events and ends to be contingent on the human will, but He also decrees certain events and ends to come to pass, and once God decrees is, we cannot stop it. God's sovereign power is irresistible, when he exercises in that manner.
   
   Consider for a moment the dreams of the pharaoh told to Joseph. He dreamed two dreams, and the two dreams means that events foretold in the dream were established. This means that if he didn't' dream two, than the events weren't... Therefore, some events are established, and some are not. But the ones which are, we cannot prevent.

What I want to know, what I am dying to know, is how God is not sovereign given the descriptions above? I fail to understand this accusation, given to us time and time again. So please, explain: how?

What Is A Christian?

I made this post May 24th, 2008. I believe it is rather self explainatory

What is a Christian?You would think this would be a simple question to answer, but lately it seems that the line has become ambiguous to many. The most simple and accurate definitions would be one who has been born again of the Spirit, and is a member of the people of God. However, the basic problem with both of those definitions is that they speak to realities that we cannot measure.

Therefore, for the sake of our purposes of determining who is a Christian and who is not, the best definition would be one who believes in the gospel of Jesus Christ and lives out its implications. What is the gospel of Christ? It is the Christ event. The gospel is good news, and intrinsic to the definition of news of a particular event in time and space. For the gospel, this is the Christ event. Any definition of gospel that does not have the Christ event as its center defies the very nature of what gospel means. So what is the Christ event. It is:

1. The Incarnation: Or more simply put, the birth. The event where the Son of God came down and took the form of a human and dwelt among us. He lowered Himself to our level; got His hands dirty so to speak. This also demands that the gospel is centered upon one particular person, or a particular gender, of a particular race and nationality, at a certain time in history: Jesus of Nazareth, a Jew in the first century.
   
2. The Sacrificial Atonement: Or more simply, the death. However, it isn't just believed that Jesus died, but that His death is a sacrifice through which we are redeemed. He died for us, in our place.
   
3. The Resurrection: Or more simply, the... resurrection... I guess there really isn't a simpler word for it. However, it is not just that Christ rose from the grave, but that through His resurrection, Christ defeated death, and the powers of darkness, which no longer have any power over us.
   
4. The Parousia: Or more simply, the return. Even though this event has not happened yet, it was promised us, and is attached to the gospel. This world is temporary.

So what are the implications of the gospel? Well, this is where Christians begin to argue, and for the sake of keeping things simple, I will refrain from producing a list. However, any attempt to make something central which cannot be demonstrated to necessarily derive from the above four facts is erroneous. The gospel is the center of Christian faith, and nothing else.