What If The Green Lantern Movie Was Good?Part II

So, last week I suggested a different version of the movie that was made, demonstrating that simplifying a story often makes for a better movie. I did so by keeping the movie on one planet and cutting back on the number of themes that needed to be introduced. However, what if we are not just interesting in the Green Lantern character, but really do want to see a movie about the Green Lantern Corps? Is that movie possible?

I think it is, and we can do it with some of the same principles. For instance, simplification would still be necessary. Perhaps even more necessary since there would be more things that we have to introduce this time around.

Another principle is one central villain. This is a bit more difficult thought, especially if we want to save Sinestro for a later film to make his betrayal more real (and I think we do want to do that). Parallax is too much of an epic villain and simply inappropriate for a first movie. Hector Hammond is also difficult if this is going to be a Corps focused movie since he is an Earth based villain. This leaves none of the villains that were in the movie, so we either have to go into the comics for a different villain, or try to make one of these work.

However, to try and stay with the theme of the project here, I do think that there is something we can do with an Earth based villain like Hector Hammond. It will also help introduce a theme that I think is really interesting.

Synopsis

So what is jist of this movie. First of all, we need to de-emphasize the Earth based characters. This would have to reduce Tommy down to basically a cameo, and reduce Carol down to more of a witness of things on Earth, but not a main character.

But the theme of the movie would  be loyalty. Think about this for a second: Hal Jordan is from a planet that has yet to have any experience with extra-terrestrial life. Then he is suddenly whisked away from this planet by some military organization that wants to recruit him. He is no sense of loyalty to this organization, and would have difficulty deciding to risk his life for this group. Additionally, if he had to choose between Earth and the Corps, what would he choose?

I personally love this theme a lot more than the common themes of power/responsibility (that I suggested last week) or fear/courage (which the actual movie used). Indeed I can only think of one other movie that has explored this theme, and that is The Last Star-fighter. I don't think we should use that movie exactly, but we can definitely use that movie as a sign that this film can work, especially since all of the obstacles a Green Lantern movie faced, that movie faced as well.

Opening

Cold open with Green Lantern Abin Sur. He is in a transport ship, and is reporting to some kind of superior about a sample that he is bringing back to some place called "Oa". A close up with the camera demonstrates that this sample is contained within some kind of heavily protected canister. In his report he mentions how the events on some planet was caused by a kind of substance.

Suddenly his ship is attacked without warning. Due to his need to protect the sample, he attempts to fight the foe from inside of the ship. However the precision of the attack causes him to lose control, and he attempts to escape by activating his engine (or an escape pod. Doesn't really matter as long as he is protecting the canister). Opening credits.

Cut to Hal waking up. The scene introducing Hal can be left pretty much unchanged, even up until he crashes the plane. The only changes are that A) no Daddy issues, and B) Hector Hammond is accompanying his father as his assistant (also Hammond does not know either Hal or Carol). We can also get some scenes of General Hammond being verbally abusive toward his son for the sake of establishing the character. They can also have a conversation on their way back to the car, to further establish their relationship. I would also want to add that instead of Hal defeating the plane by flying "too high", he instead actually out flies the thing. After all, that is what we actually want to establish, and it sets up a better argument between Hal and his boss.

Afterwards, Hal goes to the bar, and Carrol meets up with him. They have a conversation/argument about what happened, and about their former relationship, basically like the bar scene in the movie with better dialogue. Carrol leaves and Hal returns to his drink saying something about wanting things to be different.

Power Acquisition

Now we cut to Abin Sur crashing at the coast. Before he dies, he sends out his ring which we see zip away. We then cut to Hal leaving the bar and walking down the street for a bit. Then the ring finds him, and carries him off to Abin Sur's ship. He passes the lantern to Hal, but dies as he is about to tell him to safe guard the canister (so it gets left behind by Hal). Hal calls Carol to pick him up (since Tom isn't really part of this movie), which she does.We have the helicopters chase them away for the sake of action and suspense. Carol gets Hal home, leaves, and then Hal fidgets with the lantern. Finally, it activates, he says the oath, and then he is taken away to space. We cut as he passes the satellite.

Now we cut to General Hammond's bed room. He is awoken by a phone call telling him that he needs to come to some site. We then see the Hammonds arrive at the crash site, and a solider greets the general (no Amanda Waller since we are trying to simplify things). The solider then explains that there this is an alien crash, that there is a dead alien who was buried not far from here, and a set of footprints and tire tracks belonging to person or persons unknown. As he is explaining this, we see Hector finding the canister on the ground and fiddling with it. He opens it to find some kind of substance that is immediately absorbed into his skin, and drops the canister. Hammond immediately chastises him, tells Hector to stay by his side. We see either his eyes or his hands shine a little before the scene cuts away.

Oa

The next scene opens with Hal waking up at Oa (because who needs scenes of Hal in pain while he is being "tested"). Tomar-Re's introduction, and his tour of Oa can be kept pretty much the same as in the movie, except there would be a quick conversation about Hal questioning his "abduction". Perhaps, "I don't like being brought here against my will," followed by Tomar-Re saying, "Don't worry. If there is one thing we respect, it is someone's will." However, when he starts his training with Kiliwog, there are some major changes to be made. First of all, the instruction from Kiliwog would be longer. Second, it should be a montage so that we know that he is being trained more than just what we see. The montage ends with Hal questioning what he is doing there.

When then get a cut to Earth. This shows Carol going to Hal's apartment since she has not seen him since the night he found the ring. She finds that he is not there, and wonders where he is. She turns on the news (or she goes home to turn on the news), and sees a news story about Hector Hammond attacking people. She then wonders to herself what in the world is going on.

We go back to Oa, and Hal is sitting out on some ledge thinking to himself. Sinestro comes over and speaks to him. Hal tells him that he feels unsure about all of this. Sure there are aliens, that's fine. Sure, he's being asked to risk his life; he's done that before. But he doesn't really know what the Corps is. Is it a military? Is it a police-force? What gives the Corps the right to do what it does? Is it just a shame being used to eventually do harm? So Sinestro talks about his friendship with Abin Sur a bit, and maybe tells an adventure or two. His point is that the Green Lantern Corps is good. It stands for order and peace. Sure, the Guardians can be a bit weak on a few things, and things don't always go according to plan, but the Corps does more good than ill.

Hal then asks him, if he ever had to choose between his homeworld and the Corps, what would he choose? Sinestro says Korugar, but then adds that he doesn't see that happening. It is the Corps that allowed there to be peace at Korugar, and that the Guardians honor our commitment to our homeworlds.

Sinestro then tells Hal that he was actually looking for him because he has an important question to ask. "When you found Abin Sur, was he carrying anything?" Hal says no, and asks why. Sinestro says that Abin Sur was on a ship taking something to Oa. They have found the ship, but havn't found what it was he was carrying. Hal suggests that maybe it is on Earth. Sinestro says, "Perhaps. Your training will be done in a couple of weeks. It may be your first mission to investigate this. But that isn't up to me." Hal says thanks for the talk, tells Sinestro that he is a good friend and flies off.

Now perhaps now is a good time to cut back to Earth, and show some direct scene of Hector reking havoc. If we do, perhaps we can show him taking over Ferris Aircraft, with a bunch of followers behind him. He can make some grandiose speach about a new order, or some other hogwash. The point though would be to establish his goal of absolute power, and that currently he is unstoppable. I would have this at Ferris mostly because I want Carol to by our eyes and ears for what is happening on Earth. However, I would not make her a damsel in distress. Mostly, she would keep her head down. If she does retaliate at all, I would have her get away, and not be kidnapped or anything.

Graduation

So now it is a couple of weeks later and it is time for Hal's graduation from training. He is brought before the Guardians. They ask him some basic formal questions that he answers. They then ask him to demonstrate his skill, and he spars for a bit with Sinestro or Kiliwog. They say he is ready, give some formal induction speak, everyone says the oath, and yay!

Then the guardians give him his first mission. They tell him of the substance that Abin Sur was carrying, describe what it looks like and its effects. They have searched for it, but have not found it. They suspect that it is on Earth, but due to Earth still being young, there are regulations limiting their ability to enter into it. As an earthling, Hal is not bound by this restrictions. They tell him to find it, and bring it back to Oa. They then warn him that if someone else on Earth has found it, there may be a fight, and to prepare himself for it. Then they dismiss him.

After the ceremony, Hal meets with Tomar-Re, Kiliwog, and Sinestro. They congratulate in each their own way. Sinestro says that he may not be there when Hal comes back. They have been trying to track down the one who they believe killed Abin Sur, and it looks like he is in Sinestro's sector. Hal asks if he can help. Sinestro says no, he prefers to handle his sector himself. Besides, Hal's sector has been without a Lantern for a month. A lot can happen in a month. Hal says OK, and then flies off.

Return Home

We can watch Hal fly through space a bit, since he hasn't really done much of this, but then he gets home and first flies to his apartment. He notes that there are a lot of overdue bills, and rolls his eyes, realizing that he doesn't have a job, and that he should talk to the Guardians about his paycheck. He then turns on the TV, and it doesn't work. He tries to phone Carol, and this the phone line is dead. He goes down to his apartment's office to see what is going on, only to find the residents in the office, huddled together with blankets. Hal asks what is going on. There has apparently been no power for a few days, ever since Hector Hammond attacked the power station. "Who is Hector Hammond?" Hal says. "Where have you been Jordan? Hector Hammond is the guy that has been terrorizing the city for the past few weeks! Even the national guard couldn't stop the guy." "Where is he?" "How should I know? Besides, what you are going to do about it?"

Hal ignores him, and runs out of the building, and then flies looking for Carol. He then find her somehow. They have a quick argument about where he has been. Perhaps her saying, "And don't tell me it has to do with that stupid ring!" "Fine, I won't tell you then". He then says that Hammond has set himself up at a local military installation, and that the military is encamped somewhere near there. Currently, there appears to be a ceasefire between the two. Hal thanks her, and says he is going to see if he can help. She tells him know. He says, "Well I am a pretty good flyer." "Hal, you have not seen what this guys can do to planes." "Oh don't worry". He then holds up his ring and activates it. "I don't need to use a plane anymore." With that he flies off.

He first goes to the military encampment where he meets up with General Hammond. He introduces himself as a member of the intergalactic Green Lantern Corps. "So you are an alien." "No I am human. I was recently inducted to deal directly with this situation." "That dead alien we found. He had a suit just like that." "Yes he was transporting what has now infected that man out there when he was attacked and crash landed here. That is why Hammond has to be captured and cleansed. He will then be returned to you." "How do we know we can trust you." "I am still of Earth sir. This uniform doesn't change that." And with that, he flies off to fight against Hammond.

First Hal has to fight through the men who have joined up with Hammond, including fighting tanks and planes. And then we get a really cool battle of the GL and Hector fighting. At some point, Hector offers Hal to join him. With their combined power, the two of them can unite the Earth, and have the Earth advance to the stars. Hal says that isn't going to happen; he will bring Hammond to the Corps. Hammond says, "You would choose a bunch of aliens over Earth?" And then Hal says, "I don't have to choose. I am the Green Lantern OF Earth." And with that, Hal kicks Hammond's butt. However, rather than be taken captive, Hector takes his own life. The substance oozes out of him, and Hal picks it up with his ring. He returns Hector's body to the general and says, "Sorry. There wasn't anything more I could do." Perhaps some kind of additional chat and then Hal flies off.

Later on, he meets up with Carol. He can have the same conversation with Carol that he had at the end of the actual movie. I think it would still work (perhaps even better). They kiss, he flies off, Tomar-Re gives and epilogue, and close of movie.

After Credits

After the credits, we see a scene with Sinestro having been captured by Parralax.
Parallax: I was drawn to this region of space. There is so much fear here. It smells so... sweet. I smell the fear in you too.
Sinestro: I know no fear.
Parallax: I AM FEAR! Do not lie to me. You may not be afraid of me, but you are afraid. "What if they find out?" "What if I am caught?" "What if I lose everything I have gained here?" I am sure that the Guardians would not be happy with you when they discover how you have been keeping peace in your sector.
Sinestro: The ring is will. I have done nothing more than allow my will to bring order.
Parallax: You have not used will to bring order but fear. Fear is greater than will. Fear keeps things simple, and keeps people in line. You know Sinestro, I like you. And I think with enough time, you'll like me too.
Evil smile, and cut.

Concluding Thoughts

I'm not sure which of the two movies I would like better, last week's or this one. Last week's I think is more relationally involved, but this one would have more eye candy and probably more action. However, I do think that both movies are better than what we actually got, which was over extended, unfocused, and full of plot holes.

One thing that I really like about this particular movie is the theme of loyalty, as well as establishing a better relationship with Sinestro. It also corrects a major problem in the movie, that is the complete lack of training that Hal goes through. While it may be one of the more enjoyable action scenes in the movie, which is sad, it doesn't quite make sense. Why would Sinestro complain that a new recruit is raw? Why would Kiliwog just throw those three lessons at him one after another? How is Hal capable of being competent with the ring after five seconds of training? It just makes no sense, and the version above does.

It also shows off on of the major appeals of Green Lantern stories: aliens. Lots of weird aliens. It is just fun.

So I think I might prefer this one a little, but I think the first one has a tad more substance to it. Anyway, what do you think? Leave your own thoughts in the comments section.

What If The Green Lantern Movie Was Good?Part I

So last month I watched two videos about alternate scripts for Star Wars episodes one and two. While a little vulgar in certain places, his fundamental ideas showed a real awareness for what Star Wars was as well as what makes for a good movie.

So this got me thinking about other movies that could get the same kind of make-over. Certainly there are plenty of bad movies out there, but a lot of times we see a bad movie that we know didn't have to be bad. The top of my list with this is Green Lantern. I was really looking forward to seeing GL on screen due to the sheer spectacle of it. But he is also an interesting character due to his double loyalties (to Earth and to the Corps) and his rebellious nature despite being in a military organization.

The basic problem with the film is that attempted to do too much (a common problem in comic book movies). With this basic rule, I can think of two stories which are much simpler and would leave room for better character and plot development.

There are two aesthetic changes I would make as well. One is around the character of Hector Hammond. First of all his make-up was just awful, destroying his human features. Second of all, they made him too sympathetic (or pathetic), making him feel more like a victim than a villain, and more like a whiner than a threat. The other aesthetic change would be Green Lantern's costume. I actually like the idea of having glowing lines on the costume. However, having those lines accentuate muscles as opposed to the emblems on the costume is a bit like nippling the batsuit. It doesn't really work, and is more of a distraction in more dramatic scenes later on.

Green Lantern on Earth

Probably the simpler modification you can make is to keep the whole movie on Earth. The audience only needs to understand the ring as much as Hal does, and if Hal only knows what it can do, than that is all the audience needs to know as well. This story would be a story of an ordinary man who suddenly has a large amount of power fall into his lap. This would parallel very will with Hammond who would find himself in the same situation. The plot will go like this:

Opening

Cold open with Green Lantern Abin Sur. He is in a transport ship, and is reporting to some kind of superior about a sample that he is bringing back to some place called "Oa". A close up with the camera demonstrates that this sample is contained within some kind of heavily protected canister. In his report he mentions how the events on some planet was caused by a kind of substance. Also, it appears that this substance was introduced from off-world, and that the culprit is...

Suddenly his ship is attacked without warning. Due to his need to protect the sample, he attempts to fight the foe from inside of the ship. However the precision of the attack causes him to lose control, and he attempts to escape by activating his engine (or an escape pod. Doesn't really matter as long as he is protecting the canister). Opening credits.

Cut to Hal waking up. The scene introducing Hal can be left pretty much unchanged, even up until he crashes the plane. The only changes is that A) Hal isn't fired at the end, B) no Daddy issues, and C) Hector Hammond is accompanying his father as his assistant (also Hammond does not know either Hal or Carrol). We can also get some scenes of General Hammond being verbally abusive toward his son for the sake of establishing the character. They can also have a conversation on their way back to the car, to further establish their relationship. Afterwards, Hal goes to the bar, and Carrol meets up with him. They have a conversation/argument about what happened, and about their former relationship, basically like the bar scene in the movie with better dialogue. Carrol leaves and Hal returns to his drink saying something about wanting things to be different.

Fantastic Abilities

Now we cut to Abin Sur crashing at the coast. Before he dies, he sends out his ring which we see zip away. We then cut to Hal leaving the bar and walking down the street for a bit. Then the ring finds him, and carries him off to Abin Sur's ship. He passes the lantern to Hal, but dies as he is about to tell him to safe guard the canister (so it gets left behind by Hal). Hal calls Tom to pick him up, which he does.We have the helicopters chase them away for the sake of action and suspense. Tom gets Hal home, where Hal fidgets with the lantern. However, afterwards he merely passes out.

Now we cut to General Hammond's bed room. He is awoken by a phone call from Hector telling him that he needs to come to some site. Hammond chews Hector out for waking him and then asks him who it was that requested his presence. Hector says, "Somebody named Waller." To this, Hammond tells Hector to pick him up in the car immediately. We then see the Hammonds arrive at the crash site, and Waller greets the general. She asks who Hector is and Hammond introduces him as an assistant who knows how to be discreet. She then explains that there this is an alien crash, that there is a dead alien who was buried not far from here, and a set of footprints and tire tracks belonging to person or persons unknown. As she is explaining this, we see Hector finding the canister on the ground and fiddling with it. He opens it to find some kind of substance that is immediately absorbed into his skin, and drops the canister. Hammond immediately chastises him, tells Hector to stay by his side, and apologizes to Waller. We see either his eyes or his hands shine a little before the scene cuts away.

The next morning, Carrol comes to Hal's apartment furious because he didn't come to work. She can say something about responsibility and a hangover being no excuse, etc with Hal trying to explain without explaining. As she is about to leave, Tom comes in. After an awkward moment, Carrol leaves and Tom asks Hal if he got it to work. Hal smiles and it cuts to him and Tom in the desert, ready to experiment. Well, this scene would be fun, it should also demonstrate Hal's skills in test piloting: thinking about applications, limitations, and pushing boundaries.

Meanwhile, we have Hector discovering his abilities around the office, hearing people's thoughts about him (including his father), and accidentally knocking things off of shelves. He starts manipulating people, and enjoying himself doing it.

After this, we move on to the party. This scene can remain mostly intact. I actually like the idea of saving everyone from the crashing helicopter with the racecar. The fundamental difference being that Hector would be revealing things to Carrol but instead would simply lose control of his abilities. Would simply lose control of his abilities. Also show him having some real fun with it. Don't just have him do one small thing, but have him messing stuff up all around him: complete udder chaos. But no one knows where the source chaos is.

Things Are Getting Real

We can have the same scene where Tommy finds out about the Green Lantern suit and then Carrol finds out about the Green Lantern suit. But naturally when Hal and Carol are talking they're not going to talk about the Green Lantern Corps since Hal doesn't know about them. Instead they'll just talk about whether or not Hal is responsible and how crazy the whole idea is.

Meanwhile Hammond is suspecting Hector of a lot of things that are going on around the office. He confronts him about it and Hector denies everything while having something accidentally attack his father. His father survives but goes to Waller to inform her that something strange seems to be going Hector follows him there and then we get the fight between him Waller and Hammond. This causes some explosion that happen which how Hal is going to be able to notice. So Hal goes it investigates and we get our first fight to them which ends up in some kind of a draw. Likely Hector would have some kind of advantage at the end which causes Hal to retreat, but saving Waller. Hammond can die though.

In the aftermath of this fight, Hal is principally concerned with not being sure about whether he should be doing anything like this at all. It  is not that he fears death, but that he fears himself. The power that he is wielding is unprecedented, and he doesn't really know he is a good enough person to be trusted with it. At the end of the conversation he decides not the wear the ring, because he doesn't want to be the monster that he saw in Hammond. Tommy and Carol attempt to argue with him, but he is resolute.

Meanwhile Hector wants Hal's ring, and plans on the typical world domination. Why? Because Hector Hammond is a threat in his own right and doesn't need some other villain to make him dangerous. This is also who Hector Hammond really is. He is someone who wants power and respect, but has no idea what he would do if he ever got them. Think of Titan from Megamind. That who Hector Hammond is. He's a buffoon with a really dangerous toy. And that is what makes him so dangerous: he doesn't think out the consequences of what he is doing and why. He's not pure evil, but incredibly selfish and immature.

Back At Ferris Aircraft

So the next day, Hal goes back to Ferris Aircraft. Why? Because he works there. Carol approaches him, and attempts to bring the subject of the ring back up, but Hal says, "Not now. I'm here to fly, not talk" or something to that effect.

As Hal is getting ready to test an aircraft, suddenly Hector Hammond comes in. Why? Because it is a military institution that he knows about and he is seeking to acquire power. In other words, he comes for control of the planes, specifically the drone planes we saw Hal combating at the beginning of the movie. Also, Hal doesn't have his ring at this point, so he, Carol, and Tommy have to try to deal with him powerless. They ultimately fail, and have to abandon Ferris Aircraft, while Hector takes control of the planes, and brings them to the local military base that his father was commanding.

Watching Hector leave, Hal, Carol, and Tommy have the rather obvious discussion of whether or not Hal should use the ring. This discussion is of course quite short since Hal wouldn't really need convincing. He immediately recognizes that while he is not sure he can be trusted with his power, he is confident that Hector can't be trusted with his and needs stopping. So he rushes home to get the ring.

Climax

As Hal rushes home, Hector begins his attack on the army base. The aircraft remain unstoppable, and Hector is easily able to take care of combatants on the ground. As he goes, he collects weapons that he is able to use with his telekinesis. He has, off screen. Perhaps he could also have some "soldiers" with him who he had convinced that he was a god using his telepathy. These "soldiers" could be gathering various weapons as they advance. Hector intends to take over the base and use it as a castle: a place of defense that he can use to establish a kingdom in the surrounding area. The base also has missile silos that he is hoping to use.

When Hal finally gets home, he discovers that his ring is out of power. So he says the oath, charges it, activates, and flies away to the base. His first course of action is to take out the aircraft, which shouldn't be too easy, but shouldn't be too hard either. He then lands in the base, and states that he is here to help. He discovers that Waller is currently in charge there. While she doesn't entirely trust him, she says that she accepts his assistance for the time being, since he saved her once before, and just took out two of Hector's planes. However, she insists on have "a talk" afterward.

From here, we see Hal flying out of the base, and attacking Hector's soldiers. Eventually, he confronts Hector himself. They have a big awesome battle which is fun to watch. I don't think we really need a break-down of this, we just want it to be big and flashy. Lots of things being thrown around by Hector (the bigger the better), and lots of interesting light-constructs made by Hal. Hal of course wins, apprehends Hector, and takes him back to Waller.

Waller is able to ask him a couple of questions, about the body of Abin Sur and the ring, which Hal answers to the best of his ability. She then asks him what the symbol means, and before Hal answers, an unknown voice says, "It means he is a Green Lantern." Everyone looks up and reveals three Green Lanterns: Sinestro, Tomar-Re, and a third Lantern from the comics, maybe Kilowog. Tomar-Re turns to Sinestro and says, "Sinestro, perhaps I should handle the negotiations." He tells Waller that the Green Lantern Corps is an intergalactic police force, and that one of their soldiers crashed here along with a dangerous substance that he had in his custody. They came here to investigate what had happened to him, but had trouble finding the ring since it was not being used. The battle had attracted their attention.

He says that they must take Hector into custody to purge his body of the substance. Afterwards, they will return him to the Earth for judgement. Waller attempts to argue with him, and Tomar-Re gives a brief argument about the Earth not being able to properly confine Hector in his current state, but then Sinestro says that they need to take him anyway. he says that telling her is a matter of politeness and respect, but they'll take him by force is necessary. They will also return him regardless as well since this is Green Lantern law. Waller doesn't like this but must acquiesce.

The conversation then shifts to Hal. They invite him to Oa to undergo training and officially join the corps. Hal states his loyalties are to Earth, and Tomar-Re says that he will not have to give up those loyalties. He would be stationed here, and recognizing local planet sovereignty is part of Green Lantern law. Hal eventually agrees, but states there are some people he needs to see first.

This cuts to him coming to talk to Carol and Tommy. He explains briefly what happened, and his resolution to his internal conflict regarding power. He kisses Carol goodbye for now, gives Tommy a hug, and flies off. We get the Geoffrey Rush ending monologue, and credits.

At the end of the credits, we get a Sinestro scene as well. Except this one is Sinestro standing over Abin Sur's graving, revealing that he attacked Sur, that he is here to cover up the attack, and that he was the one that planted the substance on whatever planet Abin Sur was coming from (and that the attack on Sur was to cover that up). End movie.

Final Thoughts

The basic theory behind the movie is to establish Hal as a character rather than the Corps. We can save the full revelation of the Corps and aliens and the rest of the mythology in a later movie. By keeping the film about Hal on Earth you simplify the plot and cut back on exposition, allowing for a greater focus on character. Also, we keep the movie to one villain, since there is enough that the movie already has to cover.

The other basic theory is to keep Hector Hammond as the villain since that was the villain used in the movie, and that is the movie that I am trying to fix. I don't just want to say, this is the Green Lantern movie I would really want to do. Instead, this is one way to fix the movie that they already made. However, I think there is another way to do this, and I think the other way is ultimately be better. But I will save that description for next week.

Atheism vs. Agnosticism

One of the interesting tendencies that I have noticed with the New Atheists is the penchant for using the term "Atheism" to mean "Agnosticism". Mind you, I don't mind this since I see little difference between the terms, but I think it is worthy of comment.

Classically, the term Atheism strictly meant that someone believed that God does not exist. It is synonymous with Naturalism or Materialism which are denials of the supernatural (only the natural or material exist). It was not understood as an absence of a belief, but as a belief.

Agnosticism by contrast was the recognition that we lack sufficient evidence for the non-existence of God or the supernatural, but that we also lacked sufficient evidence for God's existence as well. Therefore it is best to stay open minded, but assume non-existence until more evidence comes in.

However, lately I have seen very few true Atheists. Most who use the term now are technically Agnostics. Personally, I think this that Agnosticism is both rhetorically and logically a superior stance to Atheism (which is probably why it is now more popular). That said, I used the word 'technically' for a reason. Classically, Agnostics argued, "Since I can't know for sure, then I won't believe it." However, these modern day Atheist/Agnostic hybrids are saying, "Since we can't know for sure, then you shouldn't believe it." Thus they have the aggressiveness of the Atheist, but the epistemology of the Agnostic. This leads to some very special pleading. I plan on writing more about that later.

But why did this happen? I think it came about because of the public abuse of the word "Agnostic". Agnosticism (and Atheism for that matter) is not a non-stance. It is in fact an epistemology stance (one with many problems for that matter). This is to be compared with Atheism which is a cosmological stance. However, many began to use the word "Agnostic" for someone who is unsure what to believe or simply apathetic. That's not Agnosticism, but I believe this rampant abuse of the term has lead many to believe that it is unsalvageable. To be honest they may be right about that.

But this leaves us with this rather nebulous group who believe in the contradictory hybridization of Agnostic epistemology and aloofness with Atheist cosmology and passion.  Indeed, I would say that many of these are indeed Atheists, but use Agnostic epistemology as a rhetorical tool. But then there are others who seem to be legitimate Agnostics. As I said: nebulous.

To me, I just find this annoying. When ever you try to discuss anything with someone like this, they switch back and forth between the two positions as the need arises. I'm reminded of William Lane Craig's debate with the late Christopher Hitchens. Dr. Craig kept trying to pin down Hitchens's position, and Hitchens kept dodging, or he didn't fully grasp the distinction being made. What's more, it is just so silly. They clearly believe in something, but they pretend like they don't. I don't know if it is immaturity or rhetorical genius. Maybe a bit of both.

One Year

One year ago yesterday, my second son Justin was born. 10 days later on October 27th he died.* He is now buried in a family plot in my wife's hometown. We just came home today, and I am rather emotionally dead. Not tired, but I just am not feeling much right now.

That said, I've been thinking about the nature of pain and suffering in the life of a Christian. Many people have been impressed with how Esther and I have dealt with Justin's passing. Our story regarding Justin has encouraged and even helped many people who surround us. I don't think that this is why Justin died, for all death and tragedy is first and foremost tied to the fallen nature of the world, but I am happy that God has been able to use Justin's brief life for His glory, and for helping others.

I do not understand those who find solace in the notion that when bad things happen to them, that it was designed by God. Sure, knowing that something going on may have a good reason behind it may make me feel better when I don't get the job I want, or  maybe even if I get in a car crash. But when it comes to my newborn son dying? Not really. We have to remember that according to Scripture there are things which happen which God didn't want to have happen. The hope we have in Christ and security that we find in Christ are grounded both in the sense that He will help us in this life, but more in that in the end He wins.

In the end, I am comforted by knowing that I will see him again. He is OK. He might be disconnected from his body, but that is only temporary. That may not stop me from being sad, but I would probably be distraught without such assurance.

I remember an atheist who once commented that Christians don't really believe in what we say we do, because we are still sad when someone dies. Because, you know, no one cries when someone moves away. Not really the best example of reasoning. But I think it also underestimates the weight of empty arms. When you expect to be holding an infant, and there is no infant to hold, your arms... ache. It is not just about life vs. death, but the is vs. the ought. Sorrow, anger, etc... they come when the is and the ought don't line up. And though Justin is fine, it is still not the way things ought to be.

But one day, one day, the is will be the same as the ought, and on that day, we'll see Justin, and get to find out what his life has been like.


_______________________________________________________________
*Don't chide me about the math. It was 10 days.

REFLECTIONS ON FATHERHOODFirst Blood

Yesterday, my son mananged to stand up all on his own! This was very exciting... until he stopped mananging to stand. He fell very suddenly and his chin landed on his toy train. This put his tongue in the midst of an unexpected closing mouth. He ended up with two very deep puncture wounds on the top of his tongue, and two other puncture wounds on the bottom that we never got a good look at.

He's been clonked in the head a few times, has had his fingers pinched, and all sorts of minor injuries. However, this was the first time he has been injured so severly that it drew blood (and anyone who knows tongue injuries might guess, it was a lot of blood).

There are a lot of "first moments" when raising a child, and most of them are things you look forward to. You are also looking out for them: expecting them. This was not one we were expecting, yet it was inevitable. Needless to say, his crying was quite infectous.

In reading this, if you find me a bit glib, it is only because I deal with pain and suffering through humor. You generally know that I am taking a matter very seriously by how hard I work at finding a way to joke about it.

I guess what shocked me the most was how unprepared I was for this kind of thing: emotionally I mean. I mean, come on, he's a boy. He is going to bleed a lot. But despite the inevitablility of it, I really did not prepare myself for the day I would first see him bleed. I guess it is just typical of us to not expect the expected when it is unwanted.

I really have no ending to this post, since I am not really intending on going anywhere with this. I really just needed to get this off of my chest a bit. So instead of trying to force an ending here...

Why Respecting My Religon Is Disrespectful

There are a lot of words thrown around today in the political arena that simply don't mean what they used to mean; some are more obvious than others. However, the biggest area where this goes on is within the context of religion. Many have talked about how those who preach "tolerance" are often intolerant of those who disagree with them, but that is not the word that I talking about today. I'm talking about respect (insert Aretha Franklin joke here).

First a caveat: I do believe that we should respect other people's beliefs. Not all beliefs are worthy of respect, but most are. Besides, they are human beings, and they have reasons for what they believe. Often times we just have different starting places (or "bliks" as Roger Olson recently said). If you don't respect that they have a right to their opinions, and that there are reasons behind what they are saying, then you are not going to be able to have a serious conversation about truth with them, evangelisic or otherwise.

However, what many mean by respect isn't respect at all. Many times, I have gotten into conversations with someone, and they talk about what they believe, and I either assess what they said, or offer my own opinion on the subject. And then, they turn to me utter that great conversation stopper, "I respect that opinion."

However, they don't. They don't because they ended the conversation, and left it at that. By "respect that opinion" they mean "I am fine with you believing that but I'm not going to think about." That isn't respect. Respect isn't taking what I said, wrapping it up in a little box with a ribbon that says "respect" on it, and then putting it on a shelf to collect dust. Respect is taking what I said seriously.

I don't believe what I believe because it makes my life simpler, easier, or happier. Indeed, it doesn't always. I believe what I believe because I am convinced that it properly describes reality. If I am right, then that belief is as true for you as it is for me.

It seems to me that this "respect" and "tolerance" movement often allows people who don't really want to get involved with thinking about such things to hide their beliefs from criticism. People have taken personal possession of their beliefs: their own little creations that marks who they are, and shows how creative they are. Like those paintings that I made in high school that I still have for some reason, there is this self-gratifying nostalgia looking back at such creations.

However, also like those paintings from high school, many times they're crap! However, the difference is that I am aware that those paintings were crap, but many of these people expect to receive the same level of respect for such opinions as ancient beliefs that have had thousands of persons carefully meditate and consider the implications of for centuries. While being old or organized doesn't make something true, it certainly makes it more worthy of respect than a really cool idea someone came up with while eating pizza and playing Halo.

Respect needs to be earned, and if your idea really is brilliant (and it may be), then demonstrate it by allowing it to stand up against scrutiny. True respect is not only recognizing that someone has good reasons for believing what they believe, but that they could be right, and that therefore what they are saying is worthy of consideration. This is especially true if what they are saying has serious ramifications for your life (like the future of the country, or the eternal state of your soul). These are things to be taken seriously, and not "respected" like I respect that you like Elvis over the Beatles (which I don't understand, but I digress). It needs to be true respect. It needs to be a recognition that this is something worthy of my time.

Here is my advice to you: don't use respect, tolerance, or other political words to ignore important ideas. Really take the time to think things out, and hear what people say. Show people enough respect to take them, and their ideas, seriously. Then maybe, just maybe, we'll become a society of real dialog that has conversations of substance.

REFLECTIONS ON FATHERHOOD:I am not my father

This is my very first Father's day as a father, and I cannot help but feel distant from the title. Marty is now only 2 months old, so it is not like it I should be more used to it. However, when I think of myself as a father, I think of my own father, and how different we are.

Probably the strangest thought that I have had so far was thinking that I wasn't big enough. Yesterday I got up out of bed and heard Marty in the next room crying and I thought, "I'm his father. Wait, I can't be his father. I'm not tall enough" I would like to reiterate that I had just gotten out of bed. I immediately saw the foolishness in the thought and had a good chuckle at myself.

But I found that the root of it was memories of looking up at my Dad. I mean literally looking up at him. I think there is still this part of me that hasn't come to terms with being an adult yet. This whole father thing is really challenging that part of myself, something that I thought I had already put to bed years ago (Get it? Putting my inner child to bed? Eh... never mind). I have always been told that having a child matures you very quickly, and I think I am just beginning to see why.

The Bible and Code Words

A word that is often thrown around is the word "inerrant" when referring to Scripture. Often people ask "Do you believe that the Bible is inerrant?" At first glance this seems like a rather easy question, but it isn't always.

The problem is that the word has a history, and some people define it based off of that history, while others define it based off of how the word breaks down (and some define it both ways). When you break down the word, it simply means "without error or mistake". Well, I can easily say that the biblical authors and the Spirit who inspired those authors didn't make any mistakes. However, I don't like the term inerrant, and my reason is its history: what the term tends to mean by those who have used it in the past few decades.

The word came into usage because of certain debates which happened over the nature of the Bible within the 19th and 20th centuries. To make a long story short, part of the debate wasn't just whether or not the Scriptures have errors, but what actually constitutes an error. The term inerrant itself came to be identified with the camp that considered an error to anything which contradicted a perfectly literal understanding of the text.

Thus there are two kinds of people that tend to reject the term inerrancy: the liberal who rejects the reliability of Scripture, and the serious exegete who recognizes that the Scriptures are not modern texts and need to be understood within their own contexts first.

So what ends up happening is that in many places the word 'inerrant' becomes a codeword, and there are many who redefine it so that they can be in the the in-crowd. Can I affirm a document that uses the term 'inerrant'? Sure. I don't believe Scripture has errors. But I would never use that word to describe my belief by choice, and what many forget is that it is the idea that matters, not the word itself.

A Certain Post

Here is a post by Dr. Roger Olson on the topic of certainty. I found the post personally very beneficial since much of it articulated some of the problems I have run into in regards to my conversations with others.

Dr. Olson defines himself as a fallibilist, which he defines as someone who believes that all humans (other than Christ and infallibly inspired biblical authors) are fallible in their perspectives. Because I don't have a better term, I would say that I would therefore also be a fallibilist. One of my sayings is "I am always wrong about something, I just don't know what that something is."

Now, I think most people would accept the idea that everyone is fallible as an axiom, but I think very few people (or at least dramatically fewer people) would have this as their epistemology (epistemology is one's belief on how humans understand things). Practically speaking, most people are extremely confident in their beliefs, and hold them as if they are absolute facts.

I don't do that. For me, almost everything I believe is theory. There are very few things that I accept as definitely true, but a whole bunch that I treat as probably true. It is actually making decisions in light that you are possibly wrong that truly makes you a fallibilist.

REFLECTIONS ON FATHERHOOD:Sick and Fussy

No new parent likes the idea of their newborn child being sick. My son is 2 weeks old and sick. It sucks.

He has been keeping me up tonight because he is just not able to calm down. It is like he isn't comfortable in his own skin. Finally, I swaddled him up, and he has been fine since then (swaddling= permanent blanket hug).

At this point he isn't very aware of who I am (I don't entirely know if he knows what I am, or if I am a thing or just an image he sees occasionally). He does seem somewhat unaware of me sometimes, especially when he is suffering somehow (like being hungry). He gets so caught up in what he wants/needs that he becomes oblivious to how hard I am trying to help him.

This made me think about bit about God. A lot of times we have to deal with some troubling times: trials and suffering. God often feels distant at these times. The old theologians called it "The Dark Night of the Soul". David sings of it quite often. I remember often being told that God is there for me during those times, and having trouble believing it. I believe it anyway, but it just takes effort.

Now I kind of know the other side of that. Here I am, desperately trying to help my son, and he isn't very aware of me at all. His suffering blinds him to my presence as his discomfort overloads his nervous system. I cannot tell you how frustrating it is to want to stop him from suffering, but just knowing that this is something he just simply has to work through. So I'm just there for him, holding him. Sometimes, that's all God is doing to: holding us as we go through those things that we just have to go through.

Weighing in a bit on politics

I don't usually blog about politics because I don't consider myself very knowledgable on the subject. I am principly a theologian, and my understanding of politics is more theorhetical than practical.

However, I have found some of the discussion surrounding President Barak Obama lately interesting. President Obama, in my opinion, is someone who doesn't seem to understand that people disagree with him. He seems to view any detractor as a fringe subversive, rather than as a respected opponent. This has caused him to act in rather uncooth ways in regards to how he pushes his agenda.

Two recent events I think have really clarified this. First of all, there is the entire affair regarding the Honorable Judge Vinson. Vinson declares Obama's healthcare to be unconstitutional, yet Obama continued to enforce it. Techiniquely, as I understand it, the bill is in limbo until it is heard by the Supreme Court. Thus Obama has no actual authority to enforce anything, yet he still attempted to.

A second thing is the recent attack on DOMA, which I think it his attempt to say "Look I really am for the constitution" in a way that still is consistant with his overall agenda. However, ironically, DOMA doesn't really go against the constitution at all. It merely says that the federal government isn't allowed to use the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution to get around state decisions on gay marriage. There are really only two sections to DOMA, considering the section 1 is just naming the thing: Article 2 which is making something official which was already true; that no state is under the obligation to hold up another states law if it contradicts its only public policy. Article 3, which is a bit more contraversial, is defining the terms marriage and spouse only in regards to how they are used within federal documents and agencies (a fact that seems to be routinely ignored). So I don't really see how this is supporting the Constitution.

I have always heald that I don't particularly care about gay marriage: I only care that it remains under the juridiction of the states to decide policy on the matter. I still stand by that, and it seems to me that Obama is trying to get around that. He seems to continuely undermine state authority. I don't like the consolidation of federal power, and it has increasely come to my attention that this is precisely what the current president's agenda is.

A Divine Moment

What kind of faith is Christianity? Is it experiential? Many of thought so. Is it intellectual? Again, many have considered it so. The answer is of course neither and both. Christianity is primarily relational. We understand God in how we relate to Him, and the church is functional only in terms of is communal unity.

Relationships have their experiential nature. I'm writing this today because this evening I had one of those truly defining experiential moments. I've had others, but I thought this one was worth sharing, especially considering how theological it was.

I've been reading a book called Truth Is Stranger Than It Used To Be (which I highly recommend) and in it, it was discussing the necessary aspect of complaint in Christian worship. This is something that I've felt strongly about for some time, but this sparked me to think about it with some depth. I pondered (remember, this is meant to be as close to my train of thought as possible with words):

God is God. Because of this, He is the Lord and Master of all of the cosmos and over all of creation. As such, we have no right to come before Him and complain to Him about how He is doing things.

However, because we are now in covenantal relationship with Him, which was cut through Christ, we now have an invitation to go before the throne and complain. Indeed, God requests that He does, and it is important that we do so honestly. David was honest before God; Job was honest before God; We should be honest before God, and should not hold back in case we offend His majesty.

Marriage is a covenant. When I am upset with my wife, I tell her my feelings. I am open before her, and tell her precisely what bothers me about what she did and how it affects me. I do so because I trust her not to throw it back in my face, and because ultimately my desire is reconciliation with her. This can only happen is I openly and honestly express my perspective and reaction to what she has done. With that comes correction and restitution.

With God, to not be honest and to hold back is not to trust His response, and to prefer obedience to proper relationship. Being open doesn't mean that you believe that what you are saying is correct, but that you recognize that this is the perspective that you have, and it needs to be dealt with, and that the only way to deal with it is to go to the source, submit it, and trust that He will value your honesty and reconcile with you. It is a supreme trust.

And how good of a God He is that He is faithful to that trust! That if we come to him complaining, He'll listen and come and reconcile. He may speak from a whirlwind, or He may speak in a still small voice, but He'll come.

God loves me. He really loves me. That love is not simply an emotion, but it motivates action. He pursues me. Yes He reigns, but He really cares about me.

God, You're love is real, and true...

At this point, my thoughts really stopped being words. It was more a group of concepts sort of ramming into each, and interacting with each other: blending and merging, sort of like a conceptual kaleidoscope. I had a similar experience once contemplating the Trinity. It is like the ideas almost become pure, leaving their verbal symbols. It sounds chaotic, but when this happens my thinking is actually clearer.

The first time this conceptual kaleidoscope happened the concept of the Trinity was simply made plain to me. In this case, God's love was just before me. I could see it; feel it. All of it's parts and depths were there. It began to feel like God was holding me in His arms: not in a literal way, but definitely in a tangible way. I don't think I can describe it better than that. It was just me and Dad: and it was good. VERY GOOD. I would've been content to just stay there if Esther didn't tell me that it was dinnertime (she actually could tell something was happening with me).

I don't know if I can say much more than this. It was what it was, and I will hold it in my heart. I pray that you all may have a similar experience.

Why do we swear?

Why do we swear? Why use profanity? My sister recommended a show called Dead Like Me, and after watching an episode of it, I was thinking about the rather liberal use of profanity in the show. I started to wonder, "Why does a show with this level of material feel the need to saturate the scripts with profanity? What's the point?"

There is belief in our culture (maybe it's across humanity; I don't know, I only live in my culture) that the dirty, profane and ugly are more real than the clean, polite and beautiful. Why is that? I mean, that's why shows like this use profanity. That's why a movie with such deep philosophical and sociological thoughts like Good Will Hunting uses profanity. They think it will make it more real. It is odd to me that Comedy Central requires their comedians to be dirty to stay around when just a little over 50 years ago two guys named Bud and Lou inspired the nation just through cleaning up other people's material. Does dirty really sell? Does sex really inspire? Is the ugly really more real than the beautiful? These are thoughts I was thinking today.

Why do we think its more real? Why do rich kids try to experience real life by dressing like hoodlums? Why does politeness seem fake?

After giving it some thought, I've come to the conclusion that this belief is a complete lie. Clean isn't more real than dirty; it just takes work to maintain... Ah! There's the source of the matter!

When something is clean, we know that someone must of cleaned it. When someone's polite, we know it took effort. When something's beautiful, we know that it had been made that way. We instinctively understand entropy, and know that if something has an order, purpose, and beauty to it, it took work to make it so.

Thus our culture has reached some kind of ontologically apathy! We think that the truest sense of a thing is what it is when left unattended, as if rotten grapes are more grape-like than preservatives. But this isn't the case. Our truest selves are what we were designed to be: something that has to be shaped, formed, reconfigured. When left unattended, you and I are completely depraved: vile, selfish, conniving little monsters. But our TRUEST self is what we become through the powerful hands of the potter. What He intended us to be and what He shapes us to be: how He remakes us!

Politeness, cleanness, and beauty: these are not facades that we hide the truth behind (well they can be, but not necessarily). The true point of these things is the same as salt: it brings out the natural flavor of the thing, to accentuate its true self. It's the polish, not the paint.

Ironically, so much of our culture has begun to do the opposite. Comedians hide their lack of creativity behind shock jokes; people swear in stories to hide their pain and sound strong; movies and TVs shows simulate reality by filling the gaps in their scripts with profanity. Profanity doesn't show reality, only laziness.

There was a day when we looked at role models to inspire ourselves to be something more than we currently are. Now we trash our role models to feel better about ourselves. Dead Like Me, for example, is part of a greater media tendency to 'mundanize' the fantastic (consider Shrek, Incredibles, or Dogma). We take something which belongs in fantasy and imagination, and make it somewhat ordinary. It seems to be some sociological need for us to prove and secure that great proverb we all learned when we were young: "Everybody Poops". Gandi is so much easier to relate to when you know he had to use the rest room.

However, what happens when we make all our fantasies realistic, and our role models regular? Simple: we make our imaginations impotent and become consumed by apathy.

And so we trudge along, with the promise that everything else is just as bad as us, and there's no hope to being perfect, and there's gate to goodness, so we should just settle for life as it is, and learn to deal with it. Let us be like Theo Huxtable and aspire to be average.

No. No, I think there is something better. I think there is a better way. There is a person we can aspire to be like. He was good, He was beautiful, He was clean, and He still is. Being polite isn't hiding our failures, but rubbing them out, so that we can be more Christ like, and please the one who made us and saved us.

I don't mind being apathetic about the world. It is not my world! I'm just a soujourner. But let us never be apathetic about God or ourselves, for our goodness rests in His hands, not our own. He will clean us, and make us into what we truly are, and that we be something beautiful.

And something real.

What is Classical Arminianism?

I'm frustrated with a conversation that I've been having about someone who claims to hold a position between Arminianism and Calvinism. Though I've already said that I don't think it's possible, I don't particularly care if someone does hold such a position, or if they think they do. That's fine. My issue is that all this person has been doing is giving me links to sites that inaccurately describe Arminianism to make his point.

Let me explain a few things real quick about what Arminianism is:

1. Arminianism is not the opposite of Calvinism: Do not just list the five points of Calvinism and then describe Arminianism as the opposite of each one of these. Arminianism holds Total Depravity, is tolerant of Preservation of the Saints (though most reject it) and believes in the necessity of God's grace.
2. The central tenant of Arminianism is prevenient grace: not free will! We don't even believe in free will as most define it. We don't hold that each person is born with a free will, and has the power to effect their destiny. We hold that each person is incapable of coming to God on their own and it is only through the prevenient grace of God that our will are freed to turn to God.
   
3. Arminianism is a grace-based theology: Salvation is from the beginning to the end a work of grace by God alone. The only part that we have to play is only possible because of God's grace, and that part is a passive action, rather an effectual one. Faith is all that we do, and faith is trusting in the work of Christ to save us rather than doing it on our own.
4. Arminianism is not a system: So often Calvinism and Arminianism are projected as two opposing systems, but neither Arminius nor Wesley ever wrote a systematic theology. Arminianism is a pastoral theological bent: it is a collection of various positions that hold certain perspectives about grace. However, every aspect of Arminian theology has radically different viewpoints on it represented under the label.
5. Arminianism is a historically Reformed movement: The Reformation was not based around TULIP, but was based on the centrality of Scripture and the high view of God's role in salvation. Despite recent historical revisionists, Jacob Arminius worked and wrote within the Reformed tradition, and Calvinism was never the central view within Protestantism. It merely had a lot of scholastic power due to Geneva.
   
6. Arminianism is most properly defined historically: Anyone can claim what a position is. I can claim that Calvinism believe that the Calvin and Hobbes comic books represent a fifth gospel, and if its said often enough, people will believe it. The only objective way to define what Arminianism is, is to evaluate the historical standards: Jacob Arminius, the Remonstrants, and the Wesley brothers. If you are not basing your definition on them, then you don't know what you are talking about.
   

I'm sorry that I don't have any links. This was more of a rant to get this off my chest. But please, do not reject Arminianism because it is an "ism" or because of what opponents claim it to be. To do so is unfair, and immoral.

More Thoughts on Lyrics

[This post is basically some thoughts that I took out of my last one because they didn't really fit with what was being said. However, I still think they are worth saying, so here is me rambling about lyrics:]

To this day, I primarily judge a song by two qualities: intent and lyrics. Intent simply means: what is the author trying to accomplish through the song? What is he/she trying to say? How well is this achieved?

I also judge it by the content of the lyrics. This does not mean that I think deep is better than shallow. I rather enjoy some shallow songs. But the depth of the song should be reflective of the intent of the song.

For instance, praise choruses are not for the purpose of teaching doctrine or thoughtful reflection. They are emotional or experiential inducers. One may also say mood setters. They shape one's mood or emotional state to induce a particular attitude towards God. Now I am not saying that all one feels while musically worshiping God is a product of the music. I believe that a real encounter with God can and usually takes place. But the purpose of the music is as a tool to allow one to approach God in a particular way to better enable that encounter.

As such, lyrical simplicity is better, since difficult lyrics require attention. Since the purpose is to focus on God, focusing on the lyrics is a counter-productive.

Still, that doesn't mean the lyrics are to be ignored. The lyrics still act as a guide to shaping one's attitude towards God. Thus the lyrics should still be critiqued. For instance, should I be singing about dancing as I just stand here? Is this statement actually accurate?

Lyrical analysis is more important, of course, in music which is designed for didactic, instructional or reflective purposes. This is true of hymns, but is also true of most alternative Christian music (by this, I mean Christian music which is based on secular forms), as well as much of secular music.

Lyrical analysis is also quite important with secular music. I dislike it when people say that we shouldn't listen to secular music at all. We are supposed to reach the people around us. The most important thing to reaching a people is to understand that people. The primary way to understand a people is to engage with their information media. Throughout history, this has mostly been through literature and song, though it has greatly expanded today. By scorning popular media (especially the simple form of music), we are rejecting the most effective tools in reaching the people around us.

However, I do agree that what you take in when engaging with media affects you far more than you are often aware. Therefore, discernment is needed. In music, on what basis can we discern the goodness of a song? The lyrics.

Tract Evangelism at the Gas Station

On my way home from work, I stopped by the gas station because my car was quite hungry. As I was pumping the gas, I noticed a folded-up piece of paper stuck into a grove in the pump. On it I could partly make out the title. I could catch, "The Ultimate... Eternal".

Then I thought to myself, "Self, you know what this could mean."

To which myself replied, "Hmmm... it appears to be tract evangelism, though this seems to me more of a flier."

"Indeed. Unfortunately, I feel rather skeptical about this kind of technique."

"Well, with some of the ridiculous tracts out there, why wouldn't you? Especially when they are left as a tip in a restaurant! However, there is nothing unethical about leaving it here. As long as the content is OK, then you should leave it alone."

I replied, "That's good thinking self, though that would require an examination of said content. Hmmmm... "

These are the kinds of conversations I have with myself. We have a great deal of respect for one another. Upon the conclusion of these thoughts, I proceeded to pick up the flier.

The title in fact read:

The Ultimate Question
Eternal Life - Is It Real?

I was not shocked to find the flier to answer this in the affirmative. Indeed, I expect that few would be. I then proceeded to skim the flier for any mention of works, Hell, reprobate, salvation, committment, relationship, or any other key words that would tell me the theology behind the flyer. I quickly found "living by God's standard's" which worried me, but shortly there after I found "Do you know the 10 Commandments?" Ah, Ray Comfort, we meet again!

After skimming a bit more to confirm that this was the Ray Comfort method (which ended up including a colorful presentation of the 10 Commandments on the back in KJV) also known as the Way of the Master, I then gave the flier a C (just passing), returned it to its position, got into my car, and drove off.

Reflection

I am indeed one of those Christians that believes that evangelism is a moral prerogative of the Christian faith. I believe this is quite evident in Scripture. However, I recognize that it is not always wise to evangelize simply for the sake of doing it. I believe doing the right thing the wrong way is always the wrong thing to do.

One thing that really annoys me sometimes is tract evangelism. Leaving a simple document for an unbeliever to find isn't really wrong mind you. It allows you reach people you never meet. This has some obvious benefits.

However, for many, it is merely laziness. It is a way of saying that you have evangelized without the messy business of meeting people, or being isolated at school. Evangelism without risk isn't really evangelism. It is especially bad if you give a tract to someone who you know! And the worst, is the tip technique mentioned above, which is also an excuse to be cheap. (Now leaving a tract with a 50% tip: that's evangelism!)

It is also not very effective. Most people will not notice the tract. Out of the few who do, most of them will ignore it, or even throw it out. Additionally, written text is less persuasive then spoken word. One reason is spoken word has far more nuance. Additionally, in a conversation, one has the ability to qualify a misunderstood statement.

Then there are the actual content. Some of the tracts that people actually think would be affective is absolutely astounding! There is one brand, which I won't mention here, that really annoys me since it often insults the person it is supposed to be reaching.

Evangelism isn't just about "getting the message out there" or something like that. It is about changing someone's life. It is about actually convincing them. The rhetorical incompetence that I find in most "evangelists" that I meet is staggering. This is because they are not concerned about changing someone's heart, but in acting out there inner desire to be important. It frustrates me.

OK, done ranting.

Submitting to Authorities

This is not going to be a well thought out post. Indeed, most that I write in this time period in my life won't be. I don't really have the time to organize when I write right now. Still, there have been some things circling in my mind in relation to authority.

In the 1970s and 1980s, there was a movement known as the "Shepherding Movement" of the "Discipleship Movement" that affected many charismatic churches. Because I currently reside within charismatic circles, I am dealing with the aftermath of this movement. I don't really know much about the movement myself (I knew no one who was a part of it while it was still going on), but I notice that many around me place a strong emphasis on authority in their teachings.

Considering that we live in a rebellious culture, indeed a rebellious nation, it is difficult to assess the validity of my resistance to this tendency. I recognize that many in our culture use the concept of freedom is a means of licentiousness, and part of the Christian life is moral living.

Personally though, I have no real problem with the concept of authority itself, because I don't trust myself that much. I want to be ordained under a denomination to protect myself from myself. The issue is when it comes to doctrine.

Submitting to Teaching

I believe that it is much easier to submit to someone else's wisdom than it is to submit to someone else's teaching, at least for me. I can say that I trust this person's wisdom more than my own, because they are living a more successful life than I am. But what do I do if someone is teaching something I don't agree with.

If I'm merely a member in the congregation this is easy. I disagree. If they make it a point of membership, then I leave. Simple. But what if I am a teacher? If I am a teacher, than I must teach it, or at least not disagree with it. I now have a measure of authority myself, and if I disagree with the church on a doctrine, and I undermining what the church is saying.

Quite frankly, I already have this problem. When I speak on doctrinal matters, most people tend to listen and believe. It is part of my gifts. Besides, I do know a bit about that stuff. So I watch what I say.

But it is not like I can simply believe something that I don't believe. As Martin Luther can tell you, that's not really possible: "Unless I shall be convinced by the testimonies of the Scriptures or by clear reason ... I neither can nor will make any retraction, since it is neither safe nor honourable to act against conscience." Can I just shut my brain off and accept? Not really.

Assemblies of God

A big reason for dealing with this is because I am planning on being ordained. Part of being ordained is that I must adhere to the "16 Fundamental Truths". Personally, I don't like the name because of my disdain for Fundamentalism, but that's not the point of it. They are essentially the working doctrinal creed of AG, and I have no issue with that. They are as follows:

1. The Infallibility of Scripture
2. Monotheism
3. Deity of Christ
4. Human Depravity
5. Salvation by Faith
6. Credobaptism/ Zwinglianism
7. Baptism of the Holy Spirit
8. Speaking in Tongues as the Initial Evidence of Baptism in the Holy Spirit
9. Sanctification
10. Classic Protestant Ecclesiology
11. Ordination
12. Divine Healing
13. Eventual Resurrection for all believers
14. Millennial Reign of Christ
15. Final Judgment: Eternal Life or Hell
16. A New Heavens and a New Earth

Now I don't really have a problem with most of these. I'm not strictly a premillennialist, but I have not objection to it, and there are a few things that I disagree with a some finer points, but agree with the basic concept. On really good on those ideas.

Then there's number 8. Now, I do believe that there is such a thing a speaking in tongues. If you disagree, I would be happy to explain to you why. But the idea that it is thee initial evidence of being baptized in the Spirit is another matter.

Some qualification is in order real quick. In the Assemblies of God, Baptism of the Holy Spirit is not seen to happen at salvation. It is an event which occurs after salvation (maybe moments, maybe years) where the Holy Spirit anoints you with power to enable you to do the ministry of the Church. Associated with this is the presence of the miraculous. But this is not the same thing as salvation. It is a separate event. Assemblies does not teach that you need to speak in tongues to be saved.

What it does teach if that if you do not speak in tongues then you were not baptized by the Spirit. Now I just don't believe that.

My pastor says that they believe that speaking in tongues is the initial evidence because there is always a sign that one is baptized. With regular baptism, it is being wet. In spirit baptism it is speaking in tongues.

But that doesn't make sense. When you are baptized in water, the sign is that you have water on you! Thus, if you are baptized in the Spirit, the sign is that you have the Spirit on you. And what is the evidence of the Spirit? Well, first of all love. Additionally, there should be joy. And one would probably also expect peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Isn't that the evidence of the Spirit? Shouldn't those manifesting be the "initial sign"?

My experience also goes against this. There was a moment when I felt the Spirit overwhelm me, and I was filled with an impulse to do the will of God. And I possessed by the heart of the Lord. There is no other name I can call that experience than baptism, since I felt my self "immersed" in the Spirit. Yet I did not speak in tongues. 3 years later, I first spoke in tongues, and I barely felt the Spirit at all. Yet, according to my pastor, it was the 2nd of these two experiences that was the Baptism. That is completely illogical to me.

Viewing the history of the Pentecostal/charismatic movement in Gary McGee's book People of the Spirit, history doesn't really agree either. Minnie F. Abrams and Pandita Ramabai, who had powerful manifestations of the Spirit, moved in the Spirit long before they had any instances of speaking in tongues. Besides, there is no place in the Bible that insists on this either. All that is there is that speaking in tongues was a common manifestation of the Spirit in the book of Acts.

So, Dealing with my Disagreement

So, since I really disagree with Assemblies on this, how do I approach it? Do I merely consider myself wrong? Do I start to search elsewhere? Neither of these sits well with me. The first, as Martin Luther pointed out, is neither honorable or safe.
The latter is impractical. As a theologian, I will always find things that I disagree about.

There do exist some things that I am willing to part company on, like the Trinity, baptism, and certain soteriological ideas. However, I don't really care enough on this issue to do that. At the same time, I can't just simply accept it either.

Instead, I intend to employ a lesson that I learned from Star Trek: never disagree with the captain in front of the crew. When ever Riker disagreed with Picard, he followed through with the order anyway, but felt free to have some choice (though respectful) words with the captain in the ready room. This is what I intend to do. I am perfectly willing to teach this as official AG teaching, but in the meantime, write lots and lots of letters to those above me on the subject of changing it.

Now I ask anyone out there whether or not you think this is a reasonable course of action. What do you think?

Interesting past couple months

Man am I tired. I have been very busy the past month or so, and it doesn't look like it'll be easing up anytime soon. I'm getting a lot more hours at work, which is a great thing, but I also have to work earlier than I used to. This also means that I can't stay up as late as I used to either, which is when I've gotten most of my blogging done.

So, I have been quiet a while. Esther and I have also been painting our apartment. So far it looks good, but we still have a lot to go.

All in all, I'm sorry I haven't been very active. Quite frankly, its taking all my blogging time just to read what everyone else is writing. I have a couple of posts have written, and a few others planned. I just hope I get to them soon before I loose my focus on them.

Embarrassing Love

"You just don’t get folk shouting “Glory glory!” or “XXX has saved my life” about baseball, sex, sailing, food, atheism or any other fad, sect or religion in the sustained and sincere way you have it in the Church. "

Find this quote and many other beautiful expressions of the Christian faith on this post: Yeah, Christians do some unexplainable things. I think it is important to celebrate the unique aspects of Christian faith.

I recently watched a debate between Alister McGrath and Richard Dawkins. Dawkins comments to McGrath about traveling the world, and talking to various theists, and says that deciding to be a Christian gives McGrath some very strange bedfellows. McGrath points out that one has strange bedfellows if one is committed to any ideology, regardless of whether it is theist or not. (Apparrently Dawkins believes it is wrong to connect Atheism to Marxism which is grounded on Atheism, but thinks its fine to lump Christianity and Radical Islam together. Can we say hypocritical?)

One of the great things about Christianity is, unlike atheism, we really can account for those of us that are a little... off. Atheists believe that they believe what they believe because they are "logical". To some degree, an illogical atheist, to them, is oxymoronic. So when they encounter one, because there are lots, they become confused.

However, Jesus died to save sinners. The defining attribute of Christianity is love and mercy, and though I can say with assurance that any body which lacks this quality is not Christian, when it comes to those who lack it in my own church, I see them with mercy, and reach out to them with a love that strives to them improve. We are provided a context of imperfection, and the doctrine of sanctification that claims that God is still working on us.

So though there are Christians who embarrass me because of their behavior, I do know what to do with them. I love them. Let us stand in unity, and seek to improve the church, not perfect. Perfection is divine work. Let's leave it in His hands.