The Leftist Jihad

If you haven't heard it, you haven't been involved in politics for very long:

"Jesus was a socialist!"

There's a remarkable, ironic incongruity evident when those who desperately cry against a statue of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse in the same breath plead for their agenda because "that's what Jesus would want."

Yet perhaps the irony fades when seen in the light of two crucial truths; first, that the Jesus of their socialistic gospel is not the Jesus revealed in the pages of Scripture, but is an idol fashioned in the image of Marx; second, that the separation of Church and State is as impossible as the separation of soul and body.

There is perhaps no idea so important, so relevant, as this one is to the political climate of today.  In a culture of bubble-wrapped, emasculated, truthless "tolerance," the political realm can acknowledge no god but Caesar.  Yet this is precisely the dilemma which faces the supposedly irreligious politicos:

They will always acknowledge a god.

The question is not whether religion will be allowed in the realm of politics, but which religion.

Will it be Islam, with its brutal and tyrannical but self-consistent sharia?  Humanism, with its arbitrary, self-contradictory, thoroughly lost and ultimately despotic platitudes?  Christianity, with its loving, perfect, liberating laws?  Or simply government as god, state as savior, the empty promise of redemption through men tainted by the very thing from which redemption is sought- sin?

It is time for the great facade of secular neutrality to be torn down.

This is the real reason why all evidences of true Christianity must be stripped away from America's schools and courtrooms; not because religion cannot be allowed into the state, but because the Christian religion contradicts the religion of the state.

How can "thou shalt not steal" be displayed in a courtroom which endorses theft?  How can "thou shalt not kill" be displayed in a school that provides abortifacients?  How can "thou shalt not commit adultery" be displayed in a town hall which condones homosexuality?

Those remnants of Christian doctrine are heresy in the eyes of the priests and priestesses of this new religion, a religion with a new "Jesus," a new "Bible," and a new god.

The intolerance of the left only makes sense when it is understood for what it truly is; not the confused and arbitrary condemnation of religion by those who desire to preserve political purity, but rather a modern sort of inquisition, a jihad, a crusade against the one religion which the monolithic magisterium of socialism cannot withstand:

Biblical Christianity.

The Church of Marx cannot tolerate the Church of Christ, yet the Church of Marx needs a way to control a population which overwhelmingly claims to be part of the Church of Christ.  Herein lies the sinister genius of the "new Jesus."

The left has at once hidden itself behind a facade of religious neutrality while subtly substituting the true tenets of Christianity with their new gospel; a gospel of redemption through social justice rather than the bloody Cross of Jesus Christ.

Once this substitution has been made, the rest is easy.  In Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand sums the idea up nicely:

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them... just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted--and you create a nation of law-breakers--and then you cash in on guilt." 

And so the left has done, both in the literal world of laws and prisons and in the realm of ideas- and it is the ideological prison which has chained America.  By poisoning the well of Truth which is Christianity, by perverting the tenets of Scripture, the left has rendered American Christendom largely confused and politically impotent; instead of standing firm on the truth of Scripture, the Church in America weakly flings conservative platitudes against liberal ones, always a little less wrong than the Marxist, but rarely any more right.

The godless left is just as religious as the Christian right, but the former has convinced the latter that their religion has no place in the political sphere.

The people of God in America have been disarmed of their Sword; worse, they have flung It down and joined their enemies in ridiculing It.  It is not ultimately Marx's fault that America has let go of the legacy of Christian liberty left her by her forefathers; the blame falls squarely at the feet of an unfaithful Church.

It is time for the Church to awake again; to repent, to return, to reform, to again, as the prophets of old, proclaim the real and living Jesus, and decry the new gospel of the Church of Marx for the lie that it is.

Until this is undone, no serious progress towards liberty in this nation can be accomplished.  Jesus said "Whoever is not with Me is against Me."  America needs to remember this.  Any entity which claims to be irreligious is by necessity anti-Christian; any entity which claims to be Christian must by definition submit to the Word of God.

So let the Christian right first remember that the Marxists are just as devout, just as puritanical, just as desperately clinging to their religion as the Christians are.

Then, she must remind the eager evangelist of the Marxian mysteries that in the same Bible which he quotes so glibly it is written: "thou shalt not steal."

Which means that Jesus definitely wasn't a socialist.

What a Mud Run Taught Me About Marriage

Today my Dad and I participated in our first-ever mud run.  

Was it fun?  Very.  Was it muddy?

'Nuf said.

On the way there, I reviewed Ephesians 5:25-33 (I just started using this awesome Scripture memorization method), of which I'm going to post only the portion relevant to this article:

"So husbands ought also to love their wives as their own bodies.  He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the Church, because we are members of His body.  For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh."

It wasn't until later on today that this verse really hit me.

A few days back, I went for a run in a different pair of shoes than I was accustomed to.  Probably not the best idea a few days before a race, but I did it anyway.  Sure enough, I earned myself a few colossal blisters.  They were pretty impressive, and they weren't entirely gone by race day.  Of course, I ran anyway, and, of course, the sandpapery effects of gritty mud seeping into my shoes and socks weren't exactly the most soothing balm imaginable for my poor feet.

Naturally, when I got home from the race I cleaned myself up- including my recently-blistered feet, which warranted extra attention.  Now, if I were to go into the details of what that entailed, to lots of you it would probably seem- well, gross.

But was it gross to me?  Even if it was, did I really care?  No.  And why?  Because my feet are part of my body.  I need them.  I'm attached to them (in more ways than one).  In a very real sense, I cherish my feet.  They are precious to me.  My life would be radically changed if I lost my feet; how much worse if I did so because of my own neglect to care for them.

So the unpleasant and painful tasks of cutting and peeling away dead skin, washing out dirt- these things were natural and easy for me to do because I knew that they needed to be done.  I knew that my body would benefit from them.  I care about my feet!

Was I, the whole time, begrudging my feet for the care that I was giving them?  Was I grumbling about how gross the task was?  Was I bemoaning what a wretched man that I was having been given feet in the first place?  Did I think that, maybe, I would be better off if I just chopped my feet off and didn't have to put up with them anymore?

Of course not.  That would be ridiculous.

But how often do we see this very thing done by husbands to their wives?

What is more ridiculous?  To cut off a pair of feet, or to tear apart a human soul?

Will I look at my wife as an accessory to my life, to be treasured when I feel like it and discarded when no longer interesting?

Or will I see her as an integral part of myself, who I can toss aside as easily as I can toss aside my arms and legs?

When she needs to be washed in the water of the Word, will I see it as a gross task?

Will I clean her heart like I would clean a toilet?

Or will I clean her heart like I would clean a wound in my own body?

Will I say, "Oh God, if only I didn't have this woman to put up with"?

Or will I say, "Oh God, thank you for this woman; what a blessing she is; how much less of a man would I be without her!  Please help me to address this issue in a way that will bring healing and sanctification to her heart quickly and gently!"?

Will I see her like I see my own body- as a blessing, an amazing gift from God, something which allows me to do so much more than I could without it, which needs to always be treated well and sometimes given extra care and attention- and even that is a joy?

Or will I see her like I see my lawnmower- something which I have to fix when it's broken and which is rarely of any use?

When was the last time you seriously considered amputation as an option when you had an injury?  Yet how often and how easily is divorce seen as a valid option?

Why does it seem so ridiculous to cut off an irritating foot, but not ridiculous at all to get rid of an irritating wife?  Where is the disconnect in our thinking?

When we think about our body, we assume the necessity of every part.  We wouldn't want to part with any limb.  Problems with our bodies aren't seen as something to blame the body for, but rather something to help the body out of.  We know that we need our bodies; we appreciate them; we can't live without them; they are integral to our being.  It's the disease or the injury that is the enemy- never our body.  We assume that our body is a good thing going through difficult trials.

But when it comes to our spouse, do we do the same?  Do we assume that she is precious, a good gift of God, a treasure, our right hand, our best friend and constant companion, the crown of our strength, the multiplication of our abilities?  Or does she become the enemy, instead of the sins which she is dealing with?

It breaks my heart to see so many divorces happening even within the circles of people whom I know and love.  I hope and pray that God will help us men to truly understand what this verse means, and to truly nourish and cherish our wives as our own bodies; to realize that she's not something we're stuck with, but someone we're blessed with.  Oh God, please change our perspective of marriage from one of coexistence to one of camaraderie; from one of survival to one of victory; from one of endurance to one of exhilaration!

Oh God, if the time comes where I shall take on the title of husband, please help me to rejoice in the wife of my youth!  Oh that this joy and exuberance and oneness and friendship would characterize the marriages in the Body of Christ, just as it characterizes the marriage between Christ and His Body!

Indeed, may that joy and exuberance characterize us all, always, and in all of our relationships!  For even those of us who aren't married yet can be practicing many of the same things with those whom God has given us already.

I shall conclude with a retelling (and it's fictional; I'm not married yet!) of our original story with a little twist:

A few years ago, my wife and I got married.  Over time, as we ran the race of life, we collected our share of dirt and grime in our souls, so sometimes when we would rest during the race I would clean myself up and also focus on addressing things that I saw in my wife which might warrant extra attention.  Now, if I were to go into the details of what that entailed, to lots of you it would probably seem- well, pretty taxing.

But was it taxing to me?  Even if it was, did I really care?  No.  And why?  Because my wife is part of my being.  I need her.  I'm attached to her (in more ways than one).  In a very real sense, I cherish my wife.  She is precious to me.  My life would be radically changed if I lost my wife; how much worse if I did so because of my own neglect to care for her!

So the unpleasant and painful tasks of cutting and peeling away godless worldviews, washing out sin by the water of the Word- these things were natural and easy for me to do because I knew that they needed to be done.  I knew that my very flesh would benefit from them.  I care about my wife!

Was I, the whole time, begrudging my bride for the care that I was giving her?  Was I grumbling about how exhausting the task was?  Was I bemoaning what a wretched man that I was having been given a wife in the first place?  Did I think that, maybe, I would be better off if I just divorced my wife and didn't have to put up with her anymore?

Of course not.  

That would be ridiculous.

REVIEW: The Bourne Legacy

There was never just one.  But because of just one, all of the others had to be silenced. Aaron Cross is one of those others- a chemically-enhanced "Outcome" agent who is now being targeted by the very people that built him into such an effective soldier.

They're going to regret doing such a good job.

[THIS REVIEW DOES CONTAIN MINOR PLOT SPOILERS]

The Worldview

The Good

One of my favorite things about the Bourne films is that they feature damsels in distress and valiant knights coming to their rescue- in a much more modern sense, of course, but with many of the same basic, refreshing ideals.

It seems standard-issue in modern films to see Amazon women fighting alongside- or against- the men (The Dark Knight Rises, The Avengers, Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol).  The old and chivalrous concept of "women and children first;" the Biblical idea that the men should be the protectors of a society and the defenders of the innocent, the defenseless, the weak and oppressed, these are now rare things to see modeled.  Yet in the face of this cultural tide, the Bourne films have always featured a man who is a great warrior and a woman whom he needs- but who also needs him, particularly as a protector.  

While feminism has certainly not been entirely eradicated, the warrior-woman does not make an appearance in these films.  

(Interesting side note: the Hebrew word for "man" can also be translated "warrior." So in some ways I don't think it's an extra-Biblical stretch to say that a warrior-woman is a man-woman.)

While Legacy did show a female Outcome agent, we did not see her doing any kind of combat.  The woman who poses as a psychiatrist does some fighting, but her role was fitting, because it would have been odd to send an all-male psychiatric evaluation team to a single woman's house.  She wasn't very feminine, but she wasn't held up as a role model.  Interestingly enough, this would be the first Bourne film where the hero consciously takes the life of a woman.  I think Aaron was justified in doing so, but it's worth noting.  

Another thing with regards to this is that Marta actually does a little bit of fighting (if it could be called that) in a non-manly way.  She's not good at it, but she does it when she needs to- namely, she kicks over the motorcycle of an agent trying to pursue them.  I love this- a woman who isn't afraid to use force, but she does it only as a last resort, and even then in a feminine, desperate, self-defense way, not an "I totally dominate you, scum" way.

One of the most interesting lines in the film, from a worldview standpoint, is when Edward Norton's character is justifying his organization to Aaron Cross- who is a part of the organization, accidentally killed innocent people, and now is feeling very guilty.  Norton compares themselves to "sin-eaters," and says that they are "morally indefensible and absolutely necessary."

Why am I listing this in the "The Good" section?  Because Norton is the bad guy.  This pragmatic "for the greater good" garbage comes from the antagonist, but the protagonist doesn't buy it, and we know it, and we love him for it.  Legacy portrays this philosophy as exactly what it is: a lie.

Another thing that I really appreciate about the Bourne films as a general rule- and even more so in this one- is not so much how much good stuff they put in the film as much as how much bad stuff they didn't.  Legacy is one of the best romances I've seen in a long time- and they never kiss once.

Which brings me to the romance between the main character and the woman who is his companion throughout the film.  Like I said, I loved it.  While many films take the "I'm good looking, you're good looking, I got lost in your eyes, now we're in love, now we're committing sin together, and that was just the frst ten minutes" approach, the relationship that we see in Legacy is beautifully real, coming about like true love and deep friendship often does- by going through trials and facing adversity together.  The physical affection- in the form of holding hands!- comes after their relationship has transcended superficial attraction, and not before; indeed, the superficial attraction factor was not even really there, which was also refreshing.  No googly eyes or sleeplessly-hugging-my-pillow-while-looking-dreamily-at-the-stars garbage.  Finally, a relationship between two main characters of the opposite sex that isn't a cookie-cutter cliché!

I also enjoyed how their relationship fell naturally into a Biblical model- the man setting the vision and taking the lead, and the woman coming alongside and helping him to accomplish his goals. Marta was definitely "a helper suitable to" Aaron.  She even obeys him (how often does someone say "don't turn around" in a film and the other person actually doesn't turn around?!?), which is apparently OK if it's some assassin guy that you hardly know, but super-oppressive if it's the husband who has pledged to love and protect you until the day he dies.

The hero, too, isn't a drunkard, womanizer, or anything else along those lines.  He gets angry, he gets sick, he's a little flirtatious on occasion- he's a regular guy who isn't perfect.  But he protects the innocent, he fights injustice.  Legacy gave us a hero who felt flawed and human, but who didn't have to commit egregious and habitual sins to prove it; I would consider Aaron Cross a great example of what a protagonist should be, though, of course, it would have been better if his vision had transcended this world and been set on The Kingdom of Christ.

The Bad

The language was a bummer in this film; though, as with the others, it was not nearly as bad as it could have been, it would have been much better if it wasn't there at all.  It especially irks me when the name of The Lord Jesus is used as an exclamation; this happened more than once.  Marta's swearing grated on me particularly; she is the heroine and is overall a very attractive and likeable woman, but her occasional swearing tarnished that a bit.

Speaking of Marta, early in the film she talks about a man that had been living with her but moved out, and in a matter of moments we have a worldview presented which says that that's normal and OK.  Another real smear on her character which was totally irrelevant to the story.

I've noticed more and more presentation of homosexuality as normative in films lately; it is worth mentioning that Marta says of a coworker "I thought he was gay."  While this did not at all feel like the forced agenda that spills out of many other modern films, it's worth a mention as, if nothing else, an interesting inclusion in the script.

Like I said, Aaron is a little flirtatious in one scene.  

Obviously, the film is violent; I think the violence was, overall, very tastefully done, but for viewers who are disturbed by violence, it's definitely present.  However, there were a few times where Aaron killed people that I don't think he was justified in killing; they did not threaten him with any serious harm, nor did they pose a serious threat, so I would have preferred to see an approach that placed more value on life.

Aaron Cross needs the "chems," chemical supplements which enhance his mental and physical ability and were part of the government program he participated in.  It is unclear from the film exactly what the consequences of going off this medication would be, but the worldview issues remain.  

First, that we should be content with the way that God made us; Aaron, before being enhanced, apparently had a low IQ, but instead of solving that by modifying the body God gave him, perhaps he should join Lumosity.

Second, that the most productive way of bettering ourselves is God's way.  Chemical enhancements (like steroids or drugs) often promise instant results at the expense of long-term heath.  The Bible has a lot to say about how we treat our bodies, so regardless whether Aaron could live without the chems or not, it's important to consider Biblical principles before popping the pill.

Something else that's normal to see in films and in our culture is women in the work force- living alone, working outside the home without the protection and leadership of a husband or father.  It's worth pointing out, not because Legacy is different in this regard from any other modern film, but because it is the same as all the others.  It's a constant cultural message which, if we do not take it captive to the obedience of Christ, will influence our own worldview.

Another thing that happens all the time in movies is that the hero runs off with someone's car, destroys property while getting away, or some other such.  In this case, Aaron pilfers a watch, a motorcycle, an airplane, and is involved in street chases that aren't exactly... casualty-free.  Um- is anybody going to repay these people?

As far as modesty is concerned, there are a few scenes where Aaron is shown shirtless, and Marta wears a spaghetti-strap shirt.  None of these, though, are set in a romantic context- with the exception of the scene with the most intimate interaction between them, which is when Aaron has a very bad fever.  You could call it romantic, but it didn't go beyond anything that two good friends (or a brother and sister) could do in good conscience in that context.

The Art

The Good

Gotta say, I didn't want another Bourne film.  Ultimatum left off amazingly well, and I figured another try would be superfluous and also just really, really bad.

I stand corrected.  The direction Legacy took was unexpected and unique.  The decision to bring in a new lead character was brilliant; an attempt to replace Matt Damon with a different actor playing the same role would have been disastrous.  Bringing Aaron Cross into the story of Jason Bourne, on the other hand, breathed new life into the franchise.

Cross contrasts wonderfully with Bourne.

Bourne is stoic, silent, robotic, with a permanently furrowed forehead and the bewilderment of a lost child buried beneath an exterior hardened by his life and profession.

Cross is talkative (VERY talkative), personable, has a sense of humor and a ready grin.  

(Side note: THANK YOU costume department for being honest with things like facial hair!  Seriously, Jason Bourne is on the run 24/7, but he's always clean-shaven and with his hair gelled in place. Um- wut?)

Even with a new actor and new character, the filmmakers could have tried to just do another Bourne- but they didn't, and that was a very good decision.  The contrast between the two protagonists adds to the believability (and enjoyability) of the story, and while Matt Damon's robotic Jason Bourne was perfect for Bourne, it would have quickly grown boring had it appeared in another protagonist as well.

I have a new favorite actress.  Rachel Wiesz delivers one of the most convincing, genuine performances I think I've ever seen.  From shock to bewilderment to fear to her mischevious smile at the very end of the film, she played her role perfectly.

Speaking of acting, the acting overall in Legacy was stellar.  

Jeremy Renner was excellent as Aaron Cross (I thought he did a far better job in this film than in The Avengers- whether by his fault or that of the people behind the camera, I don't know, but Hawkeye was painful).  He delivered a very believable and likable Aaron, talkative, personable, with human emotions and just a very buyable personality.

Edward Norton made for a formidable antagonist.  Cool under pressure, but without the over-tension that I think haunted previous Bourne characters in his position, quiet but authoritative, he was perfect for this role.

Indeed, I thought the entire government agency side of the film was far and away better than in the previous Bourne films, in which there seemed to me to be an over-tension and "I'm cool"ness about many of the government agents.  Not Norton and his team- they were spot-on, without stone-faced stoicism or over-exaggerated emotions.  Even the minor characters on his team were spot on, down to the slightly overweight, nerdy-looking guy who asks how to get this screen up on the big screen. Perfect.  It's the little inclusions like this which take the government side of the film from cardboard cut-outs to a real and believable group of people.

And then there's this guy.

The scenes featuring Aaron Cross and the other Outcome agent in the cabin were some of my favorite from the film.  The chemistry between these two was amazing, and the scripting was masterful.  In our family, we refer to it as "blue"- the scene was very "blue" in that the two men talked to each other just like men do.  Between the acting and the scripting, it felt so spot-on.  

Indeed, throughout the entire film, on-the-nose dialogue ("I accept your apology, we can be friends now") is avoided masterfully, with emotions being shown instead of spoken.  Very good.

Another excellent inclusion was the scene in which Marta Shearing talks to a co-worker who later commits a serious crime- in just a few moments of very natural, organic dialogue, we get to see that this is a normal guy and not some psycho.

I very much enjoyed director Tony Gilroy's style.  I found Legacy far more artistic and tasteful than the previous three Bourne films; shaky-cam was not forced into the film, while sweeping vistas and other amazing (non-shaky) shots colored the canvas marvelously.  The color, too, was much richer in this one, and overall the film felt warmer, more inviting, and just more filmic.  I haven't said it yet, so I'll say it now- Legacy is my favorite of the four so far.  

I really appreciated the costume design of Rachel Weisz's character.  She looked respectable, feminine, and attractive, but that was all.  No skin-tight leather or gaping necklines distracted from her facial expressions; nor did she look like a supermodel who was for some reason working in a laboratory.  She looked exactly like who she was- a professional woman who had more important things to do in life than worry about her looks- a woman who took care of herself but didn't spend hours in front of the mirror- and she wouldn't seem out of place if I walked past her in Wal-Mart.  I think she (as well as almost everyone in this film- I already mentioned Aaron's beard) was a great example of honest, artistically fitting costume design vs. forced or sensualized costuming.

I loved how the "Jason Bourne" theme was masterfully woven into the score by James Newton Howard at just the right moments- instantly conjuring up three films worth of story in just two notes.  Chillingly well done.  The sound of the music was also excellent- very modern and smooth, providing a rich sonic bed into which the film was set.

The Bad

Overall, I think this film was an excellent work of art, but there are a few bones I have to pick with it.

First, why is Marta's car such a mess in the beginning of the film?  It is only a brief shot, but it's shown as if it is introducing us to a facet of her character.  Yet, for the rest of the film, she seems to me like a very organized, professional person, so that seemed inconsistent to me.

A bigger artistic issue for me was the story, which felt like it ended too quickly.  I guess, technically, the protagonist had achieved his goal, but when the film ended, I wanted more.  Part of that you want- you want the audience to leave the theater begging for the next one.  But this was a little more than that- it had a touch of "that's it?!?" a touch of "well, that was sudden."  I'm not entirely sure how it could have been fixed (although I'll bet the Blake Snyder Beat Sheet would tell me), but I think I would liked to have seen a little more resolution to the other threads of the film, a second climax that dealt with the real antagonist and not just his minions.  As the film ends now, there's no good reason to believe that Aaron and Marta are actually safe for any extended period of time.

And then there was the obligatory Bourne chase scene with the obligatory other-assassin-agent-guy that the hero must fight.  Chase scene: pretty awesome.  Other-assassin-agent-guy: not so much.

Whether it was the actor or the people behind the camera (I'm inclined to think the latter), LARX-03 felt way over-epic.  (Did we really have to do the "epicly-pulling-off-my-aviator-shades" shot?)  Plus, I had no chance to connect with this guy, to identify him- not even any real good reason to be afraid of him.  I think this was part of why the climax of the film was not as satisfying- the bad guy that Aaron defeats isn't the real bad guy.  He was pretty much a throw-in at the end of the film (I mean, the film would have hardly changed if his character was entirely removed).  It felt very forced.  I wanted to see Aaron defeat Edward Norton's character; LARX-03 is just another agent, so while that could make for a good action scene (if woven into the story well) it doesn't make for a very satisfying victory to end the film on.

This isn't the first Bourne film to contain cardboard cut-out assassinesque attackers, but I do think it's the first one to attempt to use one as the catalyst for the film's climax.

The guy who said "look at us... look at what they make you give" from Identity is a great example of a better-developed minor antagonist.

Then there's the music.  There were some things that I really liked about Howard's Legacy score, but some things I didn't care for as much.  I really, really missed the main theme which John Powell used so prominently in the previous three Bourne films.  Whether or not it should have been used in a film featuring a different protagonist, I don't know (they did use the "Jason Bourne" theme), but I didn't think it was adequately replaced in this film.  A theme prominently appeared late in Legacy's score, which felt rather odd, because it hadn't been even hinted at up to that point- at least, not that I noticed just from seeing the film.  I haven't listened to the score.  There were a few points where the score felt like it was trying too hard to be something that it wasn't, especially in the last action scene.  I'm definitely nitpicking, though- overall, I think the score fit the film like a glove and set a great sonic atmosphere for the whole story.

Overall,
I really enjoyed The Bourne Legacy.  It's my favorite of the series, and, indeed, one of my favorite films all-time.  I really enjoyed the relationship between the main characters and the believability of the antagonist and his team, and the film as a whole seemed artistically richer than the previous three, even in spite of a weak (or missing) third act.  If you can get rid of the language, I would definitely recommend doing so; other than that, it's surprisingly clean for a film of its genre, and it's a very fun ride.  I highly recommend it.  

It's definitely one that I'll watch again and again.  4.5/5

Gender Roles from the Bakery

So the Pentagon is opening up more combat roles in the military for women.

Yay! More opportunity for our precious daughters to get shot up and maimed! Progress and stuff!

So glad we got to the point where, as a nation, it's no longer un-cool to send your wife or daughter downstairs to check on the scary noise at night.  For a moment there, I thought I might actually have to protect the women in my life.  THANK YOU, PROGRESS!

My life will be so much more satisfying now that I can guiltlessly choose the path of impotent, bubble-wrapped mediocrity.  Or maybe it'll just be easier... not sure about the whole satisfying thing.

Gender roles?  Can I buy those at the bakery?

It's not like I ever wanted my sons to learn what it meant to love sacrificially; to lay down their lives for their sisters and their wives; to be men who were prepared to come to the aid of the weak and the oppressed.

I mean, goodness, can you imagine how oppressed my poor daughters would be if their brothers opened doors for them all the time?  The chauvinism.  

And if I ever come across a girl being attacked in a dark alley, well, I certainly wouldn't want to interfere with her opportunity to show her equality!  Though I gotta say, I hope she went to the same school of womanhood as Black Widow and Catwoman and all those other movie stars.  

And if she doesn't make it out of the alley alive, no reason for me to lose sleep! Natural selection has worked its will once again!

But I do have one more request.  While we're progressing, and being equal, do you think we could make registration for the draft mandatory for girls, too?  Just being fair 'n stuff.

The Warrior and the Slave

The dense mesh of fog and shadows was melting slowly away. Only a few minutes now.

The captain breathed deeply; methodically checked himself- sword, dagger, shield, saddle well in place, helmet snug, armor solid- he was ready. The signature of a smile flew across his face as his horse snorted noisily and pawed the ground with his front hooves, first one and then the other.

Now he looked up. His steely eyes shone like glass through the mud and smoke and blood that was stained into his face, and peered from beneath a permanently furrowed brow down the line of men stretched out behind him on his left and on his right. He caught the eye of another soldier- about his age, about his size. Could have been from the same town; certainly the same province.

The other man looks away quickly, unwilling to face the full reality of what is about to happen, and even more unwilling to face a man who has embraced that reality.

Suddenly, a whisper shimmers up the line of soldiers. A reward has been promised. When this city falls, every man among them will receive extra rations, double wages, and a share of the spoil. The whisper races down the line of men and fades into the distance.

Suddenly, the sun breaks through the clouds, the fading fog vanishes entirely, and the object of years of struggle is revealed. The walls of the city stand cold, naked, forbidding. Atop the towers and behind the fortifications bristle the helmets and spear-tips of a thousand foemen.

Everything is silent. Even the wind stills. The world is waiting.

It is time.

-----------------------------------------

"A reward has been promised."

For which of our two soldiers did this news change anything?  Homer Rice said that "You can motivate by fear. And you can motivate by reward. But both of these methods are only temporary. The only lasting thing is self-motivation."

Of course, Homer Rice isn't our source of wisdom.  Proverb 29:19 says that "A slave will not be instructed by words alone; for though he understands, there will be no response."

The slave does what he does because he is afraid of what his master will do to him if he doesn't do it.

The slave does what he does because he hopes maybe if he does it his master will reward him.

His tasks are a means to the end of his pleasure.  His work is the way by which he acquires the right to play.

He does his household chores because if he does them well enough, maybe dad will let him watch a movie tonight.  He finishes his math book because he knows, once he has done that, he gets to pick the restaurant that the family goes to for dinner that night.  He reads his Bible because he's afraid if he doesn't then the people at church won't be impressed.  He doesn't beat up on his siblings because he knows that would  make dad angry.

And in the press of battle, when the arrows are raining down, and shouts and screams and clamor and chaos are overwhelming his senses, and friends and foes swirl around him like so many grains of sand in an angry sea, his one thought is "if only I can survive this, then I shall have my reward."

And then there's the warrior.  His work is its own reward.  He does what he does because he is who he is.  He fights because he believes in what he is fighting for.  And while he certainly doesn't begrudge extra rations or higher wages, those things will not change how hard he fights.

In the press of battle, his thoughts are set not on survival, but on victory.  Even when the dead are falling all around him, there is nowhere he would rather be.

He's not a slave to his own smallness- he's a slave to a greater vision.

For Maximus, it was the glory of Rome.
For William Wallace, it was the freedom of Scotland.
And for us, it should be the expansion of The Kingdom of Christ- the only Greater Vision which is truly worth dying for.

Oh that that vision would permeate our lives.  For we are slaves to Christ, and ambassadors for Him.  He does promise rewards richly- and there are terrible consequences for those who forsake Him.

Praise God!  Let us look forward to those rewards, and labor hard towards them.

But let us also love the labor.  Let it be said of us that we were not simply "making it" through life, but that we conquered life boldly and subjected it to the Lordship of Christ.

Every task that God gives us is part of the race of life- something which can be conquered or simply survived.  From changing diapers to washing dishes to writing music to building bridges to fighting battles- whatever we are called to do on any given day, that is our battle.  Will we survive it?  Or will we embrace it?

Artistic Analysis: Shop-Vac

(Content warning: briefly refers to drunkenness)


One of the most amazing, artistically perfect, masterfully miserable pieces of art I've seen in a long time.

I think the thing that amazes me most about this video is that it is built on a great big artistic contradiction.  The music is exuberantly joyous- the animation is retro, classy, and somehow inherently American- and yet the lyrics are simply depressing.

Even more impressive?  The contradiction fits.  It's perfect.

Whether the artists behind this project did it on purpose or not, I don't know, but in three and a half minutes we are presented with a poignant and masterful lesson in the emptiness of the modern American dream- where everything is trendy and fast-paced and upbeat and fun and fake and shallow and empty. 

We walk around pretending that we're accomplishing stuff and that we have friends and are in relationships that actually matter- but it's all a farce.  The American dream is a nightmare- the kind of nightmare where everything you ever wanted is always just outside of your reach.

Because, at the end of it all, all that stuff we did adds up to a colossal zero.  No meaning, no purpose, no legacy.

"Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity."

Talk about sad.

Of course, for the Christian, that isn't the end of the story- it's the beginning.  While the godless worldview paints us as a cosmic accident, the Christian worldview gives us the opportunity to participate in eternity- to labor for a Kingdom that will never pass away.  We are not left to dance through a masquerade-ball life.  We have a race to run- a battle to fight- a King to serve and a Kingdom to build.

We don't have to live a great and terrible make-believe.

Massacre

Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook- all come readily to mind when the word "massacre" is spoken. Tragedies, each one- horror stories, chilling for those who hear the tales told, life-changing for those who lived them. Every time the fruit of the sinful heart of some American spills out of the barrel of a gun, the immediate cry is for the gun to be removed. Yet scrawled in blood over the pages of history are the accounts of tragedies far worse, death tolls far higher, which seem to be somehow forgotten in the midst of this debate.

The bloody slaughters of millions of people at the hands of their own governments set the 20th century apart as the single bloodiest century of world history. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Chavez, the list runs on- the greatest murderers in history, perhaps rivaled only by those behind the abortion mills of America. Yet when the line of atrocities is marched into public view which serves as irrefutable evidence for the need for gun control, these holocausts are never mentioned. Massacre after massacre in American theaters and schools is trotted out as evidence for why the people should be disarmed, but not once are these slaughters even hinted at.

Is it because they are irrelevant to the gun-control issue? Not at all. Few things could be more relevant. No, the stories of these genocides cannot, must not be told because they tell the other side of the gun-control story; they are living testimony to the importance of the idea behind the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The American founders were not protecting Americans' right to hunt. They were not protecting Americans' right to protect themselves against would-be rapists and home invaders. They were protecting Americans' right to protect Americans' rights. The Second Amendment puts a wall of lead between the American people and a foe far more dangerous than any dark shape in a back alley. The dangers of a tyrannical government unchecked by an armed populace are illustrated potently by each government-led genocide, each purge, each Auschwitz and every Siberia.

Let the examples be examined- all of them. Let the truth have her day. The death toll of history gives overwhelming evidence that, in spite of the Auroras and Sandy Hooks, the price of a disarmed populace in blood far outweighs the price of an armed one.