Burlington Free Press reports:

The choice of media personality Ben Stein as commencement speaker at the University of Vermont generated such a furor that Stein backed out, UVM President Dan Fogel confirmed Monday.

Regardless of where you stand on the issue, one has to admit the irony in the situation. These types of situations are exactly what his documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, was addressing. It’s rather a credit to Stein’s graciousness in this debate that he chose to back out quietly, rather then pointing fingers in angry indignation.

[The University President] stressed that the issue is not one of academic freedom, or of Stein’s right to offer his controversial opinions on campus, but rather whether someone who holds views antithetical to scientific inquiry should be honored as commencement speaker.

As gracious an attempted explanation as this might be, one should note that it is a blatant misrepresentation of Stien’s views in the documentary. He makes it abundantly clear that his primary objective is to promote free scientific inquiry, even if it means including controversial ideas.

I suppose one’s response may be that the claims of ID are beyond controversial and are simply ludicrous. Well, any claim should be judged first on it’s theses and then on its proofs. The thesis of ID is essentially that there is a gap in our understanding of the natural world which is BEST explained by an intelligent creator. Notice that acclaimed evolutionary scientists, such as Dawkins,  maintain that extra-terrestrials are at least a more plausible candidate for being responsible for origins than God is (he expounds on this in “The God Delusion).

But WHY is one  thesis more plausible then the other? Or rather, why is one more ludicrous then the other?

Anyone? Anyone?

(reposted from www.brianjwalton.wordpress.com)

When we found out no WMDs in Iraq when U.S. intelligence assured otherwise, I was both disappointed and ashamed of my nation’s intelligence failure. You might say that we acted rather unintelligently. It was a humbling moment in our nation’s history.

Thankfully, America is not shattered by a single failure. Part of being American is this uncanny ability to bounce back, to get back on the horse, to keep on fighting. It is what got us through the Great Depression; it is what got us through Watergate; it is what is getting us through our history of racisim. Essential to the American spirit is to resist being defined by our failures, to persevere in working hard to do good.

What inspired these patriotic thoughts, you might ask?  My inspiration happens to be the wonderful new years gift which the CIA presented to Al-Qaeda last week.  This is not a minor story; this amounts to significant redemption (in one sense of the word) for American intelligence, as well as a significant victory over the terrorist organization which bombed our nation and opposes democracy everywhere.

It’s a great way to celebrate the new year, if you ask me.

David Wells, the historian and theologian, has pointed out that a number of transitions have occurred in our culture since the 19th century, including:

Virtues→Values
A move in conversation about the necessity and importance of Virtues (of character manifestations such as goodness, integrity, courage, fortitude) to Values (personal preference).

Valuing Character→Personality
This transition can be seen in the almost overnight phenomenon of modern advice books.

Human nature→“Self”
Replacing the discussion of Human nature (what is common to all people–what Christians might entitle ‘the image of God’) is the discussion of Self (my own unique perception of the world: my feelings, understandings, vantage point). And this, of course, has fed into a sweeping individualism.

Guilt→Shame
Guilt is the violation of an objective norm, whereas Shame is essentially internal embarrassment. In discussing Shame there is no violation of norms, and this factor of life can be treated by counseling: a clear secularization has occurred.

Wells’ conclusion?
Americans use to think in a moral framework: we thought about being saved.
Today, we think in a psychological framework: we think about being inwardly relieved and pleased.

This is essential to understanding the alternative “gospel” that culture is currently offering in place of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

If you know the “healers” of culture, then you can fairly easily deduce what disease persons think they have.

The two preeminent healers in our culture:
1—Psychotherapy
2—Advertising

Instead of a foundation of objective moral virtue that ought to be pursued through character growth in order to benefit society, we have become purveyors of personality improvement and individualized values which need not (and ought not?) impinge on others.

Our deep need is not a re-positioning from a place of guilt under God through reconciliation, it is simply the overcoming of our feelings of shame so that we can function in society.

The strictly secular “gospel” of our culture which offers new style and luxury or assistance in arousing self-esteem is a dangerous message completely incapable of solving humanity’s most fundamental need: reconciliation with God.

(Information from David Wells’ lectures entitled “The Gospel in Contemporary Culture”, 3-part series, Desiring God Conference, 1998)

I recently read a nail-biting, shocking headliner from BBC News entitled: “Rom-coms spoil your love life.” It was the conclusion of a university survey from Edinburgh that Romantic Comedies in fact generally set unrealistic expectations for viewers in their perception of real-life romances. The main problem: “if someone is meant to be with you then they will know what you want without you needing to communicate it.”

My sappy side took a hit as I perused the informant’s report. Who doesn’t like sweet mushy feelings as they dream of the ‘certain someone’? Or hope that their relationship will grow in excitement? But the good educators of Scotland have finally pointed something out that we should be aware of as we prepare for the holi-daze of visual stimulation:

“We now have some emerging evidence that suggests popular media plays a role in perpetuating these ideas in people’s minds.”

So be alert to renew your mind in truth, goodness, and beauty this holiday, and don’t be too quick to buy in to more than just Christmas sales.

(To read the full BBC article, click the tagged link below.)

As I spelunk the dark caverns of further academic study–an exploration in which always carries it the question: “Did I pack properly, can I handle this task?”–I have discovered one potent provision of the academic task: distinctions.

When you say a girl is “smart,” you could mean several things:

She knows lots of data. She may be the veritable “Wikipedia” of information on a certain topic.

She can follow steps of logic to really think something through.

She has an excellent memory: she is a steel trap.

Or you could mean that she can clearly distinguish parts of a big idea in order to better understand the whole. She can make distinctions: much like I am doing now in my definition of “smart.”

You might want to distinguish the nature of something: “That’s not what I meant. I meant this…”

Or you might want to distinguish all the parts of a whole. Sometimes being able to split something up is the best way to figure out the whole thing.

I have found that this is the best way for me to write a paper, write a sermon, or exegete a passage. In fact, I almost stopped in the middle of a ten-page Greek paper to call my 6th grade grammar teacher: “Mrs. B, thank you for teaching me how to diagram a sentence. I realize that because I can identify the ten different verbs in this passage I now have an idea of how to follow what it’s trying to say!”

I guess all those grade-school mornings of diagramming sentences with prepositional phrases or participles really paid off.

So, next time you are staring at your screen wondering where to start on this huge hunk of information you are supposed to discuss, get out the pie server and eat it up one piece at a time.

One of the interesting struggles I always faced at the holidays during my time back at college was the terrible collision between the new life and identity that I was discovering for myself away at school with the old, established and traditional way of life back home. I would walk through the doors of the old house with the joy of homecoming, only to quickly be knocked flat with the realization that I had changed, but life back home had not.

Now, I went to Biola University, basically a Bible college, and so one of the places where I felt this collision most was going to Church with my family again on Sunday morning. You see, I had just spent a whole semester expanding and broadening my mind as to how to think about who God is, how to read and interpret the bible, and how to worship. You name the topic, and you can bet that my new-found friends and I had spent hours pouring over all the possible ways of looking at the topic and, obviously, had found the only solution imaginable.

Now, you could imagine what type of problem such an attitude of know-it-all arrogance would engender when it comes into contact with an equally stubborn, established way of looking at the Christian life that is necessary for any consistent church community. I would sit there in the pew thinking to myself: “Give me a break, anybody with even half a Bible education knows this is how you’re supposed to interpret this passage! How could I ever have sat here week after week taking all this narrow-minded gibberish in?”

For any of you out there in whom this strikes a sympathetic chord, I’ve found a poem that I think would be helpful for you to read. It’s entitled Christmas Eve*, and it was written by a man named Robert Browning. Why do I say you should read this? Let me tell you what it’s about, and maybe you will begin to see.

The story is of a young man who finds himself caught outside in a rain-storm, and so he takes shelter in a nearby church. The church is a small country chapel, no fancy decorations, and it is on Christmas Eve so the country folk start filing in for the service. Being a stranger, our young refuge elicits some very suspicious and even sinister looks from the worshipers, but he stays for the sermon anyway, mainly on account of the rain outside. But mid-way through the sermon he finds the whole atmosphere so terribly devoid of sense that he bursts outside, surprised to find a break in the storm.

At this point in the poem we find that our man is actually a firm believer in God, but he is just happy to worship Him out in nature, away from all the errors to be found in fellowship with others. But it is here that the Lord reveals Himself to our man, squashing his prideful arrogance in that He Himself has just walked out of the chapel, proving His Presence there among those country faithful. The Lord then sweeps our man away to a tour of, first a gaudy Catholic mass in a Roman cathedral, and then a heady, intellectual lecture hall in Germany, teaching him at both places to discover His Presence, despite the very obvious errors, among these “lovers” of Himself. Then finally, He is brought back to his place in the pew at that small country chapel, with the newfound humility that is able to say:

It were to be wished that the flaws were fewer

In the earth vessel, holding treasure

Which lies as safe in a golden ewer

But the main thing is, does it hold good measure?

Oftentimes we the young and educated are so quick to criticize that we miss out on the water of life that God is holding out to us, since it comes in much too vulgar and common a cup for us to drink it. We think that we must provide God with a better means of administering His grace than He Himself has chosen, and in doing so we come up with a many-jeweled goblet that is full of dust, or what is worse, just empty. Yes, we do have a part to play in God’s Kingdom, but in order to fin tat part we need to learn to let other people perform the parts God has assigned them; we need to learn to receive God’s grace from others, rather than always thinking we are the only ones God is able to use in the world.

*Read it here

Coming into this holiday season I’m reminded of one of my favorite child-hood memories. Every year when I was a kid, come Christmas time, my mom used to take my brothers and I out Christmas shopping. Now, I have three brothers, and my mom got us started at an early age buying Christmas gifts for each other. In order to do this and still keep it a surprise what gifts we had bought for our brothers, she would pick a Saturday, make sure that we had all saved up our thirty dollars from allowance money ($10 for each brother’s gift), and then take us out one by one to shop, and we always had to be in a different room of the house when they got back to the house so as not to catch a glimpse of the gifts. Well, my mom’s method meant that every year she made four subsequent trips to the local Toys-R-Us, and each of these trips almost invariably led to the Lego’s isle.

Just what was it about these little, multi-colored building blocks that was able to so fascinate us and capture our imagination for hours, no, for days on end? On Christmas morning it would usually be the full sets: the Lego Pirate Ship, the new Space Station, or the Dragon-haunted Castle. Such pre-designed sets might keep our attention for maybe a few weeks or a month, but without fail we would lose interest in the official Lego designs and pull them apart. But in this lay the wonder and the glory of Legos: once dismantled the pieces could be assembled again, only this time in whatever way, shape, or pattern you want. A one-time space station could suddenly become a modern-day metropolis; a jungle island could instantly transform into a secret hide-out for your own designed superhero that saved the world from whatever bad-guys you thought up. The sky was the limit, or rather your own imagination was the limit; here was a toy that gave kids’ imagination fertile soil to flourish and grow.

I just read an essay by a man named George MacDonald that re-called this memory to mind.* In it, he talks about how wrong it is that people, and educators in particular, try to quash the imagination in kids as they grow older. His claim is that people that think only by the book, without any creativity or imagination, will never accomplish anything. He’s not saying that we should just sit around all day day-dreaming, imagining what could be; what he is saying is that imagination must work hand-in-hand with the intellect, or science that is. You see, what science is good at is taking what’s in front of it and analyzing the heck out of it until it knows all about that thing. The thing is, science is no good at finding new stuff to analyze once it’s done with the old stuff. This is where imagination comes in: imagination is the hand that is always finding new things to put on the plate of the intellect; it is the curiosity inside of us that is always stretching out towards the unknown, seeking and wanting to discover. True, it needs the intellect to look into what it looks out at, and this is why we say the two work hand-in-hand, but the imagination is really the hand that is guiding and leading the intellect around, ready to put it to work on whatever interesting thing it finds next.

You know, I’m really thankful for having those legos when I was younger, because unbeknown to me they were training me in this whole two-step process, first the imagination working to figure out what it wants to build, and then second putting the intellect to work in figuring out how to build it.

*”The Imagination: Its Functions and Its Culture”, pp. 3-23 in A Dish of Orts by George MacDonald. Read it here.

Apparently it’s the most watched trailer online. Apparently it’s soundtrack is number one right now. Apparently it has teenage girls lining up around the book. Apparently the books have sold more then 25 million copies worldwide. Apparently the story is also bad for your soul.

Chuck Wilson of the Voice writes of the movie:

“In the 17-million-copy land of Twilight, the calling card isn’t blood and fangs, but the exquisite, shimmering quiver of unconsummated first love.”

But Jeffrey Overstreet takes a different spin on it:

“The love story makes the relationship between Jack and Rose in Titanic seem like a mature, adult relationship… Don’t tell me that this is a love story. This is a lust story. You have to get to know someone to really be ‘in love’ with them. Otherwise, it’s just hormones. Good luck with everything after.”

My girlfriend and I had dinner with a producer friend and his wife recently. While we (the men) tried to talk film and business, they (the women) hardly stopped talking about Twilight the entire time. Not because they were in love the with books, but because they were worried about their dangers. The books convey a sense that emotions and attraction are the strongest forces behind love and that commitment can be made before both knowledge and experience. And for the love of everything holy, if your crush as a vampire who is constantly saying he is dangerous, wouldn’t you want to get to know him a little more before throwing caution to the wind!

I suppose that those who are affected by this view of life may enjoy the film quite a bit. As the reviews roll in, it’s becoming clear that most thoughtful adult viewers are not falling for this adolescent take on love packaged as a glossy vampire romance. However, it is equally clear that these reviewers are not the films target audience. Teens are the most likely to see and enjoy the films and teens are the most likely to buy into it’s stilted view of love. And isn’t this dangerous? My friends wife, who also happens to be an eighth grade history teacher, certainly thinks so. If they think that the thrill of a touch is the end-all be-all of love, even when that touch is on somebody who also happens to have pointy fangs and a strong hunger for your blood, then they might be learning a few lessons the hard way.

Honestly though, the problem with the books, and the movie, isn’t that it portrays a love story with a vampire. It’s that it doesn’t treat this such an inherently serious topic with the depth that it deserves. The distinction between Edwards feelings for Bella, his love for her and his lust for her blood, are never clearly defined. And that is certainly a dangerous confusion to make.

Here’s a sobering thought for any Narnia enthusiasts. Dawn Treader’s budget has been already been slashed by 50 million as compared to its predessor and Disney wants to cut 50 more, trimming it down to a lean $100 million, half as much as Prince Caspain cost.

Now, this isn’t horrible news for an effects film. A lower budget often encourages creativity. However, this does tell us that Disney is quickly loosing faith in the Narnia franchise. Not only are they encouraging a lower budget, but they have also mysteriously removed Dawn Treader from next year’s original may timeslot in favor of Prince of Persia. This doesn’t mean Dawn Treader is in jeapordy of not being made. Rather, it tells us that Disney simply doesn’t know what to do with it. The reason for all of this is undeniably because Price Caspian made significantly less then the first film in the series, which is ironic considering that so many who actually viewed it considered it to be a better film. Regardless of the reasons, the series as a whole is in jeapordy and the fate of Silver Chair undoubtedly rides on Dawn Treaders success.

As a lover ot the books, Dawn Treader and Silver Chair are easily my favorites, boasting some of the best character depth and visual storytelling out of the entire series. In short, I believe they are the books most suited to made into films in the first place.

But here I have a note to Hollywood. As films, these stories need to be treated as Lewis treated them, which was to give each film it’s own unique tone and feel, despite the narrative connections between the books. The Narnia series is not Harry Potter. Each book is it’s own uniquely inspired piece of work, and should be treated as such as they are translated to film. In other words, new Directors and Cinematographers for each film should be highly encouraged. Perhaps even new writers. Perhaps even new production studios!

Enough of my pontificating. The point is, what should YOU do if you feel a personal desire to see the later books realized into fantastic silver screen spectacles? Two things:

(1) If you consider yourself a serious fan, be willing to shell out some cash. In an age where digital piracy is somehow not considered a sin, please remember to actually purchase a film that you want to view. (Note: this goes for any film, or any other piece of digital media for that matter). In short, the biggest message anyone can give to Hollywood is one with a dollar sign. If Dawn Treader makes more money then Prince Caspian, then The Silver Chair will be made. If it makes less, then it probably won’t. That, unfortunately, is the bare truth.

(2) Contact your favorite Hollywood personality connected to the film in question (Yes, I’m just now tying in the title of this post). This, as well, goes for any film you are personally attached to. It’s the same thing as writing a letter to your Senator. But here’s the key. Hollywood could care less about negative protest campaigns via mail. 1 million letters sent to Bruckheimer’s office begging to not make Pirates of the Carribean 4 (yes it is happening) will not cause him to question even for a second the actual merits of his production. However, a mere dozen letters sent to a producers office praising her or her’s production will do volumes of good.

How does one do this? It’s easy! Finding the address or phone number to the agent of absolutely anyone in Hollywood is easy and an absolutely valid method of communciation. So, here’s the steps:

1. Sign up for a free imdb pro account at imdb.com
2. Search for the name of the person you want to contact.
3. One of the first things under their name will be the name and adress of their agency. For instance, both Andrew Adamson (The director of the Narnia movies) and Stephen McFeely (the writer) are repped by UTA (United Talent Agency). Call their number to get the specefic address for the agent. Then send a letter to whomever you want to contact in care of their agent. Easy. Simple as that.

One note. It is always better to send a letter to someone lower in the totem pole if you want to get it read. Also, you should talk to someone with either creative or producorial control; either a writer, director or producer.

And lastly, always limit your letter to specifically what you admire about the work and why you want to see more like it. If you want to create change in Hollywood and would rather see a Narnia film then ANOTHER Pirates film, this is the best way you can do it. Praise what you want and give reasons why it shoud be made. Several dozen letters Dawn Treader’s producers Mark Johnson, Philip Steuer, or Dante Spinotti would do wonders in ensuring that future films in Lewis’s fantastic series would get made.  That and, of course, dollar signs.

In returning to Troy to gather his mother and all the noble women to offer prayers to Athena, Hector approaches his brother Paris, and hurls insults toward him for his prolonged absence from the war.

Helen, the mistress of Paris and woman whom the Achaean and Trojans have spent years of agony and suffering for, seductively speaks to Hector, first lamenting that she is not the wife of a better man, then softly encouraging him to, “Come in, rest on this seat with me…You are the one hit hardest by the fighting, Hector.” Hector responds in noble fashion,

“Don’t ask me to sit beside you here, Helen.
Love me as you do, you can’t persuade me now.
No time for rest. My heart races to help our Trojans—
they long for me, sorely, whenever I am gone…”

Hector, as his name indicates, heroically demonstrates himself as the holder of the Trojan army; he is a warrior of courage, honor, and steadfast devotion to his polis. He is not a warrior who recklessly seeks his own honor and glory; rather he is a patriot, someone who seeks glory out of necessity in order to preserve his own life and that of his people.

As Bernard Knox indicates, “Hector is a man who appears most himself in his relationships with others.” In refusing Helen’s seductive advances he shows himself, in contrast to his brother, as one dedicated to the task before him; the task of defending Troy and it’s people from falling to the raging Achaean armies. Unlike Paris, Hector does not give into those “lovely gifts of Aphrodite.”

Troy is at war, thus Hector sets his priorities in the proper relation to the circumstances. While Paris is most at home in his palace in the arms of his mistress Helen, Hector is a man of his country or polis, and, naturally, is most at home standing up for and defending his country. This reality establishes Hector -as the holder of Troy. “On him falls the whole burden of the war.”

However, it would be an overstatement to say that war was Hector’s native element. After refusing Helen’s advances, Hector further responds by saying,

“…I must go home to see my people first,
to visit my own dear wife and my baby son.
Who knows if I will ever come back to them again?—
or the deathless gods will strike me down at last
at the hands of Argive fighters.”

As indicated above, Helen is the lady for which this entire Trojan War is fought. Her beauty is unsurpassed; the old chiefs of Troy even lament her appearance as “terrible beauty,” undoubtedly alluding to the seductive and powerfully destructive influence it can have on men.

Yet, Hector without hesitating dismisses her advances and not only declares his duty to the Trojan men but shows his faithful devotion to his own family. Hector primarily is a man of peace as well as devotion toward his family and polis.

This fact is demonstrated most prominently when Hector sees his wife, Andromache. He finds her with his son, “standing watch on the tower (walls), sobbing, grieving.” As she clings tightly to Hector’s hand and tears stream freely down her cheeks she says,

…“Reckless one,
my Hector—your own fiery courage, will destroy you!
Have you no pity for him, our helpless son? Or me,
and the destiny that weighs me down, your widow,
now so soon?
…What other warmth, what comfort’s left for me,
once you have met your doom?”

As seen, Andromache laments the seeming inevitability of Hector dying in battle, and the resulting effect of his son being fatherless and her being further without family. Hector’s response demonstrates the immense struggle that is within his heart,

“All this weighs on my mind too, dear woman.
But I would die of shame to face the men of Troy
…if I would shrink back from battle now, a coward.
…I’ve learned it all to well. To stand up bravely,
always to fight in the front ranks of Trojan soliders,
winning my father great glory, glory for myself.”

Here Hector shows himself a warrior dedicated to his polis, to his people. He continues by furthering realizing the inevitability of Troy’s fall, as he acknowledges it will one day come. But, just as you begin to think that he loves his polis more than his family he continues saying to his wife,

“…Even so
it is less the pain of the Trojans still to come
that weighs me down, not even…
the thought that my own brothers
in all their numbers, all their gallant courage,
may tumble in the dust, crushed by enemies—
That is nothing, nothing beside your agony
when some brazen Argive hales you off in tears,
wrenching away your day of light and freedom!…”

Hector then mightily and nobly proclaims, “No, no, let the earth coming piling over my dead body before I hear your cries, I hear you dragged away!”

Hector fights in order to protect his family, which shows Hector as one who does not find his identity in battle. In fact, “it is significant that (the) first view of (Hector) in action is not in combat but in an attempt to stop it.”

In book three, after Paris’ responds to Hector’s rebukes, Paris offers to prove himself in a fight with Menelaus in order settle the war. Hector announces this offer to the Achaeans as he moves forward in the Trojan ranks, “right in no man’s land…he strode gripping his spear mid-haft, staving men to a standstill…”

In doing this he leaves himself open to the Achaean archers, yet the leader of the Achaeans, Agamemnon, halts their attempts to kill Hector. As Knox describes, “It was a dangerous initiative and one that demanded immense authority, a force of personality recognized on both sides.”

Hector demonstrates himself as a brave, authoritative, courageous, and formidable warrior, who will fight to the death for the sake of his people, yet also as one who does not find his glory solely in the gruesome realities of war. He is willing to lay aside his own potential glory so that the war may come to an end.

In the end, Hector’s fate is seen as he falls to the man who is the most unlike himself—Achilles. From the outset, Achilles is a man of complete rage and anger, as seen in his refusal to battle with the Achaeans due to a disagreement with Agamemnon.

Although Hector is one whose native element is found not in war but peace and not in his own personal glory, but that of his people, Achilles identity is fundamentally found in his warrior mentality and his deep desire for himself to be glorified through victory in war.

It must always be remembered that “the Iliad is a poem that lives and moves and has its being in war, in that world of organized violence in which a man justifies his existence most clearly by killing others” Thus, when Hector becomes the object of Achilles rage, his death becomes inevitable.

However, this reality should not undermine the fact that in Hector we see “not only the devotion of a warrior who does his duty and fights for his people, even though he knows they are doomed,” but also one who is great husband and father, who places family above self.

The greatness of Hector is seen in the wholistic unity of his character. Hector is the only character that, in the face of immense adversity, shows himself as a complete man.