"Want Forgiveness? Get Religion!"

Warning: NO major spoilers. This review will NOT ruin the movie if you've yet to have seen it [, that includes you, Joseph!].

Spiderman The Third.

Oh wait, sorry, I meant Spiderman: At World's End.

No, that's not right either! Uh... Spiderman 3, maybe? I think that's right. . . [checking guess with Wikipedia] . . . Yes, Spiderman 3! (With all these new sequels out, I get confused!)

After being the last person in America who planned on seeing the new movie that still hadn't seen it (except for maybe this fellow), I have to say I enjoyed it. I find all the harsh critical reception this movie has received a little harsh, though somewhat understandable. The most justified criticism I've heard is from a NY Times writer that "the three villains [Sandman, Green Goblin II, and Venom] here don’t add up to one Doc Ock." And I have no choice but to agree. Alfred Molina's portrayal of Doctor Octopus was simply masterful in Spiderman 2. Despite the film's 2 hour 36 minute running time (that's 28 minutes longer than the last one, and you can really feel the length if you're one of those people like me who is addicted to movie theatre soda drinks), the introduction of villains like Sandman feels rushed and cliche. Thus, Spiderman 3's biggest problem is that it doesn't quite live up to its own standard of excellent, at least in my opinion.

All that negative stuff out of the way, let me proceed with the point of this essay. I am not seeking to review the quality of Spidey 3 but simply to offer a reflection on the movie's moral theme from the lens of a Christian worldview.

For context's sake, let's review the moral theme of the previous 2 movies:
Spiderman: "With great power, comes great responsibility."= Uncle Ben's motto that Peter Parker learns to appreciate as he grows from boy to man.

Spiderman 2: "Sometimes in order to do what is right, we have to give up what we want the most." = Parker learns that moral absolutes do exist in this crazy mixed up world, and they should take priority over the selfish hedonism of the 'Hakuna Matata' philosophy (ok, I made that last part up).
Honorable mention: "Intelligence is gift (not a privilege) to be used for the good of mankind."

And now, the motto of Spiderman 3:
"If you find a black alien goo that wants to bond with you, don't let it!"
Ha, just kidding! Actually, I got the sense that the central theme of this movie was that we all have to learn how to forgive one another, as we are all capable of great evil under the right circumstances. Or as director Sam Raimi stated.

"He considers himself a hero and a sinless person versus these villains that he nabs. We felt it would be a great thing for him to learn a little less black and white view of life and that's he not above these people. He's not just the hero and they're not just the villains. They were all human beings and that he himself might have some sin within him and that other human beings, the ones he calls criminals, have some humanity within them and that the best we can do in this world is to not strive for vengeance, but for forgiveness."

Forgiveness. The best thing we can strive for in this world, according to the director. I was profoundly struck by the sobriety of this third installment in the Spidey series. Yes, it had plenty of action and special effects. Yes, it had some well executed sprinklings of humor. And, yes, it had plenty of angst and frustration that were so common to the first 2 films. What sets this sequel apart from its predecessors, however, is that the hero becomes the true villain of the story. Peter Parker's obsession with power and responsibility bring trouble upon himself. No longer is he just a poor, misunderstood kid who always tries to do the right thing. Rather, he has allowed himself to become a slave to power and a glutton for fame and pleasure.

Spiderman learns that even his soul is not above that of the villains he seeks to bring to justice. In the course of the movie, he betrays the trust of his would-be fiance, gloats his power over everyone else, and nearly commits murder with a sense of vindication. All these sins lead him to a sense of brokenness and he retreats to the sanctuary of a cathedral to ponder the shambles his life has become. As Spiderman despairs of himself, he realizes that he must choose to begin making amends with those he has hurt. Thus, begins his long road back to redemption.

Not everything in this movie is compatible with the Christian worldview, of course. For instance, Aunt May tells Peter he must "forgive himself." Even though I know what she meant, I think forgiveness is something that can only take place when there are 2 or more parties involved. Forgiveness (humanly speaking) is the admission of wrongdoing on the part of one party against another. With the admission, the guilty party seeks reconciliation with the victim and promises to do whatever is necessary to make restitution for damages done. It is a lot more than saying "I'm sorry." This movie isn't so much an illustration of Christian soteriology as it is a lesson in Christian anthropology. All men have sinned (indeed all men are wicked in nature) and fall short of the glory of God, the only Holy One who alone is worthy to judge the hearts of men.

In conclusion, I think Spiderman 3 has a great message that Christians can appreciate, even if it doesn't quite succeed in its character development. For Spidey fans, I think the movie wraps up the loose ends from the previous movies nicely. If nothing else, it is a heck of a lot better resolution to the series than X-Men: The Last Stand's blood crazy martyr-fest of iconic characters. I recommend this movie to a mature audience, but just use some discretion about buying a soda pop at the concession stand.

Women and Weeds

Neil Jackson is a third-year Southern Seminary student with a bachelor's degree in Chemistry from Union University. He likes British and Scottish Church history, J. C. Ryle, Orange Crush sodas, John Wayne movies, good preaching, and a hard day's work. Most importantly, he's been my roommate for the last 2 years.



DISCLAIMER:
I did not come up with the following statement. It was repeated to me by one, Neil Jackson, who heard it from his grandfather who said he heard it from a preacher (and preacher stories are notorious for being recycled over and over). I now pass it onto to you, and beg your mercy that in the future you refrain from throwing objects in my general direction in light of the fact that I didn't say it. Still, its just too funny not to tell.

The two hardest things to do in life:

(1) Climb a fence that is leaning towards you.
(2) Kiss a girl who is leaning away from you.

Neil is such a great roommate with a mix of wisdom and wit.

But sometimes I wonder about that boy...

For instance, a couple of years back when I first started rooming with Neil, he came in one afternoon from doing yardwork with a handful of weeds. Later, he proceeded to put those weeds into a pot and boil them on the stove. The whole purpose was to preserve the weeds for tea-making purposes, which he then drank for the following week.

And, yes, it looked just as nasty as the picture suggests.

Neil tells his story as such:

"I was working for this old gentlemen, Mel Greer, and the task of the hour was pulling weeds in his flowerbeds. He wanted some varieties of flowers to be pulled up so I got to this one type and it reminded me of a minty weed that I had encountered in my youth. When you crush the weeds you can smell a minty flavor I wasn't sure if it was peppermint or spearment. I pulled a few of these weeds and when he wasn't looking I stuffed them in my left front pocket. There they remained for the rest of the afternon during my employment. When I got back to the room, I placed them on a paper towel and let them dry until the next morning. I then put them in a pot of boiling water, thus making some tea out of the organic extraction from the leaves."


"It's legal, I reckon!"

And as a bonus feature, I thought I might include this neat little undead zombie-fied version of Neil's picture above. I like it!

Boris Said at Southern Seminary?

Said at Southern officially begins today

What's that? Is road racing expert and NASCAR moonlighter Boris Said answering a dramatic call to the Christian ministry? Afraid not, dear friends. Said at Southern is just the new communal blog site that hosts the blogs of various students and alumni at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

As for Boris, I guess he'll just have to keep on trying to qualify for those NASCAR races. Had he indeed put in his application for SBTS, he would have joined Brian Vickers as the second NASCAR name to be associated with both racing and theological education. Boris Said is staying put for now. Which, I expect, will keep this fellow happy.

Boris' decision to stay in racing will also be good news to his sponser, SoBe. That's the company that makes the SoBe No Fear energy drinks.

Speaking of energy drinks, I tried the new Mountain Dew amp Overdrive for the first time today. It's Pepsi Co.'s answer to Red Bull, and the can promises to provide an "intense cherry hit" so that I can "live life louder!" What did I think? Well, it tasted fine (better than Code Red Dew but not quite as good as regular Dew IMO). It actually tasted pleasant and relaxing, something I don't think the marketers of the drink are aiming for. For pete's sake, the can has a warning label on the back that says, "Not recommended for children, pregnant women or people sensitive to caffeine. THIS PRODUCT IS NOT INTENDED TO DIAGNOSIS, TREAT, CURE OR PREVENT ANY DISEASE." And make sure you note that last sentence (as if ALL CAPS weren't enough), because anytime something sooo00OOO out there in left field is printed on products you can bet that some ignoramous has already done it and sued the company over it.

Anywho, the real question is will MD amp Overdrive replace my habitual craving for original recipe Mountain Dew. Well, let's compare the stat sheet:

Mountain Dew
Price: 75 cents - $1.00 per can
Calories: 170 per serving
Carbs: 46 grams
Sugar: 46 grams
MD amp Overdrive
Price: $2.00 -$2.25+ per "Tall Boy" can
Calories: 110 per serving
Carbs: 29 grams
Sugar: 29 grams

Okay, hold the phone! Something that sells itself as an "energy drink" has no business getting out preformed by plain soda pop in the sugar count (granted Overdrive does win nearly 2-1 in the caffeine ratio). The taste seems more sour than sweet to me. Imagine putting Sour Punch Straws in your Dew and you'll get my impression.


In fact, these statistics might lead you to assume MD amp Overdrive is actually a healthy beverage alternative to soda. That is, until, you check the rest of the ingrediants on the can. For instance, the label promotes itself as containing: B vitamins (sounds good, right?), Guarana Extract (doesn't sound so good, does it?), Taurine, Ginseng (isn't that what we use to clean the sink?), and Maltodextrin (I don't even want to know). Now if you bother to read the "Supplement Facts" on the back of the can, you will see that the Food and Drug Administration has no idea how much Guarane, Maltodextrin, Taurine, etc. is needed for a daily diet value. Thus, the good people at Mountain Dew are making us into the FDA's test subjects to see what this stuff actually does to the human body. Sounds fun, right? Maybe that's what the "Intense Cherry Hit" is supposed to mean!

In the end, I found MD amp Overdrive to be a pleasant drink to accompany my turkey sandwich down my digestive track. it gets a B+ for taste. It fails, however, to deliver on its promise of allowing me to "live life loud!" Red Bull doesn't taste as good as amp, but it actually alters my sensory functions for a short time. False advertising is a major deficiency, so amp Overdrive gets a C- in its purpose. I think Pepsi Co. needs to drop the gimmicky approach and just promote amp as a Mountain Dew soda like Code Red. Amp needs a reasonable price and a new packaging to fulfill its potential. Final grade (not an average score): B.

So, in conclusion, all I'm really trying to say is visit Said at Southern to see some of the finest young minds express themselves on the internet. Saidatsouthern.com is an alternative to the oft-malfunctioning sbtsblogs.net, which essentially deletes people from the main page if they upgrade from old blogger formating to new blogger formating. Strange, isn't it?

P.S.
For more reviews of Energy drinks, check out Energy Drink Ratings blog (its the place where I got the picture of the amp Overdrive can).

Is Jack Bauer a Christian's Role-Model?

24... also known as "Jack Bauer: The Series." It has become a national hit, but is it something Christians can justify watching? For the last six years, its been one of the most popular shows on television. Even though its ratings have dropped this season due largely to the show's creative team hitting the inevitable writer's block, it is still a weekly primetime hot spot. And I'll admit, it is one of my favorite shows, a list that includes such gritty hard-nosed dramas such as Family Matters, Ducktales, and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. (Can you guess the odd-man out?)

24 just wrapped up its latest season in the ongoing efforts of Jack Bauer to save America from the dastardly deeds of terrorists and government conspiracies. In order for Jack to save the world this year (as has been the case every year), he had to resort to making split-second, life-threatening decisions that often included deceiving his adversaries and even the ever controversial interrogation/torture of suspects and perpetrators. The show's depiction of torture has drawn national criticism in light of such real-life controversies over American G.I.'s torturing their prisoners. The logic goes: Why should Jack Bauer get a free pass when a handful of America's finest are facing demerit and criminal charges for doing essentially the same thing? Does a Christian have the right to condone the idea that morally-dubious means (torturing prisoners) are justifiable to achieve clearly moral ends (saving millions of lives from acts of terrorism)? Furthermore, are the show's writers guilty of crafting a show that glorifies gore and violence that sells itself to man's barbaric lusts?

I have to concede the point that 24 at times seems to cross the line between entertainment and duty when it comes to torture. This is a legitimate moral strike against the show, as is its use of profanity, and its occasional moral indifference to unmarried characters who are engaged in sexual relationships. There, I said it. (On the other hand, I don't think the show is responsible for depicting Muslims in a stereotypical light, seeing as how Jihad is a reality and that the show's villains come from very diverse backgrounds.)

24 is not a perfect show when it comes to morality. I contend, however, that it is a show that forces its viewers to consider what is the right thing to do, even if it is the unpopular decision. Take this season's finale, for example. A young boy's life is held for ransom as a terrorist demands his life in exchange for a military component that will prevent America from engaging in an unnecessary war with Russia. The acting president, in cooperation with most of his cabinet, decide that one innocent boy's life is worth the price of sending off thousands of innocent young U.S. soldiers to their death in a war. This decision can be likened to the decision of Winston Churchill to sacrifice the British city of Coventry to the Nazis in order to prevent them from getting wise to the fact that Britain had cracked their communication codes. The ruins of the city's cathedral stand as a reminder that the blood of Coventry was on Churchill's hands. Was Churchill right? The citizens of Coventry probably didn't think so, but in hindsight most of us would agree that he chose the lesser of two evils. In the course of war, a few must be sacrificed for the lives of many.

But what if Churchill had decided that he should bear the sacrifice with his British brothers? What if he had waited until the last minute before the attack to enter the city to suffer with his people and (assuming he survived) would be in position to help lead the recovery mission? Perhaps, this is a ridiculous suggestion, but this is the kind of decision that Jack Bauer makes on an hourly basis. It is exactly this sort of decision that Bauer made in order to save the life of this particular innocent boy after the government had abandoned him as an unfortunate yet inconsequential sacrifice.

Bauer proves again and again that he is not willing to sacrifice the lives of the innocent if he can do something about it. His decisions are not always popular with his over-seers, but it is his conviction that often the right thing must take priority even over blind submission to authority. It is Bauer's recurring unselfishness that makes him the ultimate fictional patriot, in spite of his other character flaws.

Is Jack Bauer a Christian's Role-Model? Of course not. He is not a man of faith, so he can't be considered on the same level as the flawed heroes of Hebrews 11 such as Abraham, Samson, and Jephthah. But Jack Bauer does exhibit a moral sense that a Christian can appreciate. Jack acts upon his convictions, not what is politically correct. He makes the hard choices, not the ones that will give him the most comfort.

Every Christian has the responsibility to determine what is appropriate moral stewardship of his/her time. There are many factors that must be taken into account in such a decision, such as setting an example for the family for instance. Not every Christian will come to the same conclusions on these decisions. It has been my purpose to articulate one possible interpretation of the show's moral conscience. I hope that it has been well-articulated and hope that it will serve as a defense of a show that (while not perfect) has many characteristics that a Christian may find worthy of appreciation.















Fight on, Jack Bauer. Your country needs you.

The First Seeker-Sensitive Church?!?

If you think consumerism and market-driven church growth strategies are bad now, wait till you see what our 20th century forefathers had to deal with:



From George Marsden's Fundamentalism and American Culture (p.157):
"A sense of doom was created . . . and heightened by growing dismay about the moral condition of the nation. . . . Young men and even women were openly smoking . . . It was particularly galling that churches accepted such changes. Methodist church choirs, for instance, allowed young women to display 'brazen bared knees.' . . . Dancing, once an abomination to the Methodists, was now allowed even in their churches."


The King's Business was a publication which attacked the growing trends of secularism and liberalism in Christianity and culture at large. The reprinted image above represents their disillusionment with the "New Theology" of religious academics and their higher critical dissection of the Bible and the degeneration of the churches into an entertainment hall with "dancing lessons every Friday night" complete with bowling alleys and pool halls. At the root of it all, this entertainment-driven church is held together by the conviction that Man is sovereign.

Perhaps the write-up was a bit fundamentalist in tone, but it would seem that these evangelistic right-wingers had some foresight into the ramifications the consumer-driven culture would have on our places of worship. Now, make sure to cover up your knees.

(Thanks for the inspiration, Tim. And check out this sadly accurate parody of the modern understanding of a seeker's church.)