Guilt has no place in the life of a Christian (Romans 7. xxi - 8.i). Christ has mercifully become guilty for us, and has graciously imputed to us his innocence. But what place does shame have?
I, for one, feel ashamed not uncommonly. When I have flaunted God's law, disobeyed him who loves me most, selfishly used and hurt those made in his image I feel completely and utterly ashamed. And these feelings do not leave just because I repent, they can hang around for hours or days after I've come to my senses.
So what is the appropriate response to this sense of shame? Should I ask God to take it from me? If I'm not guilty then I might as well leave my shame once I have repented... right?
What is natural for me is to avoid it. Go out with friends, watch t.v., I do something to try to numb myself until it passes. Occasionally I do something that is seen as more respectable, journal (or blog!) in an attempt at catharsis. But is this right? Should I be doing everything in my power to avoid feeling bad? Or if not, what is the appropriate response?
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Haw! Haw! Haw!
Sometimes being discerning means deciding things are okay. I think Halloween is one of those times.
To that effect I'm recommending Joe Carter's annual Halloween post at evangelicaloutpost.com. Actually, its focus is less on Halloween in general, and more on some of the awful tracts written by Jack Chick. But I particularly liked this broader paragraph though that responds to some of the urban legends that Christians (especially conservatives and fundamentalists) have bought into:
I would add that I don't even think it's that big a deal for people to dress up as ghosts and the like. I find it interesting that the church in which I grew up, which would not allow children dressed like devils or witches into its "Harvest Party," had no problem with prominent members playing the role of Satan when Heaven's Gates and Hell's Flames came to town.
Of course HG&HF gives a different context to the costume than Halloween, but it does demonstrate in principle that it's possible to dress up like a bad character without it meaning, "I want to be like this." Part of Halloween is celebrating the fact that we can be scared, and that getting scared actually adds something to our lives (hence horror films, roller coasters, etc.). The spiritual, with its unavailability to our senses, is scary and will naturally play a part.
Anybody think I'm way off here?
To that effect I'm recommending Joe Carter's annual Halloween post at evangelicaloutpost.com. Actually, its focus is less on Halloween in general, and more on some of the awful tracts written by Jack Chick. But I particularly liked this broader paragraph though that responds to some of the urban legends that Christians (especially conservatives and fundamentalists) have bought into:
None of this, of course, is true. Halloween is the holiday equivalent of Wicca -- a 20th century invention that pretends to have ancient pagan roots. Halloween has nothing to do with Samhain, a Celtic agricultural festival that marked the beginning of winter. There is also no evidence that Samhain was a celebration devoted to the dead or to ancestor worship, much less to kidnapping, human sacrifice, playing with chainsaws, or walking with snakes on a rope.
I would add that I don't even think it's that big a deal for people to dress up as ghosts and the like. I find it interesting that the church in which I grew up, which would not allow children dressed like devils or witches into its "Harvest Party," had no problem with prominent members playing the role of Satan when Heaven's Gates and Hell's Flames came to town.
Of course HG&HF gives a different context to the costume than Halloween, but it does demonstrate in principle that it's possible to dress up like a bad character without it meaning, "I want to be like this." Part of Halloween is celebrating the fact that we can be scared, and that getting scared actually adds something to our lives (hence horror films, roller coasters, etc.). The spiritual, with its unavailability to our senses, is scary and will naturally play a part.
Anybody think I'm way off here?
Monday, October 29, 2007
Man I hate the Red Sox
... primarily because I hate Red Sox fans.
My heart goes out to Nate and Grace in this sad hour.
My heart goes out to Nate and Grace in this sad hour.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Holy... Trinity!
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Expansion by analogy, or, What's the F?
Apparently this week is Islamo-Fascism Awareness week. Colleges around the nation are inviting speakers to discuss the problem Islamo-Fascism. These are pretty much all conservative speakers... a fact that itself would make for an interesting post.
But instead of that, I'm interested here in how the term "fascism" has come to be used. And by "interested," I mean annoyed. I hate when words lose their meanings, and I'm afraid it's happened to the F word quite some time ago.
Fascism has traditionally indicated a dictatorial government that maintains strict and oppressive control over the activities of its people. (By the way, after reading this definition, does anyone really think the term Islamo-Fascist doesn't legitimately apply to places like Iran?) But that traditional reading has been loosened up. It now seems that any unpleasant exercise of authority is considered fascism.
Perhaps we could call what has happened to this definition, "expansion by analogy." My guess is that it started with calling local authority (principals, parents, etc.) fascists to make an analogy from their rules to despotic declarations. This loosened things up, and the term began to be applied in more and more places. But as it was used for a wider variety of figures and acts it began to lose its function as an analog and take on a broader definition until it came to serve its current function, which is an all-but-contentless slur of disapproval.
Case and point, today's Ann Coulter column. It's probably one of my favorites of hers for clearly pointing out something else I'm frustrated with, the lack of civility on the part of the left (especially at college campuses) that leads to a double standard, despite all the talk about "dialog." However, the mix of appropriate and loose uses of the word fascist just about drove me crazy. Not that it's much of a drive, but still...
But instead of that, I'm interested here in how the term "fascism" has come to be used. And by "interested," I mean annoyed. I hate when words lose their meanings, and I'm afraid it's happened to the F word quite some time ago.
Fascism has traditionally indicated a dictatorial government that maintains strict and oppressive control over the activities of its people. (By the way, after reading this definition, does anyone really think the term Islamo-Fascist doesn't legitimately apply to places like Iran?) But that traditional reading has been loosened up. It now seems that any unpleasant exercise of authority is considered fascism.
Perhaps we could call what has happened to this definition, "expansion by analogy." My guess is that it started with calling local authority (principals, parents, etc.) fascists to make an analogy from their rules to despotic declarations. This loosened things up, and the term began to be applied in more and more places. But as it was used for a wider variety of figures and acts it began to lose its function as an analog and take on a broader definition until it came to serve its current function, which is an all-but-contentless slur of disapproval.
Case and point, today's Ann Coulter column. It's probably one of my favorites of hers for clearly pointing out something else I'm frustrated with, the lack of civility on the part of the left (especially at college campuses) that leads to a double standard, despite all the talk about "dialog." However, the mix of appropriate and loose uses of the word fascist just about drove me crazy. Not that it's much of a drive, but still...
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Hitchcock and Grant: Notorious
Having recently watched/rewatched the three classic Hitchcock and Grant films Notorious, To Catch A Thief, and North By Northwest, I thought I might post a little on them.
The first of these three is Notorious. It's a 1946 picture that includes Ingrid Bergman and Claude Rains along with Grant. I would say that, despite being a good film, it is the least of the three endeavors. It is shot in black and white, and in 4:3.
Alicia performs her work well for a time and provides useful information, but when Sebastian discovers the real reason she is with him, he begins to poison her. Not having seen her for a while, Devlin decides to check on Alicia at Sebastian's house. In the end he must get her out while Sebastian, Sebastian's mother, and all the Nazis are watching.
The biggest reason, by far, is Ingrid Bergman, who gives one of the best performances I have ever seen from an actress. Despite the film being suspense/thriller, there are several scenes in which she pulls off outstandingly subtle and layered performances. I particularly liked her response to the news that her father was dead. Also, she does absolutely the best job I have ever seen of playing a woman in new love.
Along with Bergman's brilliance, the rest of the cast turn in solid performances. As does Hitchcock behind the camera. There are a couple of interesting cinematographic effects. And Hitch's shots are always well composed, if sometimes a bit too obvious (more so in Notorious than in later films).
One of the basic reasons is Cary Grant's role. Grant himself is always solid, but this role does not let him shine the way the other two films do. He was at his best when delivering rapid fire dialog full of witty one liners and sharp banter barely this side of the censors, and in he gets to do very little of that. He's not particularly suave, or charming, or funny... he's just the male romantic lead. And Cary Grant is one of the rare actors who should never be just anything!
But the blame for this cannot fall to Grant. It is primarily on the shoulders of the screenwriter and Hitchcock. This is a movie that starts out as though it will be character centered, then shifts gears into full on plot mode. A mountaintop scene that lasts just long enough for a fight to turn to a kiss is the best example here.
There is also the issue that I found Notorious to be rather less suspenseful than most Hitchcock pictures. Were the final scene only the first half of a buildup I think I would have been much more satisfied. And even more so if there had been some sort of denouement (a technique Hitchcock consistently employs later on). If Alicia's spy work is the McGuffin, then why end at its conclusion instead of at least briefly showing her and Devlin to us once more?
Rating: 7/10
MPAA Rating: NR
Objectionable Material: almost none
Recommended for: anyone who likes classic film, Hitchcock, or Ingrid Bergman.
The most protective of parents might be concerned with Alicia's marrying Sebastian for the purpose of gaining information. However the sexual implications are never discussed explicitly, and children old enough to make the connection are likely to be mature enough to watch.
The first of these three is Notorious. It's a 1946 picture that includes Ingrid Bergman and Claude Rains along with Grant. I would say that, despite being a good film, it is the least of the three endeavors. It is shot in black and white, and in 4:3.
- Plot Summary
Alicia performs her work well for a time and provides useful information, but when Sebastian discovers the real reason she is with him, he begins to poison her. Not having seen her for a while, Devlin decides to check on Alicia at Sebastian's house. In the end he must get her out while Sebastian, Sebastian's mother, and all the Nazis are watching.
- First, for why it is a good film.
The biggest reason, by far, is Ingrid Bergman, who gives one of the best performances I have ever seen from an actress. Despite the film being suspense/thriller, there are several scenes in which she pulls off outstandingly subtle and layered performances. I particularly liked her response to the news that her father was dead. Also, she does absolutely the best job I have ever seen of playing a woman in new love.
Along with Bergman's brilliance, the rest of the cast turn in solid performances. As does Hitchcock behind the camera. There are a couple of interesting cinematographic effects. And Hitch's shots are always well composed, if sometimes a bit too obvious (more so in Notorious than in later films).
- And now, for why it is not as good as To Catch A Thief or North By Northwest.
One of the basic reasons is Cary Grant's role. Grant himself is always solid, but this role does not let him shine the way the other two films do. He was at his best when delivering rapid fire dialog full of witty one liners and sharp banter barely this side of the censors, and in he gets to do very little of that. He's not particularly suave, or charming, or funny... he's just the male romantic lead. And Cary Grant is one of the rare actors who should never be just anything!
But the blame for this cannot fall to Grant. It is primarily on the shoulders of the screenwriter and Hitchcock. This is a movie that starts out as though it will be character centered, then shifts gears into full on plot mode. A mountaintop scene that lasts just long enough for a fight to turn to a kiss is the best example here.
There is also the issue that I found Notorious to be rather less suspenseful than most Hitchcock pictures. Were the final scene only the first half of a buildup I think I would have been much more satisfied. And even more so if there had been some sort of denouement (a technique Hitchcock consistently employs later on). If Alicia's spy work is the McGuffin, then why end at its conclusion instead of at least briefly showing her and Devlin to us once more?
- Verdict
Rating: 7/10
MPAA Rating: NR
Objectionable Material: almost none
Recommended for: anyone who likes classic film, Hitchcock, or Ingrid Bergman.
The most protective of parents might be concerned with Alicia's marrying Sebastian for the purpose of gaining information. However the sexual implications are never discussed explicitly, and children old enough to make the connection are likely to be mature enough to watch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
