I haven’t paid attention to the blogging world for the past week unfortunately, as I’ve just been really busy with other things – but the other night I watched the movie Religulous, which features American political humourist Bill Maher – and it has inspired me to get back into things!

What struck me as I watched was that the “New Atheists” are somewhat like the “Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood”: The pre-Raphaelites, as I recall, were a group of painters who were not actually prior to Raphael – they were long after Raphael, but they wanted to push a return in style to the time before Raphael, and that’s how they got their name.  Similarly, I think, the resurgence in a particular form of atheism in our own time smacks of a previous era – a time of black and white “rationalism”.

In the movie, there were recurring phrases like “the progress of humankind”, “rational people can’t believe…”, “science has proved…” etc etc etc… and the whole thing felt like stepping back in time to a quaint bygone Cartesian era.  Maher gushes:

• “faith means making a virtue out of not thinking”
• “Rational people, anti-religionists, must end their timidity and come out of the closet and assert themselves”
• “The hour is getting very late to be able to indulge having in key decisions made by religious people - by irrationalists…”

Anyway, if you’re interested in a movie that critically but light-heartedly explores Christianity from the perspective of an atheist, I recommend Andrew Denton’s God on my Side – it’s far more insightful and poignant than Religulous.

Today I received the award-winning collection of poems by Michael Symmons Roberts entitled ‘Corpus’.  I heard Roberts do some readings of his poetry recently, and really liked his stuff.  It is, I think, highly theological – but without being esoteric.  In fact, he seems very eager to make sure the heights of theological imagination are firmly grounded in the realities of bodies and earth and flesh and food and smoke and death (and resurrection).  I’ll give a couple of examples, and I encourage you to get this small book and spend time in its world.

Food for Risen Bodies – IV

Jairus

Well my optimism was rewarded with the smug satisfaction of being pretty much right about this book (Greek Verbs in the New Testament and Their Principal Parts).  Mind you, I guess I’d already read the back cover, so perhaps I should wipe that stupid grin from my face.  After all, “a fool’s lips bring him strife, and his mouth invites a beating” (Proverbs 18:6). 

Anyway, the book aims to explain how Greek verbs change the way they do, using the “principal parts” as a way in to that topic.  Vance looks at different types of verbs (eg. ’second’ verbs, contract verbs, liquid verbs, etc) and helps the reader to see some sense in the distinctive forms that they take.  So the verbs that are unlike “luo” are not simply lumped together and labelled “irregular”, but rather understood on their own terms.  Even in the section on verbs that don’t fit into any of his main categories, Vance says, “the factors that determine whether a Greek verb is irregular are somewhat arbitrary.” (p105)

The bulk of the book consists of lists of actually-occuring principal parts of (allegedly) all of the verbs in the New Testament – BUT the lists are not for the purpose of memorisation, but rather for the purpose of illustration of the ‘rules’ and patterns that are the substance of the book’s explanatory sections.

I think it will work well as a reference – so if a student asks, “Why does the aorist passive of this verb look like this?” or if I’m reading the NT and wonder “If this is an aorist active, why does it end in ‘ka’ instead of ’sa’?”, this book will quickly provide some direction and clarification.

As F.W. Danker summarises on the back cover of the book, “Vance takes the wraps off much of the mystery surrounding the many forms that Greek verbs undergo while donating meaning to a literary text.”

Saw Gran Torino last night.  It’s kinda like a meditation on Ephesians 2:14-16:

For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility…. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility.

It’s a story about atonement, sacrifice, reconciliation… worth seeing.

In the Footsteps of Paul is a photographic gift-book that follows the story of Acts, illustrating its locations alongside parts of its text.  I noticed that James K gave it a positive review on his blog, so was looking forward to it when Thomas Nelson sent me a copy.  Overall, I like the book – and I’ll try to sum up why that is, as well as mention a couple of shortcomings.

There are two things that really work well about this book:

Firstly, the photographs are excellent.  I’d heard of Ken Duncan before, but I don’t think I’d particularly taken notice of his photography.  He really does have an eye for a good picture – and the multitude of good photos in this book make it perfect to leave on the coffee table and flip through when you have time to sit down.  Some of the photos are of scenery, some are of archaeological sites, some are of early Christian artwork in the relevant locations… all attempt to find something in the location that draws attention to the action in the book of Acts in some illuminating way.

Secondly, I like the idea of pursuing the storyline of Acts – it gives direction and continuity to the masses of pictures, and means that it can be read through from beginning to end in a way that makes good sense.  The book makes me interested in the locations and interested in the text of Acts – so for those reasons alone, I’m glad to have it.

I think there are also a couple of shortcomings – one about the genre and one about the explanations/quotations:

Firstly, the genre of the book is a somewhat awkward one: It attempts to provide both an illumination of Paul’s world, and a Christian pilgrimage that celebrates the legacy of Paul…  But can those things be combined?  If one is trying to celebrate Paul’s Christian legacy, one will inevitably be looking for direct links to Paul himself – and so the most common words in the book are “Paul would have” – Paul would have gone here, or seen this, or passed through this passage, or sat in this seat…  This made me a little bit uncomfortable, as I would personally have been happier with a simple illumination of the world that Acts describes, without being bothered about the buzz of thinking that Paul himself might have actually touched/seen/walked in that exact location.  At times, this search for a “Paul buzz” results in some comments that are really pushing it: So on p49 we see a picture of a stone seat, with the claim: “Peter and Paul both would have sat in this chair, which was Saint Peter’s chair.”  Hmmmm…

Secondly, I felt that the quotations from famous Christians didn’t really add much – in fact I found they distracted me from following the movement of Acts itself.  And some of the explanations were a bit off.  For example, we are told on p113 that the temple of Apollo in Corinth was built in the fourth century BC.  I’ve never heard this dating before – as far as I’m aware, it was built in the 6th century BCE – so this slip up made me wonder if any other facts were off too.

But in the end, this is a photo-book, and as such, it really does excell.  It’s a great book to have on the coffee table, and to inspire you to come back again to the book of Acts, and hear it afresh.

I was given a DVD to review by the good folks at Thomas Nelson:

It’s part of a series of DVDs that aims to engage pre-schoolers with stories from the Bible.  Overall I’m impressed with this volume, which covers Genesis, up until the point that Jacob wrestles with God; and then episodes from the Gospels. 

The animation, as you can gather from the cover, is simple and representative, while quite warm and engaging.  I like the funny noses… somehow the obvious cartoonish-ness of the animation draws attention to the fact that this is not supposed to be taken as a painstaking re-creation of the historical events, but rather a pathway into the drama of the Bible’s stories.  In this vein, there are ways in which the stories are especially directed toward the young viewers, with the creation account mentioning puppies, the Noah’s ark sequence involving a monkey riding on a deer’s back, and other gently humourous or expanded elements.  Having said that, I think the DVD as a whole does well in being faithful to the stories it tells.  There are no moralising interpretations added onto the stories – they are simply allowed to speak for themselves, which is a good thing from my perspective.

The background instrumental music is non-intrusive and quite fitting.  Different vignettes are narrated by one of two different narrators.  The male narrator has what I would guess is a Boston accent – very clear and understandable for those of us who live in the UK!  The female narrator’s voice is also quite clear and accessible to children.

I have not watched every bit of the bonus features, but this is because our 4yo daughter and 2yo son didn’t like those parts.  They involved material that was largely aimed at parents, showing how the animation was done.  Older children might find this interesting, but it didn’t seem entirely necessary.

One of the drawbacks of simplifying the Bible for children is that inevitably certain things are skipped over, and certain things are crystallised in a way that may need to be unlearned later on in life.  For example, the story of the prodigal son finishes with the return of the prodigal (missing out the climactic interchange with the older brother); and the angels are shown as winged creatures (rather than appearing human) with Gregorian-style singing voices.  I’m not quite sure what to make of this issue: Will my children now picture winged creatures when they hear about angels in the Bible – not realising that the New Testament itself never indicates that this is how they are to be understood?  Will they, in future years, assume that the only point of the “Prodigal Son” parable is that the father welcomed the prodigal?  I think these sorts of things are always going to be issues when we attempt to put something literary into a visual form: There is a loss that occurs when the Bible is made into a DVD… but that doesn’t mean that it’s a worthless enterprise; it simply means that we need to be aware of these drawbacks.

My two children really enjoy watching this DVD, sometimes watching the whole thing (I guess about 40 minutes) twice in one sitting!  So I’m happy to recommend it to people with pre-school age children, and we’ll be looking out for subsequent volumes in the series.

The other night we watched an underrated 2007 movie called ‘He was a quiet man’.  The movie stars Christian Slater, and is worth watching, for the way it explores what it means to be a dys/functional human.

The film was reviewed incompetently by the New York Times here - to which I have added a dissenting comment!  It has also received a number of online reviews here, many of which seem to involve confusion about the film’s unexpected ending.  Again, I’ve added my own review.  Of course, interpretation is not straightforward, and particularly in a film that includes surreal elements, the viewer’s own contribution is important.  But I do think a number of reviews have missed something of the coherence of this thought-provoking movie.  As I say in my reviews, it explores disablement and enablement, ironically finding that enablement is found through dependence on and engagement with others, while disablement is found through defiant, independent withdrawal.

But how can you reach an interpretation like this?  How can you “get” a film?  I just want to suggest one little starting point, which is also worthwhile in contemplating biblical exegesis…

Be extremely curious: I think the most important question in exegesis is: “What the..???” – Ask why a writer/director has chosen to put something in and leave something else out. 

With the movie, for example, ask: “Why do we keep seeing this image of a goldfish in a bowl?  What is that communicating?”  Or “Why do we keep seeing Bob in a lift (elevator), with the doors closing?  What is that communicating?”  Or “Why do we keep seeing an emphasis on Bob being a ‘quiet’ man?”  Or “What is the point of seeing the hula woman broken and then restored?”

With 1 Corinthians, similarly, we could allow curiosity to prompt us to ask: “Why does Paul tell them in the opening verses that they have been made rich in every way, with all speech and knowledge, and that they have every gift they need, when he is later going to slam them for their speech, knowledge, and gifts?  What is that communicating?”  Or “Why does Paul mention Crispus and Gaius by name when recalling those he baptised, but fail to immediately mention Stephanas, who was actually there in Corinth with him!???  What’s going on there?”

In practice, all this really means is being an active listener/viewer, rather than passively letting the text wash over us.