This is somewhat old news but Disney have bought Marvel Comics. This means that not just the film studio but the comic book arm of the company are now owned by Disney. What difference does this make you may wonder? Well currently the movie rights to several Marvel comic book characters including Spiderman and the X-Men are owned by other studios, namely Sony and 20th Century Fox respectively. There are currently rumours going around that Marvel comics are putting the pressure on 20th Century Fox by discontinuing certain comic book publications of the Fantastic Four characters in anticipation of the forthcoming movie reboot by 20th Century Fox. While these are just rumours and may prove utterly false and ridiculous it does raise the worrying possibility that Disney could use their industrial muscle to eventually force other studios to sell back the rights to these characters.
What`s so bad about that some of you may ask? After all seeing Spiderman in an Avengers sequel would be a dream come true for many Marvel fans. And I totally understand the desire to see a definitive Marvel shared universe. However, I think certain things would also be sacrificed in such a scenario. The current X-Men movie universe would be totally incompatible with the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). Mutants whether heroes or villains are treated with fear and suspicion in the X-Men movies. There is an internal logic to these films that deals with societal issues of xenophobia and discrimination against minorities and other people or things deemed "deviant" to societal norms and values. That would just not work in a MCU world of super-powered and celebrity superheroes such as the Avengers. Why should society hate mutants for being different and "superior" physically and even mentally to ordinary human beings, while superheroes who for all intents and purposes are alike mutants in their extraordinary abilities be loved and praised? Therefore should Disney own the movie rights to the X-Men there would need to be a completely new retelling of the X-Men story in order to make it consistent with the MCU. To some this retelling would be welcomed, especially as the X-Men movie franchise has taken some liberties with their characters. But for me, it is refreshing to see a different approach taken to the superhero conventions. The X-Men must fight for the ultimate good of society and mutant kind even if they are hated by humans and other more militant mutants alike.
Days of Future Past (DOFP) is a great example of how 20th Century Fox understands how to make a great X-Men movie. I loved DOFP, I thought it mixed drama with humour and action intelligently and skillfully. It combined two different casts and made them work together; it dealt with two different time periods and connected them in a believable way and it developed characters and their story arcs that gave the movie depth as well as excitement and great action sequences. I thought DOFP was a great achievement not just in healing past wounds created by former X-Men films which missed their mark, but also for comic book movies in general as a faithful adaptation of the spirit of a well known comic book. Would Disney Marvel Studios have done it better? Maybe, maybe not. But for all Marvel Studios successes - Iron Man springs immediately to mind - there were also failures (Iron Man 2 was a disappointing sequel to the original and Iron Man 3 was also a let down). I also thought the tone of DOFP was spot on, it was dark and dystopian in its vision of the future but also historically faithful in its past scenes featuring the younger, 70s versions of the characters. It also got the right balance between drama and humour with some genuinely funny moments that didn`t detract from the gravity and seriousness of their mission to save the future. Would Disney Marvel have replicated that tone? I`m not so sure. Thor managed to combine good natured humour with action but the story arc of the film felt a little too rushed to give it true poignancy.
Then there is the fact that Disney now own LucasFilm and the Star Wars franchise. Disney have already announced that they will make one new Star Wars Movie a year and have come good on that promise just recently by announcing that the director of the new Godzilla movie, Gareth Edwards, will direct the first Star Wars spin-off to be released after Episode VII, which comes out next year. Disney are currently saturating the movie market with their existing franchises. Time will tell whether this new chapter in Star Wars will be as good as the original Trilogy. JJ Abrams is a capable director and in many ways a natural choice for Episode VII but when the decision to give the relaunch of the Star Wars franchise to him was announced it didn`t automatically fill me with confidence.
Now regarding DC and all the hate DC gets in relation to the success of Disney Marvel Studios, I honestly get so annoyed by DC-haters or at least Warner Bros. haters. When the announcement was made that Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice would be delayed a year to 2016, I was bitterly disappointed. But after the initial surprise wore off, I came to see the decision as probably the best call to make. Warner Bros. are handling two of DC`s biggest, most successful and beloved characters in their first live-action debut as a duo. This movie marks a landmark in superhero movie mythology. It is unprecedented. Therefore it needs to be done right. Man of Steel (MOS) may not have been a perfect movie, but it got a lot of things right in my opinion and the fact that it was an origin story left plenty of room to explore other stories connected to the ramifications of the main resolution to the film. Criticism of the portrayal of Superman`s character or of the plot itself I feel need to be put into the broader context of an origin story arc that is only the beginning not the climax of Superman`s journey. Criticism of the CGI heavy nature to the action sequences is also quite puzzling from my perspective. Fans of the Avengers, which was incredibly CGI dependent (the Hulk anyone?) complained at the level of destruction wrought on Metropolis and Smallville. So I think there is a little bit of Marvel fanboy-ism creeping in to the way some people viewed the movie.
Whether people like MOS or not, the fact remains that it created a shared DC Universe (DCU). Warner Bros. owns all the movie rights to the DC characters and so in one respect has an advantage over Disney Marvel Studios. Yet even though there is so much potential for the forthcoming Justice League movie there is already a lot of doubt and skepticism. Warner Bros. is accused of not believing in their own characters, DC has been criticized for creating characters that are too black and white in their moral values and the casting decisions for the movies already in development or filming have ignited hateful remarks and comments on internet forums and social media sites. The various negative reactions genuinely confounds me. Movies of comic books, like novels and other forms of literature are always adaptations of the original. Some things that work in novels and comic books don`t translate well into films or are more niche and not suitable for a more general audience. Movies must traverse that path between being faithful to the source material and having mainstream appeal. That is an incredibly difficult thing to do and in truth a job I am not envious of. Therefore, I think comic book fans need to cut the movie studios some slack and embrace different interpretations of characters and story lines. Even if you end up hating the film, try to approach each movie with an open mind.
Sunday, 15 June 2014
Friday, 24 January 2014
Election, a study of 1 Peter chapter 1
"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood:
May grace and peace be multiplied to you." 1 Peter 1:1-2 ESV
"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
May God give you more and more grace and peace." 1 Peter 1:1-2 NLT
From these samplings of English translations of 1 Peter 1:1-2 it would seem very clear that Peter believes that the Church has been elected by God. Peter is writing to the churches after the diaspora from Jerusalem. But does this mean all individual Christians are also elected? Well the Church is made up of individual Christians and so it could be argued the Church and Christians are interchangable terms. It would certainly seem odd that if God has elected the Church as the manifestation of His Kingdom here on earth that He would not also guarantee that the Christians who make up the body of Christ and through whom God now acts by the indwelling Holy Spirit, would not also be elected. What does the rest of 1 Peter 1 say?
"All praise to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is by his great mercy that we have been born again, because God raised Jesus Christ from the dead. Now we live with great expectation, 4 and we have a priceless inheritance—an inheritance that is kept in heaven for you, pure and undefiled, beyond the reach of change and decay. 5 And through your faith, God is protecting you by his power until you receive this salvation, which is ready to be revealed on the last day for all to see." 1 Peter 3-5 NLT
"For you know that God paid a ransom to save you from the empty life you inherited from your ancestors. And the ransom he paid was not mere gold or silver. 19 It was the precious blood of Christ, the sinless, spotless Lamb of God." 1 Peter 1:18-19 NLT
"For you have been born again, but not to a life that will quickly end. Your new life will last forever because it comes from the eternal, living word of God. 24 As the Scriptures say,
To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood:
May grace and peace be multiplied to you." 1 Peter 1:1-2 ESV
"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
To God’s elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, 2 who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood:
Grace and peace be yours in abundance." 1 Peter 1:1-2 NIV
"This letter is from Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ.
I am writing to God’s chosen people who are living as foreigners in the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia.2 God the Father knew you and chose you long ago, and his Spirit has made you holy. As a result, you have obeyed him and have been cleansed by the blood of Jesus Christ.May God give you more and more grace and peace." 1 Peter 1:1-2 NLT
From these samplings of English translations of 1 Peter 1:1-2 it would seem very clear that Peter believes that the Church has been elected by God. Peter is writing to the churches after the diaspora from Jerusalem. But does this mean all individual Christians are also elected? Well the Church is made up of individual Christians and so it could be argued the Church and Christians are interchangable terms. It would certainly seem odd that if God has elected the Church as the manifestation of His Kingdom here on earth that He would not also guarantee that the Christians who make up the body of Christ and through whom God now acts by the indwelling Holy Spirit, would not also be elected. What does the rest of 1 Peter 1 say?
"All praise to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is by his great mercy that we have been born again, because God raised Jesus Christ from the dead. Now we live with great expectation, 4 and we have a priceless inheritance—an inheritance that is kept in heaven for you, pure and undefiled, beyond the reach of change and decay. 5 And through your faith, God is protecting you by his power until you receive this salvation, which is ready to be revealed on the last day for all to see." 1 Peter 3-5 NLT
"For you know that God paid a ransom to save you from the empty life you inherited from your ancestors. And the ransom he paid was not mere gold or silver. 19 It was the precious blood of Christ, the sinless, spotless Lamb of God." 1 Peter 1:18-19 NLT
"For you have been born again, but not to a life that will quickly end. Your new life will last forever because it comes from the eternal, living word of God. 24 As the Scriptures say,
“People are like grass;
their beauty is like a flower in the field.
The grass withers and the flower fades.
25 But the word of the Lord remains forever.”[f]
their beauty is like a flower in the field.
The grass withers and the flower fades.
25 But the word of the Lord remains forever.”[f]
And that word is the Good News that was preached to you. 1 Peter 1:23-25 NLT
From surveying the rest of the chapter, putting verses 1-2 into context Peter clearly teaches that salvation comes from God alone and that it is by grace we are born again. Peter mentions being born again twice, drawing attention and adding emphasis to the dichotomy between the believers old lives and their new Christian ones. Their old life died when their new life in Christ began. That is the reason why Peter calls them to live lives of holiness, because they are no longer of the world, living by its standards and under the bondage of sin. Christians belong to God and thus must reflect the image of their redeemer and saviour. Peter also clearly teaches that the new life we have as Christians is eternal and again explains this is because it comes not from ourselves but from God. Salvation is 100% God.
Are Christians elected and is their election secure? From 1 Peter 1 I would say that they are. Now there are many other scriptures and chapters we could look at which explore this subject. But I have chosen to keep this study specific to the chapter in question. What do we learn about the Christian life from 1 Peter 1?
- Salvation comes from God by way of Jesus` atoning, substitutionary sacrifice
- Christians are born again through faith, which comes from God (by His mercy)
- Christians have been saved from their past lives of sin because God has paid the ransom (by His own Son, Jesus Christ`s blood)
- Christians have an inheritance which is eternal and unchangable
- Christians inherit eternal life, guaranteed by the Word of God
From this, I believe that election is unconditional in the respect that we do not and cannot earn our salvation. It is by grace alone. I also believe that true Christians (those that are born again) cannot lose their salvation or inheritance because it is guaranteed by the faithfulness of God. However, who constitutes a real Christian is a tricky question to answer as only God sees into the human heart and judges us accordingly. However, Peter here seems to suggest we will be able to tell those who are genuine believers by their obedience to God and in living holy lives, bearing the fruit of their salvation.
Steven Seagal Force of Execution Review
Steven Seagal`s recent films are all a much of a muchness. To say he is typecasted would be the understatement of a lifetime! "Force of Execution" is yet another straight to DVD/Blu-Ray b-movie which conforms, in the main, to the conventions Seagal`s films have become known for. It involves violence, criminals, drugs and `exotic dancers` (apparently it is compulsory for every gangster to either run or frequent `exotic dance` clubs). Steven Seagal`s characters have become slightly edgier over the last 6-8 years or so, possibly as life has made him more cynical. But by and large he plays the same archetypal character: a highly trained ex-government/black ops/cop who has a mysterious past and is the best in the world at what he does. To my knowledge, Force of Execution sees Seagal play for the first time a Gangster, called Mr Alexander.
I applaud Seagal for desiring (in his own limited way) to stretch himself and portray a character from the other side of the tracks; after all it is understandable that he might have developed a perverse curiosity into the criminal underworld, as he has spent the majority of his adult life as a deputy sheriff in New Orleans/Arizona dealing with real criminals on a regular basis. Nevertheless Seagal never truly seems comfortable in the role. The antagonist of the film, played by Ving Rhames and Mr Alexander`s counter-part Ice-Man, throws himself into the sordid and debauched world of the life of crime and comes across very naturally as the street thug and wannabe gangster set on overthrowing Mr Alexander`s criminal empire. Yet Seagal`s character is a gentleman gangster. The film opens with a supposed torture scene where Seagal`s right hand man Roman Hurst, played by Bren Foster, has a `snitch` tied up awaiting the wrath of Mr Alexander. Instead, Seagal commands for the man to be untied and throws a knife down at his feet telling the man to commit suicide to regain his honour (a form of seppuku, the ritualised suicide of disgraced Samurai in Feudal Japan). The man predictably has no intention of committing suicide and seizing his opportunity attacks Mr Alexander with the knife given to him, setting up the first Seagal action sequence of the film. Even more predictably, Seagal dispatches with the man using his martial arts prowess as is his trademark.
Throughout the film, Seagal doesn`t seem to do one truly evil thing. Drugs are a big part of the criminal underworld that Ice-Man is hellbent on taking over, threatening and using violent means of intimidation to force the local Latino gangsters to give him a cut of their profits, but Mr Alexander never dirties his hands with drugs in the film personally. Rather Seagal plays a disillusioned Gangster who admits through the course of the film that he wants to retire from his life of crime and leave it all behind him, even confessing in the last scene that he regrets many of the things he`s done. Seagal is never truly at home in that world and his reluctance and reticence to truly be the villain causes him to play a very grey character indeed. Considering a lot of Seagal`s films portray characters in very black and white terms. This film struggles to find its identity.
Arguably the main character in the film, and certainly the unsung hero, is Bren Foster`s henchman Roman Hurst. Foster, a martial artist himself, infiltrates a prison where Mr Alexander has ordered a hit on a prisoner. Hurst kills the wrong man after being deceived by Ice-Man and is therefore punished and exiled by Mr Alexander (who once again shows mercy in refusing to have him killed). Hurst`s hands are broken and he is left crippled. However, as the film progresses, Hurst finds himself at the heart of the action once again and slowly, regaining his strength and use of his hands, joins the war with Mr Alexander against Ice-Man. In fact, Seagal is conspicuous by his absence for large parts of the film. I`m not sure whether it is his age, or time constraints on filming due to his many other side projects but Seagal certainly isn`t at the centre of every scene and it is hard to argue he is the main character.
Foster`s character juxtaposes Seagal`s with his own martial arts style. Foster is a Taekwondo champion and his fight scenes are far more dynamic compared and contrasted to the efficient and brutal style Seagal is known for with his Aikido background. This definitely adds a much needed layer to the film that is typically one dimensional.
But perhaps the most odd and disappointing thing about the film is the surprise inclusion into the cast of former UFC heavyweight champion Frank Mir. Mir plays one of Seagal`s henchmen but is given no speaking parts and no fight scenes of his own, resulting it what is little more than him being a glorified extra, rather than a real cameo performance. You would think with Mir being a professional and extremely talented mixed martial artist that he would have been given at least one fight scene, but instead Mir just stands there in his scenes looking rather out of place and not really sure what he is meant to be doing. If Mir had serious intentions of transitioning into acting after his MMA career was over, you would have thought a Steven Seagal film the perfect environment to cut his teeth. Sadly, this is not the case.
Overall this film is one of Seagal`s weakest to date, which considering the rate of decline in his film projects over the last decade or so is really saying something! The problem the film has is the fact that the characters are not well defined or written, Seagal reverts to type and ends up playing more of a black ops guy than a Gangster. Ice-Man for all his indulgance in vice and depravity as a gangster, is not the kind of physical threat to Seagal that the antagonist needs to be in a martial arts film. Foster is really the star of the film but is not really given the credit he deserves at the resolution of the film and in general the film`s scope and budget seem very small.
There has been a very distinct transition in Seagal`s career from hollywood action hero to TV star. Seagal`s films now just go straight to DVD/Blu-Ray and he has made several TV programs including his reality show Lawman. For me, Seagal should give up the b-movies and focus on his TV projects. His Lawman show is one of the most entertaining things he has created in years, giving fans a glimpse into the real Steven Seagal. Seagal is a talented man and definitely has the kind of interesting personality, TV is made for. His True Justice series is also a feather in his cap. The series sees him playing the same character, Elijah Kane, and allows him to actually explore a character and their backstory, fleshing out his character, which have largely been one dimensional in his film projects. Not to mention the fact that the quality of True Justice is on a par, if not better than some of his more recent films. I respect Seagal for continuing to do what he loves, but the gulf in quality between his early films of the late 80s through to the late 90s and his recent films of the noughties up to the present day is now so wide that they are really incomparible. Long gone are the days when Seagal`s films actually made important and relevant statements about modern society such as Above the Law and On Deadly Ground. Also gone are the days when it was realistic (within film land) that Seagal was a one man army such as in his highly enjoyable and entertaining Under Seige films.
I applaud Seagal for desiring (in his own limited way) to stretch himself and portray a character from the other side of the tracks; after all it is understandable that he might have developed a perverse curiosity into the criminal underworld, as he has spent the majority of his adult life as a deputy sheriff in New Orleans/Arizona dealing with real criminals on a regular basis. Nevertheless Seagal never truly seems comfortable in the role. The antagonist of the film, played by Ving Rhames and Mr Alexander`s counter-part Ice-Man, throws himself into the sordid and debauched world of the life of crime and comes across very naturally as the street thug and wannabe gangster set on overthrowing Mr Alexander`s criminal empire. Yet Seagal`s character is a gentleman gangster. The film opens with a supposed torture scene where Seagal`s right hand man Roman Hurst, played by Bren Foster, has a `snitch` tied up awaiting the wrath of Mr Alexander. Instead, Seagal commands for the man to be untied and throws a knife down at his feet telling the man to commit suicide to regain his honour (a form of seppuku, the ritualised suicide of disgraced Samurai in Feudal Japan). The man predictably has no intention of committing suicide and seizing his opportunity attacks Mr Alexander with the knife given to him, setting up the first Seagal action sequence of the film. Even more predictably, Seagal dispatches with the man using his martial arts prowess as is his trademark.
Throughout the film, Seagal doesn`t seem to do one truly evil thing. Drugs are a big part of the criminal underworld that Ice-Man is hellbent on taking over, threatening and using violent means of intimidation to force the local Latino gangsters to give him a cut of their profits, but Mr Alexander never dirties his hands with drugs in the film personally. Rather Seagal plays a disillusioned Gangster who admits through the course of the film that he wants to retire from his life of crime and leave it all behind him, even confessing in the last scene that he regrets many of the things he`s done. Seagal is never truly at home in that world and his reluctance and reticence to truly be the villain causes him to play a very grey character indeed. Considering a lot of Seagal`s films portray characters in very black and white terms. This film struggles to find its identity.
Arguably the main character in the film, and certainly the unsung hero, is Bren Foster`s henchman Roman Hurst. Foster, a martial artist himself, infiltrates a prison where Mr Alexander has ordered a hit on a prisoner. Hurst kills the wrong man after being deceived by Ice-Man and is therefore punished and exiled by Mr Alexander (who once again shows mercy in refusing to have him killed). Hurst`s hands are broken and he is left crippled. However, as the film progresses, Hurst finds himself at the heart of the action once again and slowly, regaining his strength and use of his hands, joins the war with Mr Alexander against Ice-Man. In fact, Seagal is conspicuous by his absence for large parts of the film. I`m not sure whether it is his age, or time constraints on filming due to his many other side projects but Seagal certainly isn`t at the centre of every scene and it is hard to argue he is the main character.
Foster`s character juxtaposes Seagal`s with his own martial arts style. Foster is a Taekwondo champion and his fight scenes are far more dynamic compared and contrasted to the efficient and brutal style Seagal is known for with his Aikido background. This definitely adds a much needed layer to the film that is typically one dimensional.
But perhaps the most odd and disappointing thing about the film is the surprise inclusion into the cast of former UFC heavyweight champion Frank Mir. Mir plays one of Seagal`s henchmen but is given no speaking parts and no fight scenes of his own, resulting it what is little more than him being a glorified extra, rather than a real cameo performance. You would think with Mir being a professional and extremely talented mixed martial artist that he would have been given at least one fight scene, but instead Mir just stands there in his scenes looking rather out of place and not really sure what he is meant to be doing. If Mir had serious intentions of transitioning into acting after his MMA career was over, you would have thought a Steven Seagal film the perfect environment to cut his teeth. Sadly, this is not the case.
Overall this film is one of Seagal`s weakest to date, which considering the rate of decline in his film projects over the last decade or so is really saying something! The problem the film has is the fact that the characters are not well defined or written, Seagal reverts to type and ends up playing more of a black ops guy than a Gangster. Ice-Man for all his indulgance in vice and depravity as a gangster, is not the kind of physical threat to Seagal that the antagonist needs to be in a martial arts film. Foster is really the star of the film but is not really given the credit he deserves at the resolution of the film and in general the film`s scope and budget seem very small.
There has been a very distinct transition in Seagal`s career from hollywood action hero to TV star. Seagal`s films now just go straight to DVD/Blu-Ray and he has made several TV programs including his reality show Lawman. For me, Seagal should give up the b-movies and focus on his TV projects. His Lawman show is one of the most entertaining things he has created in years, giving fans a glimpse into the real Steven Seagal. Seagal is a talented man and definitely has the kind of interesting personality, TV is made for. His True Justice series is also a feather in his cap. The series sees him playing the same character, Elijah Kane, and allows him to actually explore a character and their backstory, fleshing out his character, which have largely been one dimensional in his film projects. Not to mention the fact that the quality of True Justice is on a par, if not better than some of his more recent films. I respect Seagal for continuing to do what he loves, but the gulf in quality between his early films of the late 80s through to the late 90s and his recent films of the noughties up to the present day is now so wide that they are really incomparible. Long gone are the days when Seagal`s films actually made important and relevant statements about modern society such as Above the Law and On Deadly Ground. Also gone are the days when it was realistic (within film land) that Seagal was a one man army such as in his highly enjoyable and entertaining Under Seige films.
Saturday, 18 January 2014
Those with ears let them hear
When it comes to the matter of origins, the evolution/creation debate is fraught with emotions. The evolutionary paradigm is the monolith of our age that stands against Christian doctrine. To borrow a biblical analogy, creationism is most definitely the David to evolution`s Goliath. There are those both within and outside of the Church that see no contradiction between religion and science, permitting first that Genesis 1-11 is not accepted as historical. Some try to resolve the issue by believing God used evolution as His means of creating humanity (Theistic Evolutionists), despite the fact that this was not Darwin`s theory and indeed is at odds with the character of God found in the Bible. There are those that choose to believe religion and science operate in two mutually exclusive and separate spheres - one of physics the other of metaphysics. Yet this dichotomy is hard to maintain when ethics and morality are increasingly being influenced by neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory and indeed would require allegorising almost all of the Bible that speaks of God`s interaction with Israel and His creation. All attempts to blur the edges between the scientific paradigm of methodological naturalism and the doctrines of the Bible are unsatisfactory for one reason or another, either scientifically or theologically.
The debate over our origins is an ideological battleground. It is fiercely contested. The controversy rages on and both sides shoot to kill. I have recently had experience of this first hand. I have been discussing the origins issue on an internet forum, from which I have a few reflections I would like to share:
I now believe it is a mistake to engage in this debate with people who are not genuinely open to the Bible. Creationism (the belief that God created in six literal days as recorded in Genesis 1), is instantly dismissed in the minds of evolutionists precisely because its source of authority is the Bible. The secularisation of western society is such that any appeal to the Bible as a source of authority in matters historical or scientific are rejected as incredulous. I also believe it is a mistake to engage in this debate with people who are not genuinely open to the belief in the sovereignty of God. It is axiomatic that if there is no God then there is no creator, no designer and no truth to the Bible. Straw Man arguments abound undermining creation research because of these presuppositions.
Having a relationship with the person is essential to the nature of this debate. Debating with anonymous strangers over the internet is not a good idea. You open yourself up to being a target and people are far more careless with their words and with offending you or your feelings. I suspect that if you had a relationship with a person before hand, then the conversation would take on a different tone and feel. There would be more respect, even if they disagreed with you and people would be more careful in how they responded and replied to you.
Another important reflection is that without the Holy Spirit working in a person`s heart the arguments will fall on deaf ears. Alternative scientific models are rejected as "unscientific" and because all scientific research is now done through the lense of evolution all the evidence seems to point to evolution in a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. The paradigm is not questioned and when evidence is used as counter-arguments against evolution then it is dismissed as merely proving the theory incomplete rather than false. People`s commitment to evolution is resolute.
What does this mean for those of us who hold to a literal, historical understanding of Genesis 1-11? It means that this debate is largely fruitless when the circumstances are wrong. While it is important that we educate ourselves, it is not a battle we have much chance of winning on purely academic grounds. Evolution is the establishment. Rather, we must continually pray and seek opportunities to speak to the truth in love to those who God has brought into our path but only when the time is right. We must pray for discernment as to when to approach the subject and what to say. We must be wise not to throw our pearls to pigs, and in our conversations and relationships with others we must be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves (Matthew 10:16).
In hindsight I have made mistakes in the way I approached this subject. I have learnt from them and I don`t intend on making those mistakes again. While I am not entirely jaded, I believe I am more discerning. From my experiences and insights I hope I can help other Christians who struggle with this same issue.
The debate over our origins is an ideological battleground. It is fiercely contested. The controversy rages on and both sides shoot to kill. I have recently had experience of this first hand. I have been discussing the origins issue on an internet forum, from which I have a few reflections I would like to share:
I now believe it is a mistake to engage in this debate with people who are not genuinely open to the Bible. Creationism (the belief that God created in six literal days as recorded in Genesis 1), is instantly dismissed in the minds of evolutionists precisely because its source of authority is the Bible. The secularisation of western society is such that any appeal to the Bible as a source of authority in matters historical or scientific are rejected as incredulous. I also believe it is a mistake to engage in this debate with people who are not genuinely open to the belief in the sovereignty of God. It is axiomatic that if there is no God then there is no creator, no designer and no truth to the Bible. Straw Man arguments abound undermining creation research because of these presuppositions.
Having a relationship with the person is essential to the nature of this debate. Debating with anonymous strangers over the internet is not a good idea. You open yourself up to being a target and people are far more careless with their words and with offending you or your feelings. I suspect that if you had a relationship with a person before hand, then the conversation would take on a different tone and feel. There would be more respect, even if they disagreed with you and people would be more careful in how they responded and replied to you.
Another important reflection is that without the Holy Spirit working in a person`s heart the arguments will fall on deaf ears. Alternative scientific models are rejected as "unscientific" and because all scientific research is now done through the lense of evolution all the evidence seems to point to evolution in a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. The paradigm is not questioned and when evidence is used as counter-arguments against evolution then it is dismissed as merely proving the theory incomplete rather than false. People`s commitment to evolution is resolute.
What does this mean for those of us who hold to a literal, historical understanding of Genesis 1-11? It means that this debate is largely fruitless when the circumstances are wrong. While it is important that we educate ourselves, it is not a battle we have much chance of winning on purely academic grounds. Evolution is the establishment. Rather, we must continually pray and seek opportunities to speak to the truth in love to those who God has brought into our path but only when the time is right. We must pray for discernment as to when to approach the subject and what to say. We must be wise not to throw our pearls to pigs, and in our conversations and relationships with others we must be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves (Matthew 10:16).
In hindsight I have made mistakes in the way I approached this subject. I have learnt from them and I don`t intend on making those mistakes again. While I am not entirely jaded, I believe I am more discerning. From my experiences and insights I hope I can help other Christians who struggle with this same issue.
Friday, 8 November 2013
Batman v Superman versus Avengers Age of Ultron
Okay so I`m going to let the geek in me out for this blog and talk about some of the up and coming major comic book films that are currently in development. I`m going to be talking primarily about Batman v Superman (scheduled for a 2015 release) and Avengers Age of Ultron (also scheduled for 2015). However, I also want to discuss my excitment (I resisted the urge to write x-citement) for X-Men Days of Future Past.
Batman v Superman and Avengers Age of Ultron will arguably represent the greatest clash of film franchise superpowers yet upon the Silverscreen. Batman and Superman are two of DCs most successful, prolific and beloved characters; moreover, they are arguably the most iconic superheroes in the world. Known in the DC universe as "The World`s Finest" Batman and Superman are the ultimate superhero duo. Batman is the world`s greatest detective; a master or criminology and a zen warrior, with a seemingly limitless arsenal of advanced technological weaponry and gadgetry. Superman is physically Batman`s superior in everyway - possessing god-like superpowers harnessed through the radiation of the Sun`s light. It is no secret Superman can fly, see through solid objects, fire lazer beams from his eyes and is impervious to all but the most sophisticated and deadliest of man-made weaponry (and of course Kryptonite). Yet one of Superman`s greatest strengths lies not in his powers but in his humanity. Superman`s actions are governed by a strong sense of morality and justice but which also sees the good in people.
The Avengers meanwhile both on screen and off combine some of Marvel`s greatest superheroes, including Captain America, Iron Man, Thor, Black Widow, Hawkeye, the Hulk and in the comic book universe even the likes of Spiderman among others. Marvel enjoyed tremendous success at the box office with the first Avengers film, Avengers Assemble. The sequel will include new characters including the Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver, as well as a brand new and terrifying foe - Ultron. With the Avengers already being established as a successful blockbuster franchise, it would seem that Marvel has the edge in terms of momentum with their flagship ensemble superteam. However, here are my thoughts.
Batman v Superman:
The announcement that the next Superman sequel would also feature Batman as the co-lead character took many fans by surprise, including myself. Following Marvel`s successful formula of introducing the separate Avengers characters before bringing them all together, many fans expected DC to do the same with Batman receiving his own reboot as well as other Justice League characters such as the Green Lantern and Wonderwoman. But DC chose to follow a different route. And it is a route I respect and applaud them for taking. Despite many fans concerns that they are "rushing" a Batman/Superman film to try and keep pace with Marvel and the Avengers, I see it very differently. Yes there may be some truth to the fact that Marvel has DC chasing their tails in the war for Silverscreen domination, but I believe this decision makes perfect sense within the universe Zack Snyder created in Man of Steel.
Man of Steel was met with mixed reactions, with people either loving or hating the movie. Most criticism fell on the the latter part of the film and its protracted end battle between Superman and Zod, not to mention the incredibly controversial ending where Superman has to kill Zod in order to save the lives of innocent bystanders caught in the middle of their epic duel. While I understand this criticism, I don`t subscribe to it. The scale of collateral damage within the film, wrought upon a very unfortunate Metropolis, would be precisely the kind expected should the world be faced with its first major existential threat from an alien military general who is given superpowers through the effect the sun`s radiation has on his physiology. As an alien from a race where people are born artificially, each encoded with their own function and purpose in society, his being the protection and survival of his race no matter the moral consequences of his actions; Zod would have literally killed every human being upon earth had Superman not killed him. Superman`s actions were for the greater good and the protection of the human race. As Zod had the same god-like powers Superman possessed, this was a decision only Superman could have made and he had to make it with the knowledge that he was dooming his own race of Kryptonians to history.
In light of the aftermath of Man of Steel it is completely logical that they would create a Batman versus Superman sequel. Batman and Superman co-exist within the DC universe and as Batman is already meant to be a veteran superhero within Snyder`s cinematic DC universe, he would naturally have been alerted to the potential threat an alien like Superman poses to the world in the wake of the catastrophic events of Man of Steel. As a character Batman is fundamentally a cynical person, who trusts no-one, bar possibly his loyal butler Alfred. It is well documented within the comics that Batman distrusts every member of the Justice League and is especially careful in creating defences against Superman`s powers, should ever he be tempted to turn to evil. Had Superman been given his own sequel after Man of Steel it would have made no sense from within the DC universe. The world discovering that humanity is not the only intelligent life form in the universe and that aliens do in fact exist - who are also more powerful than us and who could cause a very real existential threat changes everything. In reality it would change the course of human history forever. Within the DC universe we would expect the likes of Batman and the Green Lantern to show up to assess the situation and strategise how best to respond. Superman could not exist within a vacuum. A Batman v Superman film is to my mind the most logical and natural sequel to Man of Steel.
Regarding the casting of Ben Affleck as Bruce Wayne/Batman, I believe he received a disproportionate amount of criticism. Yes, he also starred in the Marvel film Dare Devil, which was one of Marvel`s failures but he was not the only reason for the failure of that film. Dare Devil is a very flawed film top to bottom. Since then, Affleck has come a long way in his own acting career and as a director, who has earned a lot of respect for his own films. Until the film is made and the first trailer is released there`s no way to know now whether DC have made the right decision. However, I am prepared to be open-minded and am still very hopeful and optimistic about the film. The continuity of returning star Henry Cavill as Superman is excellent news, as he was born to play Superman with his looks and physique.
That is not to say I have no concerns about this film. This film is possibly the DC film with the highest stakes. Get it wrong and it is unforgivable. There are rumours Wonderwoman may get a cameo and Lex Luther will surely turn out to be the arch villain that ultimately unites the two superheroes in a common cause. These are major characters in the DC universe and their portrayal, the plot and pace of this film are all crucial to its success. At the end of the day Batman is my favourite superhero of all time and a film with him and Superman in it is a dream come true. I can`t wait to 2015 to see it.
Avengers Age of Ultron
As many of my good friends know, I hated Avengers Assemble. But contrary to what some of my friends may think, I don`t love to hate the Avengers; it genuinely disappointed me. The Avengers is a totally superficial film that completely got the balance wrong. Hawkeye was a pivotal character within the film yet he only received a minor cameo in Thor, with no explanation as to who he was and so the impact od him being controlled by Loki for evil was lessened in my opinion. Loki`s alien army was pathetically generic and didn`t even look realistic. The end battle scene for the fate of New York was total overkill - much worse than Man of Steel, and it seemed much of it was just an excuse to see the Hulk practically beat the entire alien invasion force single handedly. Very simply, it was dumb.
Criticism of the first Avengers film notwithstanding, I will go and see Avengers 2 and I will try and keep an open mind. From what I have learnt about the character, Ultron seems like a genuinely terrifying threat to humanity and a far better villain than Loki`s underwhelming and forgettable alien army...in fact having a villain that can`t be beaten up so easily by the Hulk will be a vast improvement (not to say Loki was a poor villain, but I felt he was undermined by that scene and it made it hard for me to understand the relevance of the Avengers if the Hulk was such a dominant force all by himself, with the added convenience of being able to control his rage).
Nevertheless, I think Avengers 2 could be just as disasterous as the first one, for several reasons. 1. Joss Whedon is directing it again (will he go back to the well again of the first Avengers formula?), 2. The introduction of more superheroes could be difficult to balance, a serious problem that X-Men Last Stand suffered from and 3. Iron Man 3 was a somewhat anticlimatic finale to the Iron Man trilogy. This I believe is cause for concern because Iron Man is a major character within the core Avengers team. Stark was made out to be too vulnerable in Iron Man 3 to the point where he was having panic attacks induced by questions from small children. His experimentation with his Iron Man suits had become totally ridiculous to the point where the supposed upgrade broke down and he spent the best part of the film just as Tony Stark, which was further exacerbated by the fact that his girlfriend, Pepper Pots, had to save the day for him after undergoing the extremis operation (an operation Stark himself receives in the graphic novel). The portrayal of the Manderin while novel, was ultimately unsatisfying and a massive let down, especially for Iron Man`s arch-nemesis.
X-Men Days of Future Past
Finally onto another major superhero francise: the X-Men. X-Men Days of Future Past comes out next year and the first trailer has just recently been released. The film borrows its title and major theme from the graphic novel of the same name. The film takes place in a dystopian future, where Mutants have almost been hunted to exstinction by giant robotic Sentinels. Like its comic book namesake, the film involves time travel as Wolverine`s mind is transported back in time into the body of his younger self in order to prevent the apocalyptic war against the mutants, with the help of the young Professor Xavier and Magneto, introduced in X-Men First Class. I am really excited for this film. Firstly, I love dystopian sci-fi plots (the Matrix is one of my all-time favourite films). Secondly, I enjoyed both X-Men First Class and The Wolverine, proving that the X-Men franchise was not lost after X-Men 3 Last Stand. Thirdly, Bryan Singer is once again directing it, after having established the franchise in the first place.
Going back to point 2, X-Men Origins: Wolverine was a disappointing film, but what it got right was the central axis of the film, namely the transformation of Logan into the adamantium laced killing machine that is Wolverine. The actual adamantium surgery scene is one of my favourite superhero movie moments, as an enraged Logan emerges from the chamber in beserker Wolverine mode. The Wolverine, however, is to my mind the defining Wolverine film of the series. Set in Japan sometime after the events of X-Men 3, Logan is haunted by the death of Jean and has lost all purpose in life. Rather than this being a weakness to the film or character, I believe it adds depth and gives us a great Wolverine film. What makes Wolverine such a compelling and interesting character, is his humanity and his desire to be a better person than the mere killer he was created to be by the Weapon X story arc. The Wolverine (film) brought out the best in Wolverine`s character - a man who ultimately wants to do the right thing and finds the strength to live with his mutant ability that gives him near immortality. He learns to bear the emotional and psychological scars of his past and use his natural born weapons - his iconic claws - to serve the greater good.
With both the X-Men and Wolverine franchises being redeemed, I think there is real cause for hope with this new film. Parts of the trailer make me really excited, such as the teasers of new characters Bishop, Warpath and Blink, as well as a bullet-ridden Wolverine. Some of the aesthetics are a little concerning in my opinion (it looks at points like Last Stand), however, they may come across far better in the finished film on the big screen. Overall, I think Days of Future Past is a very ambitious X-Men sequel and a very exciting one, combining the casts of the original and prequel X-Men films.
With comic book/superhero films becoming an established and popular film genre in their own right, film studios are attempting bolder and bolder story arcs and adaptations. The Avengers was a real game changer within the genre as superhero films of the future will now be judged by its scale and success. I`m sure excitment levels will rise the closer we get to the release dates of all these respective films and there is much to look forward to in the near future.
Batman v Superman and Avengers Age of Ultron will arguably represent the greatest clash of film franchise superpowers yet upon the Silverscreen. Batman and Superman are two of DCs most successful, prolific and beloved characters; moreover, they are arguably the most iconic superheroes in the world. Known in the DC universe as "The World`s Finest" Batman and Superman are the ultimate superhero duo. Batman is the world`s greatest detective; a master or criminology and a zen warrior, with a seemingly limitless arsenal of advanced technological weaponry and gadgetry. Superman is physically Batman`s superior in everyway - possessing god-like superpowers harnessed through the radiation of the Sun`s light. It is no secret Superman can fly, see through solid objects, fire lazer beams from his eyes and is impervious to all but the most sophisticated and deadliest of man-made weaponry (and of course Kryptonite). Yet one of Superman`s greatest strengths lies not in his powers but in his humanity. Superman`s actions are governed by a strong sense of morality and justice but which also sees the good in people.
The Avengers meanwhile both on screen and off combine some of Marvel`s greatest superheroes, including Captain America, Iron Man, Thor, Black Widow, Hawkeye, the Hulk and in the comic book universe even the likes of Spiderman among others. Marvel enjoyed tremendous success at the box office with the first Avengers film, Avengers Assemble. The sequel will include new characters including the Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver, as well as a brand new and terrifying foe - Ultron. With the Avengers already being established as a successful blockbuster franchise, it would seem that Marvel has the edge in terms of momentum with their flagship ensemble superteam. However, here are my thoughts.
The announcement that the next Superman sequel would also feature Batman as the co-lead character took many fans by surprise, including myself. Following Marvel`s successful formula of introducing the separate Avengers characters before bringing them all together, many fans expected DC to do the same with Batman receiving his own reboot as well as other Justice League characters such as the Green Lantern and Wonderwoman. But DC chose to follow a different route. And it is a route I respect and applaud them for taking. Despite many fans concerns that they are "rushing" a Batman/Superman film to try and keep pace with Marvel and the Avengers, I see it very differently. Yes there may be some truth to the fact that Marvel has DC chasing their tails in the war for Silverscreen domination, but I believe this decision makes perfect sense within the universe Zack Snyder created in Man of Steel.
Man of Steel was met with mixed reactions, with people either loving or hating the movie. Most criticism fell on the the latter part of the film and its protracted end battle between Superman and Zod, not to mention the incredibly controversial ending where Superman has to kill Zod in order to save the lives of innocent bystanders caught in the middle of their epic duel. While I understand this criticism, I don`t subscribe to it. The scale of collateral damage within the film, wrought upon a very unfortunate Metropolis, would be precisely the kind expected should the world be faced with its first major existential threat from an alien military general who is given superpowers through the effect the sun`s radiation has on his physiology. As an alien from a race where people are born artificially, each encoded with their own function and purpose in society, his being the protection and survival of his race no matter the moral consequences of his actions; Zod would have literally killed every human being upon earth had Superman not killed him. Superman`s actions were for the greater good and the protection of the human race. As Zod had the same god-like powers Superman possessed, this was a decision only Superman could have made and he had to make it with the knowledge that he was dooming his own race of Kryptonians to history.
In light of the aftermath of Man of Steel it is completely logical that they would create a Batman versus Superman sequel. Batman and Superman co-exist within the DC universe and as Batman is already meant to be a veteran superhero within Snyder`s cinematic DC universe, he would naturally have been alerted to the potential threat an alien like Superman poses to the world in the wake of the catastrophic events of Man of Steel. As a character Batman is fundamentally a cynical person, who trusts no-one, bar possibly his loyal butler Alfred. It is well documented within the comics that Batman distrusts every member of the Justice League and is especially careful in creating defences against Superman`s powers, should ever he be tempted to turn to evil. Had Superman been given his own sequel after Man of Steel it would have made no sense from within the DC universe. The world discovering that humanity is not the only intelligent life form in the universe and that aliens do in fact exist - who are also more powerful than us and who could cause a very real existential threat changes everything. In reality it would change the course of human history forever. Within the DC universe we would expect the likes of Batman and the Green Lantern to show up to assess the situation and strategise how best to respond. Superman could not exist within a vacuum. A Batman v Superman film is to my mind the most logical and natural sequel to Man of Steel.
Regarding the casting of Ben Affleck as Bruce Wayne/Batman, I believe he received a disproportionate amount of criticism. Yes, he also starred in the Marvel film Dare Devil, which was one of Marvel`s failures but he was not the only reason for the failure of that film. Dare Devil is a very flawed film top to bottom. Since then, Affleck has come a long way in his own acting career and as a director, who has earned a lot of respect for his own films. Until the film is made and the first trailer is released there`s no way to know now whether DC have made the right decision. However, I am prepared to be open-minded and am still very hopeful and optimistic about the film. The continuity of returning star Henry Cavill as Superman is excellent news, as he was born to play Superman with his looks and physique.
That is not to say I have no concerns about this film. This film is possibly the DC film with the highest stakes. Get it wrong and it is unforgivable. There are rumours Wonderwoman may get a cameo and Lex Luther will surely turn out to be the arch villain that ultimately unites the two superheroes in a common cause. These are major characters in the DC universe and their portrayal, the plot and pace of this film are all crucial to its success. At the end of the day Batman is my favourite superhero of all time and a film with him and Superman in it is a dream come true. I can`t wait to 2015 to see it.
As many of my good friends know, I hated Avengers Assemble. But contrary to what some of my friends may think, I don`t love to hate the Avengers; it genuinely disappointed me. The Avengers is a totally superficial film that completely got the balance wrong. Hawkeye was a pivotal character within the film yet he only received a minor cameo in Thor, with no explanation as to who he was and so the impact od him being controlled by Loki for evil was lessened in my opinion. Loki`s alien army was pathetically generic and didn`t even look realistic. The end battle scene for the fate of New York was total overkill - much worse than Man of Steel, and it seemed much of it was just an excuse to see the Hulk practically beat the entire alien invasion force single handedly. Very simply, it was dumb.
Criticism of the first Avengers film notwithstanding, I will go and see Avengers 2 and I will try and keep an open mind. From what I have learnt about the character, Ultron seems like a genuinely terrifying threat to humanity and a far better villain than Loki`s underwhelming and forgettable alien army...in fact having a villain that can`t be beaten up so easily by the Hulk will be a vast improvement (not to say Loki was a poor villain, but I felt he was undermined by that scene and it made it hard for me to understand the relevance of the Avengers if the Hulk was such a dominant force all by himself, with the added convenience of being able to control his rage).
Nevertheless, I think Avengers 2 could be just as disasterous as the first one, for several reasons. 1. Joss Whedon is directing it again (will he go back to the well again of the first Avengers formula?), 2. The introduction of more superheroes could be difficult to balance, a serious problem that X-Men Last Stand suffered from and 3. Iron Man 3 was a somewhat anticlimatic finale to the Iron Man trilogy. This I believe is cause for concern because Iron Man is a major character within the core Avengers team. Stark was made out to be too vulnerable in Iron Man 3 to the point where he was having panic attacks induced by questions from small children. His experimentation with his Iron Man suits had become totally ridiculous to the point where the supposed upgrade broke down and he spent the best part of the film just as Tony Stark, which was further exacerbated by the fact that his girlfriend, Pepper Pots, had to save the day for him after undergoing the extremis operation (an operation Stark himself receives in the graphic novel). The portrayal of the Manderin while novel, was ultimately unsatisfying and a massive let down, especially for Iron Man`s arch-nemesis.
Finally onto another major superhero francise: the X-Men. X-Men Days of Future Past comes out next year and the first trailer has just recently been released. The film borrows its title and major theme from the graphic novel of the same name. The film takes place in a dystopian future, where Mutants have almost been hunted to exstinction by giant robotic Sentinels. Like its comic book namesake, the film involves time travel as Wolverine`s mind is transported back in time into the body of his younger self in order to prevent the apocalyptic war against the mutants, with the help of the young Professor Xavier and Magneto, introduced in X-Men First Class. I am really excited for this film. Firstly, I love dystopian sci-fi plots (the Matrix is one of my all-time favourite films). Secondly, I enjoyed both X-Men First Class and The Wolverine, proving that the X-Men franchise was not lost after X-Men 3 Last Stand. Thirdly, Bryan Singer is once again directing it, after having established the franchise in the first place.
Going back to point 2, X-Men Origins: Wolverine was a disappointing film, but what it got right was the central axis of the film, namely the transformation of Logan into the adamantium laced killing machine that is Wolverine. The actual adamantium surgery scene is one of my favourite superhero movie moments, as an enraged Logan emerges from the chamber in beserker Wolverine mode. The Wolverine, however, is to my mind the defining Wolverine film of the series. Set in Japan sometime after the events of X-Men 3, Logan is haunted by the death of Jean and has lost all purpose in life. Rather than this being a weakness to the film or character, I believe it adds depth and gives us a great Wolverine film. What makes Wolverine such a compelling and interesting character, is his humanity and his desire to be a better person than the mere killer he was created to be by the Weapon X story arc. The Wolverine (film) brought out the best in Wolverine`s character - a man who ultimately wants to do the right thing and finds the strength to live with his mutant ability that gives him near immortality. He learns to bear the emotional and psychological scars of his past and use his natural born weapons - his iconic claws - to serve the greater good.
With both the X-Men and Wolverine franchises being redeemed, I think there is real cause for hope with this new film. Parts of the trailer make me really excited, such as the teasers of new characters Bishop, Warpath and Blink, as well as a bullet-ridden Wolverine. Some of the aesthetics are a little concerning in my opinion (it looks at points like Last Stand), however, they may come across far better in the finished film on the big screen. Overall, I think Days of Future Past is a very ambitious X-Men sequel and a very exciting one, combining the casts of the original and prequel X-Men films.
With comic book/superhero films becoming an established and popular film genre in their own right, film studios are attempting bolder and bolder story arcs and adaptations. The Avengers was a real game changer within the genre as superhero films of the future will now be judged by its scale and success. I`m sure excitment levels will rise the closer we get to the release dates of all these respective films and there is much to look forward to in the near future.
Wednesday, 22 May 2013
the power of music to move the spirit
Those of you who are friends with me over facebook will have probably noticed that I am inclined to share my favourite songs. These songs are a reflection of my current spiritual state; often being songs that have inspired my faith, connected me to God in worship, or have touched my spirit in a very profound way. Music can take all forms and shapes, and ranges in value from the profane to the sacred. But what sets a particular song apart as sacred? For me music has great transcendental qualities to it, as well as being a powerful vehicle for worship - I think of worship ministries as "gateway" ministries, enabling believers to be transported into the very presence of God by harmonising body, soul and spirit in singing praise.
There is a strong connection between worship and the Holy Spirit:
"And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart," Ephesians 5:18-19
Notice the connection between being filled with the Holy Spirit and the act of worshipping God through music. Songs of worship naturally flow from being filled with the Spirit. Another important observation to make is the contrast between the acts of the flesh and the act of worship - when a person is making melody to the Lord with all their heart, they are not giving strength to the sinful nature, having turned from their acts of debauchery. Thus the act of worship is an act of denying the self and mortifying the flesh.
Music reaches the spirit in a powerful way, for example David played the lyre to sooth Saul's troubled spirit:
"And whenever the harmful spirit from God was upon Saul, David took the lyre and played it with his hand. So Saul was refreshed and was well, and the harmful spirit departed from him." 1 Samuel 16:23
Music changes a person's demeanour, emotions, and attitude. Spirit filled music can also activate a greater awareness and sensitivity to the Holy Spirit. Like the example of David ministering to Saul through his talent with the lyre, Spirit filled music contains words and even melodies that can liberate captive souls and set people free from emotional, spiritual or pyschological oppression. Worship is an act of healing in its own way.
Music is also connected to the revelatory work of the Holy Spirit, which explains why worship is so often connected to prayer events organised by churches:
"After that you shall come to Gibeath-elohim, where there is a garrison of the Philistines. And there, as soon as you come to the city, you will meet a group of prophets coming down from the high place with harp, tambourine, flute, and lyre before them, prophesying. Then the Spirit of the Lord will rush upon you, and you will prophesy with them and be turned into another man." 1 Samuel 10:4-6
This event described in 1 Samuel is of the anointing of Saul as king over Israel. Samuel anointed Saul with a flask of oil. Olive oil was used in ancient Israel as a symbol of the anointing of God's Holy Spirit, known in Hebrew as the Ruach Hakodesh. Only the offices of Priest, Prophet or King were anointed by God with the Holy Spirit in ancient Israel. Saul was given instruction by Samuel to meet with a group of prophets, who were playing instruments and making music, and receive the Spirit of the Lord and the gift of prophesy. Here again we see a connection between music and the work of the Holy Spirit. These prophets were not playing music and prophesying separately, they were prophesying while making music simultaneously.
Every recorded event in which a person received the in-filling of the Holy Spirit in the book of Acts is accompanied by signs of either tongues, praise or prophesy. All these signs are verbal and auditory in nature. The experiences of the early Christians in Acts link to Paul's instructions to the church at Ephesus to be filled with the Holy Spirit and make melody to the Lord.
Music is of God, music is encouraged by God, and music also transports us into the eternal Kingdom of God. John describes a vision he received in the book of Revelation of the throne room in Heaven, in which 4 Living Creatures and 24 Elders bowed down before Jesus and worshipped him:
"And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth. And he went and took the scroll from the right hand of him who was seated on the throne. And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. And they sang a new song, saying,
Music is an important expression of my spirituality and my relationship with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I encourage you to seek the heart of God and the power of the Holy Spirit through music.
There is a strong connection between worship and the Holy Spirit:
"And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart," Ephesians 5:18-19
Notice the connection between being filled with the Holy Spirit and the act of worshipping God through music. Songs of worship naturally flow from being filled with the Spirit. Another important observation to make is the contrast between the acts of the flesh and the act of worship - when a person is making melody to the Lord with all their heart, they are not giving strength to the sinful nature, having turned from their acts of debauchery. Thus the act of worship is an act of denying the self and mortifying the flesh.
Music reaches the spirit in a powerful way, for example David played the lyre to sooth Saul's troubled spirit:
"And whenever the harmful spirit from God was upon Saul, David took the lyre and played it with his hand. So Saul was refreshed and was well, and the harmful spirit departed from him." 1 Samuel 16:23
Music changes a person's demeanour, emotions, and attitude. Spirit filled music can also activate a greater awareness and sensitivity to the Holy Spirit. Like the example of David ministering to Saul through his talent with the lyre, Spirit filled music contains words and even melodies that can liberate captive souls and set people free from emotional, spiritual or pyschological oppression. Worship is an act of healing in its own way.
Music is also connected to the revelatory work of the Holy Spirit, which explains why worship is so often connected to prayer events organised by churches:
"After that you shall come to Gibeath-elohim, where there is a garrison of the Philistines. And there, as soon as you come to the city, you will meet a group of prophets coming down from the high place with harp, tambourine, flute, and lyre before them, prophesying. Then the Spirit of the Lord will rush upon you, and you will prophesy with them and be turned into another man." 1 Samuel 10:4-6
This event described in 1 Samuel is of the anointing of Saul as king over Israel. Samuel anointed Saul with a flask of oil. Olive oil was used in ancient Israel as a symbol of the anointing of God's Holy Spirit, known in Hebrew as the Ruach Hakodesh. Only the offices of Priest, Prophet or King were anointed by God with the Holy Spirit in ancient Israel. Saul was given instruction by Samuel to meet with a group of prophets, who were playing instruments and making music, and receive the Spirit of the Lord and the gift of prophesy. Here again we see a connection between music and the work of the Holy Spirit. These prophets were not playing music and prophesying separately, they were prophesying while making music simultaneously.
Every recorded event in which a person received the in-filling of the Holy Spirit in the book of Acts is accompanied by signs of either tongues, praise or prophesy. All these signs are verbal and auditory in nature. The experiences of the early Christians in Acts link to Paul's instructions to the church at Ephesus to be filled with the Holy Spirit and make melody to the Lord.
Music is of God, music is encouraged by God, and music also transports us into the eternal Kingdom of God. John describes a vision he received in the book of Revelation of the throne room in Heaven, in which 4 Living Creatures and 24 Elders bowed down before Jesus and worshipped him:
"And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth. And he went and took the scroll from the right hand of him who was seated on the throne. And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. And they sang a new song, saying,
“Worthy are you to take the scroll
and to open its seals,
for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God
from every tribe and language and people and nation,
and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God,
and they shall reign on the earth.”
and to open its seals,
for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God
from every tribe and language and people and nation,
and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God,
and they shall reign on the earth.”
Revelation 5:6-10
There is a majestic purity about Spirit-filled worship. God is worshipped in Heaven by the angelic beings of the spiritual realm. This heavenly worship echoes throughout eternity, and when believers enter into worship and express their praise and thanksgiving to God Almighty they too enter into this chorus. Just as the Kingdom of God reigns in the hearts of believers and manifests itself through the work and ministry of the Church here on earth; so too worship bridges heaven and earth, uniting them together in the heart and spirit of the believer. Worship is a manifestation of the state of the heart and spirit as instruments are tuned and played, creating melody and sound that vibrates in our ears. Thus worship is another manifestation of the very Kingdom of God itself, just as the Temple and the Holy of Holies were both earthly models of the Heavenly reality, reflections of the true Temple and Holy of Holies that Christ entered into after his ascension in his office as Great High Priest; so too the music we use to worship God is an earthly model of the music sung in Heaven.
Music is an important expression of my spirituality and my relationship with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I encourage you to seek the heart of God and the power of the Holy Spirit through music.
Wednesday, 8 May 2013
Zion - The Kingdom of God
"For the Lord has chosen Zion; he has desired it for his dwelling place" Psalm 132:13
Zion, a word synonymous with two things - Heaven and Jerusalem. These two realms, one spiritual the other terrestrial are joined together through God Himself! Let that sink in for a moment...God chose to make His dwelling here on earth, as well as in Heaven. Even though this earth was marred by sin after the Fall, and wickedness increased upon the earth in the days of Noah, God decided not to abandon the earth. No, the earth has a very special place within God's heart, why? Earth was His design from before the beginning of time, to be our home. As we are made in God's image, created and designed for the purpose of being in relationship with God, God therefore chose to make His dwelling among us. God first created the universe, then the earth, then humanity and then through His chosen people the Jews, built Jerusalem, His Holy City - also called Zion.
Zion bridges the divide between Heaven and Earth. Therefore Zion is none other than the Kingdom of God. Zion is an interdimensional realm, at one and the same time temporal and eternal. This is why Jesus came proclaiming:
"The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” Mark 1:15
and
"Truly, I say to you, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.” Mark 14:25
Jesus spoke of the Kingdom of God in both the present and future tense. This is because ever since God laid the foundation for His Kingdom on Mount Zion (Jerusalem), the Kingdom of God was birthed here on earth, though not fully manifested, as is its Heavenly counterpart. Mount Zion may still be awaiting its complete redemption, when Jesus will return to reign over the earth from His throne in Jerusalem, but the Kingdom of God is still very much a present reality through Christ's Church. In this age of Grace, the Church has become the vehicle through which God has been expanding His Kingdom. God has never changed His desire for His Kingdom to reign here on earth - it was the focal point of Jesus' ministry:
"but he said to them, “I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns as well; for I was sent for this purpose.” Luke 4:43
Jesus' sacrifice upon the cross was the means by which people are saved from their sin, but the cross was not entirely an end in itself. Jesus proclaimed he was the Way, the Truth and the Life, and that no-one came to the Father accept through him. Jesus' sacrifice paid the price for our sin, as the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23), so that we may have life! But what life? Our ordinary, mundane, busy, materially obsessed old life? Our life of sin, debauchery, immorality, addiction, greed and vice? No, Jesus died a criminals death - our death - so that we may have eternal life. Where is this eternal life to be lived? In the Kingdom of God. For the follower/disciple/believer in Jesus Christ that life begins at the moment of repentance. That life, not of sin but of righteousness, begins here on earth. The Church is the very manifestation of the Kingdom of God.
If you are a Christian reading this then I invite you... I encourage you... I urge you to allow God to birth a new vision in your heart for His Kingdom, and a renewed passion for His Holy dwelling Zion. Realize that the Kingdom is not a future reality, but a present one. Realize that it is in our very midst (Luke 17:21). If you want to know the heart of God - it is for Zion:
"Thus says the Lord of hosts: I am jealous for Zion with great jealousy, and I am jealous for her with great wrath." Zechariah 8:2
If you want to follow Jesus then listen to His commandment:
"But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you." Matthew 6:33
Pray. Pray hard for that the Kingdom of God would increase upon the earth, bringing spiritual, emotional and political freedom to the oppressed; bringing justice to the poor, the widowed, the orphaned, the refugee and the immigrant; bringing peace and joy to the tormented and to all those who seek it like the prodigal son in the temptations of the world.
If you are not a Christian reading this, then respond to Jesus' call to repent and believe in the Gospel. If you are not living in and for the Kingdom of God then you are living under the kingdom of Satan. This world is corrupt - dictators horde power and deny people their rights, liberties and freedoms. Politicians fight amongst each other in an ideological battle for bragging rights. The god of mammon keeps people, governments and economies in bondage and leads to ruin through economic depression and recessions. What will you place your security in, your job? savings? investments? the economy? your government? your own wisdom and reason? These are all fallable things, which are predictable in their disappointments.
Choose to live for the one thing on this earth that crosses the divide between Heaven and Earth; the one thing that is of eternal value, and the one thing that will bring you into the Glory and the majestic presence of the Almighty God - the Kingdom of God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)