John Wesley Video

This coming Tuesday (May 24th) is Aldersgate Day, when Methodists (and Anglicans too) recall how the power of the Holy Spirit descended upon John Wesley at a Bible study at Aldersgate street in 1738.  Wesley is often considered the "father of Methodism."  His experience at Aldersgate has been interpreted in different ways - as his first genuine conversion to faith in Christ (though he was already a pastor at the time) or as his "baptism in the Holy Ghost," or simply as a special outpouring to prepare him for mission.

In any case it is clear from Wesley's own account that he left that Bible study with a new sense of assurance about his salvation and his relationship with Christ and also that he left that Bible study with a new fire for the mission of God.  Here is his own account of that night:

In the evening I went very unwillingly to a society in Aldersgate Street, where one was reading Luther’s preface to the Epistle to the Romans. About a quarter before nine, while he was describing the change which God works in the heart through faith in Christ, I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone, for salvation; and an assurance was given me that He had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death.

I began to pray with all my might for those who had in a more especial manner despitefully used me and persecuted me. I then testified openly to all there what I now first felt in my heart... 

I have seen several films about the Wesley brothers and the revival that they helped lead.  A few years ago the feature-length film called Wesley was released.  I must say that it suffered from low production value (like many "Christian films") and in my view the story pacing was rather slow and felt bogged down by too many details.  Actually I think the animated short film The John Wesley Story was actually more interesting to watch, even though it was clearly aimed at younger audiences (I used it in a recent confirmation class).

I recently saw this video posted on Facebook, which is a very short documentary about John Wesley's impact on society and history.  It looks like it may be cut from a longer film, because it feels a bit dis-jointed at places; yet it does have some really nice visuals that are well-done.  Enjoy!

        

Snow White and the Huntsman

This weekend I watched, and thoroughly enjoyed, the new movie "Snow White and the Huntsman."  One of the better fantasy films to come out in recent years, it was at times reminiscent of "The Chronicles of Narnia" films and the 80's fantasy classic "Excalibur," or even "The Princess Bride."  This review does contain some vague spoilers.

Fantasy fans will not doubt like this film: If you enjoy watching a cavalry charge of knights in shinning armor, their colorful banners snapping in the wind; or a castle seige that hangs upon the heroism of some stout little dwarves; or sweeping vistas of a mystic land (filmed in the UK), or fantasy characters trying to fight off a surprise attack from a giant troll (with an interesting take on an old tale), then you will probably enjoy this movie.  The "Mirror on the wall" scenes are pretty eerie but imaginative as well.

On a spiritual level, there were certainly some notable elements in this film: there were at least some suggestions that Snow White and her family are Christians such as the numerous bishops present for her father's wedding scene and Snow White herself whispering The Lord's Prayer before she escapes from prison.  In fact, you might argue that the film at least implies that her "spirituality" is one reason for her purity and ability to overcome the evil queen.  Plus there is a "power in the blood" theme running through the movie as well with Snow White as a Christ figure (she even dies and returns to life, though this in and of itself doesn't seem to accomplish too much).

The film also, much like Lewis's work, portrays and invites us to that almost inarticulate desire for the Presence of the Creator and for the New Creation he brings, in one scene in particular.  Within the green "sanctuary forest" that has avoided the general decay of nature that is seen everywhere else in the realm, there is a notable stirring among the many animals as beams of light fall down on a place - a giant "tree of life," actually, where Snow White receives a blessing from one whom the dwarves quite excitedly refer to simply as "Him."  With the forest was coming to life around them, one of the dwarves smiles and said, "Yes, it's Him!"  I quite expected to see Aslan the Lion walk from behind a rock, but this good power (whatever he is) manifests Himself as a huge White Hart or Stag.  The Hart later bursts into a swarm of white butterflies when this moment of almost palpable holiness and blessing is disturbed by the forces of evil.

There is plenty of material in this film to explore about the meaning of love or of beauty, and selfishness versus compassion.  In fact Snow White's compassion and purity actually overcomes a monster and save the heros in one scene, when she looks deep into its eyes and some of her compassion "rubs off on it," so that it decides to back down from the fight.  She has a contageous spirit of goodness about her in the film.  Snow White even seems to feel genuine sorrow for her nemesis as well - I half expected her to offer words of forgiveness to the evil queen in the end.  So this was certainly not the blustering rage of so many American "revenge flicks", where the only way to overcome monsters is to kill them, or the final moments of your nemesis' defeat are best spent saying things like "That's for my family!" (which Snow White indeed could have said), not shedding a tear of pity for your enemy.  Christianity Today's review is here.

Like the fantasy classic Excalibur (based on the Arthurian legend), and Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, this film ties the prosperity of the realm - even nature itself within the realm - to the health, strength, and righteousness of the sovereign.  It is one more pop-cultural expression of a collective yearning that, I believe, is ultimately for the healing Reign of Christ over all things.  We somehow know in our bones that when the right king is in charge, things will be made right (and it is immediately evident that our democratically elected politicians do not fit the bill).  Thus we are overjoyed to see Aragorn finally crowned at the conclusion of "The Return of the King," and so it is also with Snow White's coronation in this movie. 

All-in-all, I do expect to watch this one again.  It has some action, violence, scary images and some black magic that is gross (involving bloody animal insides and whatnot), so concerned parents should take seriously the PG-13 rating.  The costumes, visuals, and music are all excellent.

Of Gods and Men

Saturday night I had the evening to myself (my wife being out of town), so I decided to rent a French movie that I'd been wanting to see, Of Gods and Men. The movie, based upon actual events, tells the story of a group of Christian monks in Algeria who find their region overcome by violence as Muslim extremists and the corrupt government struggle for power.

As the violence descends closer to the monastery, and as other foreigners are killed by Islamists, the monks are faced with a choice: should we flee from this violence, as friends and the government would have us do? or should we continue the missional work to which we have felt called, even though there is a good possibility that this will mean death?

Each of the brothers must struggle with his fears, his calling, his struggle to trust God, his loyalty his brothers, and the desire to make good and well-considered decisions about the future.

This film is powerful and heart-wrenching. The words of Scripture and of the chants envelope and saturate the film, as they saturate the days and nights of these monks struggling for discernment. Through meditating upon the teachings of the Bible, through their love of one another, the monks finally embrace a decision. The performances wonderfully present the monks, not as somehow aloof or super-human or removed from reality, but deeply human and sympathetic characters, "folk like us" (which you don't always see in portrayals of clergy or members of religious orders in movies).

But they do have some wisdom and insight as well. Brother Luc offers a great line, that truly encapsulates what I believe God has been trying to teach many of us; he says, "I do not fear death. I am a free man."

I recommend this movie for your contemplation. And, shockingly, you can rent this foreign-language film from redbox.

Voyage of the Dawn Treader

My wife and I, along with my Orthodox friend Fr. Philip and his wife, recently watched the new movie The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. As a great fan of C.S. Lewis' work, I've watched with interest the 'movie-fication' of the Chronicles of Narnia, but I must admit I've been anticipating this film in particular, as the sea-faring tale is among my favorites in the series.

As with Prince Caspian and most books converted into films, some liberties have been taken with the story to make the drama somewhat more intense. On the whole, I thought it was a solid contribution to the series (it was much better than Prince Caspian) and quite enjoyable. The themes of greed and temptation remain very present in the translation of the story to film. Happily, one of the most significant conversations, taken from the last pages of the book, also makes it into the film:

“Dearest,” said Aslan very gently, “you and your brother will never come back to Narnia.”
“Oh, Aslan!” said Edmund and Lucy both together in despairing voices.
“You are too old, children,” said Aslan, “and you must begin to come close to your own world now.”
“It isn't Narnia, you know,” sobbed Lucy. “It's you. We shan't meet you there. And how can we live, never meeting you?”
“But you shall meet me, dear one,” said Aslan.
“Are-- are you there too, Sir?” said Edmund.
“I Am,” said Aslan. “But there I have another name. You must learn to know me by that name. This was the very reason why you were brought to Narnia, that by knowing me here for a little, you may know me better there.”

As Aslan spoke these words to the children in the movie, I had the realization that he was speaking it to all of us in the audience. Or rather CS Lewis was speaking to all of us. “The whole reason I have invited you into Narnia, is that you may learn to know Aslan better, by his other Name: the Lord Jesus.”

I am fond of pointing out to people that the first (by my set's count) book in the series, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, is dedicated to his god-child, Lucy (go check out the dedication page).

When a child is baptized god-parents (sometimes called 'sponsors' in The United Methodist Church), along with the child's own parents, are entrusted with the primary responsibility to see that the child is raised in the Christian faith so that he may profess faith in Christ for himself when he is old enough to be responsible for owning this covenant commitment.

Unfortunately, it seems that this responsibility is not always taken seriously by god-parents/sponsors (this is one good reason to have “pre-baptismal counseling sessions” that all sponsors are required to attend). But Lewis took it seriously enough. He invited his god-daughter into Narnia, that she might come to know and love Aslan and ultimately realize that this great Lion exists to point her to Jesus Christ. And he extends this invitation to us all.

Tolkien, Lewis, and others have been called “culturally savvy Christians” who contribute positively to culture, rather than simply criticizing it as Christians are sometimes wont to do. Christians have in fact brought us many of the great masterpieces of our culture: from the great cathedrals to the poetry of the hymns; from the glorious choral music to the vast wealth of scholarship and philosophy to the great paintings hanging in the Vatican and the Louvre, Christians have created many wonderful cultural achievements just because they were Christians, just as a celebration of the reality of God in their lives. As an aside it seems to me that atheism, because it has no unique positive contribution to celebrate but is merely a negation or a deconstruction of theism, is intrinsically incapable of producing the kinds of beautiful and soul-nourishing cultural achievements that that Christianity has brought to the world.

If the Kingdom of God that Jesus proclaims has truly begun to be realized in his resurrection, then part of our proclamation as Christians can and should be a holy creativity; a celebration of God through art and song and story, as sign-posts to his already-but-not-yet Kingdom victory. Rather than merely lamenting the mindless hedonism and depressed nihilism we see in our popular cultural, I believe we are called to “show a better way” to the world by making our own positive, thoughtful, and beautiful contributions that point the culture to Christ.

2081: Everyone is finally equal

I've not yet seen this film, but it looks really intriguing. The tyranny of absolute egalitarianism; when good intentions bring the world to hell. 'Equality' is an easy thing for us to rally around; it is one of our most sacred values in the US (and Europe), but might it - could it - come into conflict with 'Liberty'? Has it already?

When I was in college one of my political science professors suggested at that American culture never has, and never can, produce a Shakespeare or a Bach precisely because our commitment to egalitarianism nullifies the sort of greatness that was more valued in their more hierarchical societies. I don't know if that is true or not. But worth pondering nonetheless.

Certainly it seems to me that we here in the United States have a sort of 'ingrained' anti-elitism that can, in practice, lead to a dumbing-down of every aspect of our culture. Classical music and opera is bad because it is too 'elite.' The men of every sit-com I've ever seen run in terror when the women try to drag them along to a play. Anyways, I feel a rant coming on...so I'll stop here. But consider the question - do we risk destroying great things, even the human spirit itself, in the pursuit of 'equalization'?

Angels and Demons: Review

Last night I saw the new Dan Brown movie, Angels and Demons, and I wanted to share just a couple thoughts with anyone who might be thinking of seeing it.

First off, I must say that this movie is about 6000 times better than The DaVinci Code movie. Now perhaps if I had read the book first (as I foolishly did for DaVinci) I might think differently, but this time I just enjoyed the movie. It is a good deal different than that other book/movie. First of all, the plot is not premised upon ideas that are an offense to the orthodox Christian faith (i.e. we must worship a goddess along with God, Jesus was married and his bloodline is still around, the Bible and orthodoxy were invented by the Emperor Constantine, etc.). Secondly, the movie is actually exciting.

The basic premise: someone - apparently an anti-Vatican secret society called the Illuminati, has stolen an anti-matter device and threatens to blow up the Vatican (think James Bond) only days after the pope suddenly and mysteriously died. Even as the Cardinals gather for conclave, several of the frontrunners for the papal job are kidnapped and will be put to death each hour by the mysterious Illuminati at hidden locations in Rome.

Fortunately, the famous symbolologist Professor Langdon is in town and he thinks he can find the hidden "churches" of the Illuminati in Rome. So he starts digging through the archives of the Vatican to find clues in manuscripts, art, and architecture that lead him from one secret Illuminati church to the next (think: National Treasure) in hopes of arriving in time to save the missing Cardinals from horrible deaths and the Vatican itself from being vaporised by the explosion of the anti-matter device!
There are some cool plot-twists (and some annoying plot holes) in this thriller in which you never really know whom you can trust (besides Tom Hanks, of course) - and just when you think you know who the good and the bad and the ugly are, the plot twists everything around.

How is it's portrayal of Christianity? Basically neutral, though there is a lot that could be construed as a negative assessment of Roman Catholicism in particular (political maneuvering among church prelates, embarrasing historical incidents are presented in simplistic form - i.e. Galileo). And the bad guy turns out to be a Catholic religious fanatic (go figure) - perhaps contributing to a general inarticulate distrust of "religion" in our culture. On the other hand, there are some positive clerical characters and some profoundly true and wise statements uttered from the mouths of clergymen (although some of them are called into question when we learn who the 'heavy' is).

The movie takes an admirable stab at presenting the message "faith and science do not have to be enemies, they can work together," but sadly does little more than make the assertion a couple times, rather than exploring what that might mean even a little bit (though that might be too much to expect from a movie). At any rate, it is an enjoyable movie that could function as a conversation starter on some of these issues.

Wesley: The Movie

Has anyone else heard about This? Now, I've often thought that I at least would enjoy a movie about this fascinating 18th century Anglican priest. But it wasn't until after the release of Amazing Grace that I thought there might actually be 1) a big enough market and 2) a way to do it well.

I have no idea if these guys are going to do it well, or even get a very broad release. But we'll see, I guess.

Thoughts on "The Golden Compass"

As you have no doubt heard, The Golden Compass is the first in a series of stories, written by atheist Philip Pullman, to be something of an "anti-Narnia" series. This has generated some controversy, which has no doubt helped ticket sales to people like me who otherwise would not have seen the movie.

A few thoughts. As a movie, this movie is mediocre. It has the potential to be really impressive, but I couldn't help but feel that it was very poorly edited. One felt as if one was watching the highlights of a much much longer movie that had been spliced together rather hurriedly. The story was disjointed. In virtually every scene some new character appeared who was immediately welcomed as a closely trusted advisor to the main characters, who are supposed to be on the run from the all-powerful Authority of the Magisterium (which would imply some level of caution).

Then there is the issue of whether this is a children's movie or an adult movie. Some of the dialogue is quite grown-up, addressing issues (favorite's of post-modern philosophy) of the relation between truth and reality on the one hand and truth and power on the other. Over against this is the annoying "kids movie dialogue" that could have come from any number of movies targetted at 6-year-olds. Also, some scenes are rather violent for children, as when one polar bear knocks the lower jaw clean off another, and it goes sliding across the ice.

Then there are the religious or ideological questions. The bad guys in the movie are attempting to control 'truth' in order to control people. In the old days we called that "propaganda" but in this movie it is recast in more postmodern terms: their truth vs. our truth. But even so, the truth that is discerned using the Golden Compass (a tool for gaining truth) is said to describe things as they really ARE. So this isn't exactly a post-modern "no absolutes" world after all. The "truth" of the Magisterium turns out simply to be lies.

Nicole Kidman claims that this movie is not anti-Catholic, though I think that is debateable. The evil powers that are trying to control everyone are called the Magisterium (and I only know of one institution in the world that goes by that name). They are willing to use any means necessary to squelch the "heretics" (a word with strong anti-clerical connotations in Europe). And in one scene, the local office of the Magisterium has painted on the outside of it Christian icons, apparently of the four evangelists, so that the office looks like the altar area of many churches. So the association is hard for the trained eye to miss: Christianity, perhaps especially the Roman Catholic variety, is associated with the evil Authority that is trying to control everyone. Now the average 10 year old may have no idea what an iconostasis looks like or what the words "Magisterium" or "heretic" mean in the real world, but one wonders if the really extreme lovers of this book can possibly grow up to be the very devout sort of Roman Catholics that the Church is no doubt trying to cultivate?

Finally, I should say there is the issue of the daemons - the spirits of the various characters that take the form of animals. Because of the spelling of the word itself, as well as the function of the daemons in the story, I feel they are intended to be associated with Socrates' daemon which he describes in the Apology (which is something like his conscience or connection to the divine will), rather than with demons as they are usually understood (fallen angels/spiritual forces of wickedness) in the Judeo-Christian tradition, though the words "daemon" and "demon" are clearly variants of the same word.

So the Authority/Magisterium of The Golden Compass could represent any number of actual regimes - including the Greek City-state that killed Socrates for that matter, and for that reason the movie is not explicitly anti-Christian/Catholic. Indeed one could even argue, I suppose, (based on having seen only the first movie) that the Golden Compass is a source of "divine revelation" and could be used as an analogy to the Bible. However the association of traditional Christian lingo and imagery with "the Evil powers" in this film is very noticeable to me.

"Becket" on DVD today!

Even though it is over 40 years old, I was able to see Becket at a sort of artsy theater in Dallas back on Palm Sunday. This movie is spectacular. Of course, movies and acting styles have changed alot in 40 years, yet this one drew me in quickly with its great acting and subtle humor and wondrous visuals.

The historic clash between Henry II and Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas a'Becket is a fascinating one that raises all sorts of questions to ponder. Like T.S. Eliot, who wrote the play Murder in the Cathedral about the same events, I am very interested in what was going on in Becket's head - or really, in his soul. Was his conversion sincere or a powerplay? If it wasn't sincere, why then did he wear a hair shirt and sleep on a mat? Why did he give away all of his stuff and above all, why did he accept martyrdom? He seems a man who pursued power and "the good life" because he was devoted to nothing but himself until, VERY ironically, he became devoted to the honor of God. It also reminds one of the loneliness that may accompany power in the character of Henry II.

In addition to the acting, the visuals are extraordinary - including the elaborate costumes. Some of the scenes are just powerful, as when Thomas takes his life into is hands and excommunicates a powerful baron over the king's objections. Based upon a history of Britain documentary I watched about the same time covering the same material, I'd say the film is pretty historically accurate in terms of the events it portrays - including the scene in which Becket appears, in full archbishop regalia, to what would have been his arrest, where he instead demands that his case be appealled to the pope and threatens with damnation any who would interfere with him and then calmly walks out of the hall through the crowd of stunned nobles, none of whom are willing to lay a hand on him.

I recommend it.

Amazing Grace

Last week some of us saw the new movie, Amazing Grace, about William Wilberforce and the anti-slave trade efforts of the Clapham Sect. Here is Christianity Today's review of the new film.
The movie is good, I'd say at least on par with last year's The Nativity Story. They did a great job of touching on the complex political realities of the day and keeping it engaging at that, as CT's reviewer says, "There's something to be said for a film that succeeds in making Parliamentary legislation suspenseful, even when you know the ultimate outcome." At times it seemed as though the film-makers went out of their way to have a character sing "Amazing Grace" in the film, which struck me as a little hokey at first, but then it is hard to make singing an 18th century Christian hymn a cappella very "hip," isn't it? And some parts were simply powerful. On the whole, I heartily recommend it. Oh, and there is also a love story that, unlike most of what we expose ourselves to in movies, is real.
Many of the issues touched on by the film are likely to touch a nerve with contemporary audiences. The film is, after all, about a group of Evangelical Christians who try to change the laws of their country to come more in line with their own Christian values. Sound familiar? What is really amazing, perhaps even miraculous, is that the presentation is sympathetic to their cause - it is the Abolition of slavery after all (if the movie had been about Prohibition, perhaps it would have been told differently).

So, of course this film raises many of the same questions that we are always raising (but not so often exploring very deeply or insightfully) in our own political situation - what is the relationship between faith and politics both for Christian citizens in a democratic system like ours and for the society as a whole. The characters in this film are quite openly attempting to "legislate morality" - what do we (as Americans or as Christians) think about that? Is there, for that matter, a such thing as legislation that does not represent somebody's morality? (If you read Gloria Deo much, you know I would answer with a resounding "NO")

I left the theater thinking that the movie might serve as an inspiration for all sorts of Christians (and perhaps others) all over the political spectrum to pursue their own agendas with renewed vigor.

Another sort of interesting background issue was floating around - most of the characters are Anglican Christians (and a few are even clergymen) who are trying to express Christian love towards the African peoples who are being exploited. Just last week the Anglican Primates (archbishops) of the "Global South" met to discuss the current crisis in the Anglican Communion, with African bishops being among the most outspoken defenders of orthodoxy over against the innovations of the US Episcopal Church and the laxity of the Church of England. What does it mean? I don't know - but it must mean something, and it reinforces how sad their current divide is.

The Children of Men

I first saw a trailer for this move months ago, and have been intrigued by the idea ever since. What if we stopped having babies? What if there were no more children? What would become of a world that had not had a new birth in almost 19 years?

In The Children of Men, the world has totally fallen apart. Anarchy has broken out across the world and only Britain soliders on, using xenophobic Parliamentary legislation and soldiers on the streets to maintain a fragile social order, constantly threatened by terrorism and the same despair that has consumed the rest of the world.

Then there is a miracle. A man stands in a sort of stable filled with cows as a young woman removes her shirt to show him that she is pregnant. He is dumbstruck and speechless before the pregnant woman...until he finally mutters "Jesus Christ!" And maybe he has spoken prophetically.

But I don't know what to make of this movie. It is at the same time deeply cynical about human nature while also being a story of hope. A powerful and moving scene (pictured above) demonstrates this well: a brutal and chaotic street battle between the British Army and a mix of armed terrorists and innocent bystanders comes to a complete standstill simply at the sound of a newborn baby's crying - the hope of all the world. Yet the moment of reprieve and wonder (end even prayer) comes to an abrupt termination and seems to be instantly forgotten as a rocket explodes and the horrid battle (massacre?) erupts back into its full intensity.

There is hope in the newborn Child (this movie was appropriately released in select cities on Christmas Day), but will we embrace it fully enough to be utterly remade by it? It is unclear if more than a handful of characters in this (very graphic) movie do so.

Click here for Christianity Today's review of this film.

Superman and Christ

According to a recent Yahoo MovieNews article many Christians are seeing obvious parallels between the new Superman movie and the Gospel of Christ. Certainly, the article says, the studios are not discouraging such comparisons (regardless of whether they are warranted) because they know that getting the "Christian population" behind a movie means more money for them.

When I read this article my first thought was that Superman was "the philosopher king." Let me explain. Plato, in his Republic, argued that the best possible form of government is one in which one person has all the power and is perfectly good and wise to use that power for the good of the whole community. He is the philosopher king. The worst possible regime is one in which a bad person has all the power, a tyrrany. He also says that the second-to-worst regime is a democracy, by the way.

I have argued that the form of a government is (in theory) essentially neutral and what really matters is the content of the character (as the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. might say) of those who make decisions: the one king in a monarchy or the whole population in a democracy. It seems clear that it is more likely that one man can be perfectly good and wise and informed than a whole population.

Now enter superman. He doesn't seek political office in any official government sense, but he is the most powerful man on earth. He can do whatever he wants and no military technology on the planet will stop him. He always uses his power for good, as they used to say before the days of multi-culturalism: "Truth, Justice, and the American Way."

Of course, my theory is that both Plato and the writers of Superman were getting at something that is deeply engrained in us. The philosopher king is what we all really want because it is what God designed us for. Christ is the true philosopher king. He is the one who reigns perfectly with all power. His Kingdom was announced upon the earth through his ministry and began to break into this rebellious world through his resurrection. And it will be brought to completion at the resoration of all things to their original intent. The question for us becomes: will we as individuals and as communities live under his reign, under his Lordship, in his Kingdom or not?

"Paradise Now" movie causes debate

A group of Israelis who have lost children to suicide bombings have asked that the Academy Awards drop the movie "Paradise Now" from consideration for any awards according to a new report. Those who lost loved ones feel that the movie fails to condemn and may even encourage such attacks that have been used by Palestinian and Islamic extremists to attack Israelis. Such an allegation may seem ironic since Warner Independent Pictures is billing Paradise Now as a call for peace.

As someone who actually watched a screening of this film IN the Palestinian West Bank a few weeks ago; I thought I might make a few comments. This is a very intense, extremely well-made (and low budget at that!) film. Does it deserve any Acadamy Awards? Well I am not sure...probably more than some of the other contenders.

Does it encourage suicide bombings or is it a call for peace? Honestly, I think people could take either message from the film, it is very ambiguous - just like the actual situation on the ground in the West Bank. A little Palestinian girl that watched the movie with us said she thought it showed that there were better ways to address the conflict than violence - but, I should probably add, she is a Palestinian Arab Christian (like virtually all of the Christians in the Holy Land).

This film does a very good job of showing the Palestianian people in the way that many of them actually feel: trapped. Trapped in a downward spiral of violence and death. The making of this movie demonstrates that there REALLY IS a will for peace among the Palestinians, yet it is not especially optimistic. There is only one answer for the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, and we see it when we look at the Cross of Christ: forgiveness. Only when people are willing to say "Father, forgive them," only when people consiously choose that they will not strike back though they have been wounded unjustly, only when people let go of their "rights" (to hate or seek revenge in response to evil) can there ever be peace there. It will be hard. It will be especially hard for those who do not value that kind of radical forgiveness.

I can not imagine the pain of losing a child in a terrorist bombing, and I hope I never know it; but I am certain that behind every bombing there is a bomber. And it would be easy to dismiss him as some less-than-human monster. And to keep doing so every time that it happens. That would be easy, but it would not be honest. The truth is he is actually very much like you or I would be in his situation. Maybe that is the scariest part of this film. By the end you really FEEL the moral ambiguity of it all: you see very clearly that violence will only continue the downward spiral, and yet you sense why a bomber would see it as the only place left to go, you feel trapped with him.

The Exorcism of Emily Rose

Today in class, while explaining the origins of the doctrine of the Trinity, my systematics professor got to talking about the Early Church's experience, a Charismatic/Pentecostal sort of experience, of the Holy Spirit. Then he 'tangented' to observing how some people in the class had had such experiences, but did not feel comfortable talking about them in the "academic" environment afforded by the seminary setting, and how this environment can actually suppress theological discourse. Then after tangenting a bit more about 'spiritual' or 'spook factor' (as he put it) experiences, he encouraged all of us to go see "The Exorcism of Emily Rose." So I have a real live Methodist Theologian in my corner here: YOU should go see this movie.

What REALLY happened to Emily Rose? This is the question that the movie raises; or this is the question that gets at a much bigger question: What do you believe about all that "spiritual/supernatural" stuff?

The movie is loosely based on actual events that occured in the 70s in Germany. A failed exorcism was performed and a young girl died. Then the charges were filed: negligent homocide. In the movie, most of which is a courtroom drama, the priest who presided over the exorcism liturgy, Father Moore, is on trial, and this trial raises lots of questions.

The movie is very creepy (I, who do not frequent scary movies, lost sleep because of it), and very smart. The very rational-sounding Methodist Prosecution attorney says she had epilepsy, and the priests actions led to her death. Is he right? Or was Father Moore right? Was Emily possessed by demons? Is that even possible? What does it mean if it is? Or if it isn't?

At one point the defense attorney, a woman of doubt, says: "God, angels, Satan, demons. These either exist or they do not." So the question for the jury, the question for the audience is, or course, "Do they?" And how you answer that questions, will determine what sort of answer you give to ALL the other questions, won't it?