I took my son to see Cloverfield for his birthday (happy birthday Ben). Okay, I did some other stuff for him too.

Was Cloverfield worthy of the hype that lead up to it? Yea, I think it was. It was like and unlike any other film. The first person perspective may have been done (Blair Witch) and of course monster movies have been done. But the mixture of all of these elements worked extremely well in this film. We don’t many good shots of the monster, we don’t get an explanation of where it came from or what it is, we don’t really know if it is dead. This is part of the brilliance of the film. The monster isn’t the center post holding up the film. It is an extra, a huge, hideous, destructive, important extra, but an extra. Think about that. The planning and detail that went into the monster and yet it wasn’t the most important part of the film. Brilliant. This gives me some hope for the film version of Halo. Master Chief is not going to be the star and that made me think the film, like every other game-to-movie venture, would fail. But maybe not.

What made Cloverfield work is the story. And that is true of any film. If the story is good it is hard to muck up the film. If the story is poor, no amount of trick photography and explosions can save it. What is the central story of Cloverfield? It isn’t about 9/11 or our collective fear of attack. Yes, there were nods to 9/11 in the film. A building collapses, a wall of dust moves down the street, some voices in the chaos even mention it but that wasn’t what drove the movie. It didn’t motivate the characters and propel us along with it. The monster didn’t do that. Love did.

How wild is that? A love story is what moves the plot in a monster film. Rob loves Beth and that is what keeps him in the middle of all of the action. If the film had acts, the first act established Rob’s relationship with Beth and ended when he found out about her plight. The second act was Rob’s drive to be with Beth. The final act is probably best left undefined here for fear of spoiling the experience of the film. But I will say that involves Rob and Beth.

But it had to didn’t it? I think the first person perspective required it. We had to be in the film. We had to be with Rob and his friends and feel with them. Not only fear of the destruction and the monster, but we had to come to know the characters and care about them. If we didn’t, then the jittery, swinging camera work would only serve to annoy us. Or make us sea sick. To believe the characters and live their plight with them, we needed more than big explosions and scary villains (Michael Bay, I wish you understood this idea!) Up against a monster as horrible as the one in Cloverfield, only something as powerful as love could carry the plot along. Just before the first explosion of the film, Rob says something about love and when everything is taken away what is important to you. I wish I could remember the line, it was the most important in the film and tells us what is to come. Everything is taken away from Rob and he runs to the one thing that matters in the midst of the chaos: the woman he loves.

As Ben and I were saying on the way home, if JJ Abrams is smart, and he seems to be, there will be no sequel. The story was about Rob and Beth and that was it. I hope they don’t make a second film. But they probably will and it will be what our dulled, spoon-fed senses have come believe is what film is about: action. I hope they don’t.

Here are a couple of reviews I liked. Christianity Today was very good, especially the warnings at the end of the piece and discussion questions. Luther At The Movies, er, Anthony Sacramone at First Things offers his usual clear insight with a bit of humor

I’m doing it. I’m reading the Greek New Testament. It is slow going but I’m working on it. Every day I spend about half an hour on the train reading.What I’ve been doing is reading the verse until I get it. That may be once through (rarely) or it may take three or four times to get through. After I feel like I have it, I check it in my NASB on my Treo  650. I also have GRAMCORD with the UBS dictionary so I can double check my parsing and get a little discussion on some of the words.  That means I typically get through about 5 or 6 verses in my half an hour on the train. I also make notes of interesting things I see in the text and any words or constructions I need to review or dig into.

This week, in Matthew 5:22, I read:

πας ο οργιζομενος τω αδελφω αυτου ενοχος εσται τη κρισει
ος δ’ αν ειπη τω αδελφω αυτου ρακα ενοχος εσται τω συνεδριω
ος δ’ αν ειπη μωρε ενοχος εσται εις την γεενναν του πυρος

So it starts out that all who are angry are a liable to the judgement, just like it was said about murder. The other two phrases begin with "ος δ’ αν" which the NASB translate as simply "and" but it seems that there is more than just "and" in that phrase. BDAG says that αν is "a particle…denoting [an] aspect of contingency".

So it seems that Jesus is not saying here that he is replacing the Mosaic Law, he is simply telling the Pharisees that it is much worse than they thought. You haven’t murdered? Great. Have you been angry? Oh, then you’re guilty of murder. But even more than that, if you call your brother a fool, then you’re not just liable to the judgement, you’re liable to the council. And you have called him a moron? Oh my, you’re subject to the fires of hell!

In other words, it feels like there is a progression. I was expecting και not "δ’ αν".

Am I reading too much into this? Is δ’ αν just a literary device that Jesus used or does it have some significance?

Update:

Yes, I am reading too much into it. :) For one thing, I totally overlooked the fact that δε ("δ’" above) is postpositive. That is, it is not in the first position in the sentance, it alsways slides one word back. So the phrase I’m looking at is not "δ’ αν" but  "ος αν". As Lee Irons pointed out to me that phrase just means "whoever." This is why beginning Greek students can be so dangerous! :)

I just said this in another context, but I thought it was worth quoting myself.

One of the problems with preaching to the choir is that you can say some things about non-choir members that might not be exactly right but all you’ll hear from the choir is “Amen!”

John Piper cites an example.

The idea that the religious beliefs of politicians should be a private matter and not affect their politics is an idea from the French Revolution, not the American. The French Revolution threw off both the king and the cleric. Religion was and is a private matter that one isn’t supposed to talk about. You practice it (if you practice it at all) in a private, quiet way. The American Revolution threw off not "king and cleric" but king and state religion. Our roots were largely in the Puritans who wanted to purify the Church of England. The distinction is subtle but important. The place religion has in life is what is different. There are those who fear candidates who have strong religious beliefs. Surely, there are some candidates like that who should be feared but it shouldn’t be a blanket statement against religion in politics.

Sometimes Christianity is portrayed as homophobic, misogynist, intolerant, etc. while Islam is put forward as a religion of peace. This post highlights an article in the New York Times that, while attempting to show the more human face of Islam, really highlights the opposite. It is about gay Muslims and their struggle.

I love this. I totally agree with Popular Mechanics’ 25 Skills Every Man Should Know guide. I’m scoring pretty well so far. Don’t know much about numbers 2, 13, or 18. I’m sure I could figure out 21 in no time even though I’ve never done it. I learned numbers 9, 12 and 19 (and more skills) in the Air Force. I think that would give me 21.5/25 which ain’t bad.

How did you score? What skills would you remove or add to the list? Aren’t you glad that shopping for shoes wasn’t included?

On December 14th, 2007 at 7PM in the Arnold T. Olson Chapel at Trinity International University, I was awarded the Master of Divinity degree from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. This culminates five years of mostly full-time study while working a full-time job. It was, by far, the hardest five years of my life. It was only by God’s grace that I made it through the program, remained married, and actually learned anything. My family endured life without a father/husband during much of that time. Even during the summer breaks, I wasn’t mentally “there” and even took a Hebrew class during one of them.

But it is over. I am now a TEDS alumni with a Masters degree. I’m getting used to these strangers who live in my house and have started courting the women who lives here with me. I hear that she’s a recovering seminary widow. ;)

I am pretty sure that this is the end of formal education for me. I am not a very good student and doubt that I could make it through a Master of Theology and/or PhD program.

My family was present except for my son who was working on his finals at Wheaton. My mother and older sister came to be there and my friends Brad and Kim Anderson came too. The ceremony was great. The major graduation ceremony is in the spring. This one was smaller, only 45 Masters and Doctoral students graduating. At the end of the ceremony, the faculty surrounded the students and prayed for us and for our future ministry. There was a wonderful reception afterwards. I loved it. 

You’ve heard that old saying that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery? It is interesting, then, that Philip Pullman’s atheistic His Dark Materials is really a retelling of Milton’s retelling of the Eden story, Paradise Lost. As a matter of fact, the phrase “his dark materials” is a line in Paradise Lost.

Don’t be too impressed that I knew all of that. I got it from a Mars Hill Audio (nothing to do with Mark Driscoll or Rob Bell) podcast on the books of the His Dark Materials trilogy. :) I’m not that clever nor that well read.

So if you’re interested in the original, theistic version, you can download an audio book for free this month.

Last year I decided that for my private devotions, I would only read Luke. I did that and loved it. It was wonderful to slow down and focus on the text for a while. I’m currently in chapter 20 for about the forth time this year and I plan on finishing the book before I start my next reading program. I wasn’t sure what that would be till I read this post from Lee Irons’ blog.

I think next year I’m going to try to read through the Greek NT at least once. Over the summer I tried to refresh my Greek in addition to everything else. That didn’t work. Trying to read Greek for half an hour just before bed wasn’t cutting it for me. I need more mental focus that is available to me at that time of the day.

OK, so I did it in seminary. I worked till about 11PM and then sat up studying Greek till about 4AM. Then I woke up at about 7AM and did it all over again. I got through two years of Greek like that but I don’t recommend it. I don’t remember much. During the refresh, I would like it to stick!

So what I think I’m going to try this next year is to start reading the Greek NT, chapter at a time, on the train on the way in in the morning. Hit Caribou for a cup of awake before I get on the train. I’ll try to read for half a hour and then knock it off. I have a journal so I can make some notes of interesting things I might want to dig in to.

Frankly, I know me. I don’t have high hopes of this lasting for very long but I’m willing to try. I get frustrated and then give up. If I can get myself to slog through it for a while and get the basic vocab down again, this could be helpful.

Cartoon by Dave Walker. Find more cartoons you can freely re-use on your blog at We Blog Cartoons.