Time for Cheer

...and that means christmas movies.

So, I am not a very traditional person when it comes to this, so here are my top 5 Christmas Movies. I realize there are a lot of lists coming out here, but i'm pretty sure no one is reading anyway.

Die Hard

I don't know why, but nothing says Merry Christmas, Ho Ho Ho! like a dead terrorist decorated in an elevator shaft.

Batman Returns

One of my favorite christmas lines of all time in this movie: "Mistletoe can be deadly if you eat it. But a kiss can be even deadlier if you mean it."

The Nightmare Before Christmas

There's something so maniacal and twisted about this movie. I love when the kid pulls the shrunken head out of the giftbox. Also, this movie has everything, good music, true love, a great battle with an awesome villain, and there's something so kitch about that classic clay animation style

A Christmas Story

I know, you're thinking this is the first "Christmas Movie" I've listed, and this isn't really the best film, just a series of vignettes about being a kid at christmas time, and it's hilarious.

Scrooged/Muppet Christmas Carol

These are the two best versions of the immortal Charles Dickens classic, because you can laugh yourself silly at them. Christmas cheer for me is laughter. And it doesn't get better than Billy Murray or the Muppets.

Well, I'm off!

Merry Mary Labor Day!

Find Out What It Means To Me

Someone asked me the other day what respect means, and what the difference is between respect and love. This person had the fundamental assumption that Respect must be earned. It might sound strange at first, but I completely disagree. I think that the way we understand respect or the most part is derived from our secular world values. Don Miller talks about these values in the book Searching For God Knows What and uses the analogy of a lifeboat. In a sense, we compete for respect, value, self-validation, and when we place a price on respect, it means we are tragically disrespectful to a potentially large group of people.

I personally think that respect has to do with honoring someone else's dignity. All people are created as the image of God, including the people that embody the things we hate the most. I had some very interesting discussions this past weekend about the death penalty and various other implications of the biblical teaching of anthropology, but I think the one that stands out to me the most is respect as unmerited.

I surely believe that we ought, as Christians to strive toward being honorable, in fact to be mature and complete, just as God is perfect (Matthew 6:48) we have a standard, and though we may fall short, our intentions and improvements ought to be observable. Our hypocracies allegedly reinforce atheism, but in some ways our inability to succeed apart from God is entirely the point. If we, who have been redeemed, united with the spirit, are reminded of our weaknesses by our hopefully diminishing trespasses, then how could we ever earn respect. If nothing else, the secular standard of earning respect is actually set too low. But that means, if we truly set the standard where it ought to be, then nobody can really earn respect. We all are needy in someway, we all are weak in some way.

I think that rather than worrying about gaining the respect of others (yet another pit fall is the sub-cultural quantificational overload: A person will invariably exclude themselves from being respected by some in the act of earning the respect of others) we need to realize that we're going about things backward. We ought instead to give respect freely. Respect, like love, is a form of grace. One can never hope to overcome the disrespect of others by being disrespectful. To teach respect, one must be respectful. Think about the people you respect the least, think about why, and then think about what makes them different from you. Imagine what could happen if you show them respect freely.

Is respect an ascent to the things which you view as unworthy of respect that we observe in the lives of others? No, respect is an ascent to their sacred origin, their right to human dignity. One of the problems I have observed along with many others is that the problem with charity is that it stops as pity. To truly help someone they must realize the humility and grace that comes with being a child of God. To step into the light of grace is also to step into the light of the dignity that comes with what we were intended for, and the respect of self that naturally gives rise to the respect of others.

On a final and related note, contrary to some interpreters, Christ has not called us to self-love (Matthew 22:39) but any sense of self-respect and personal honesty will lead to the shores of humility, and the free respect of those around us.

By Request

My Top Ten Movies of All Time*

1. Zero Effect

2. A Life Less Ordinary

3. Pulp Fiction

4. The Manchurian Candidate (1959)

5. Braveheart

6. In Cold Blood

7. The Salton Sea

8. Brick

9. Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?

10. Into The Wild

*On a side note, I think there is obviously a degree of technicality in the production of a film, and so I would argue that there is actually a difference between my favorite movies and the best movies I've seen. Often the movies listed above were not even the best movie I saw that year, for which I award the Golden Matty O. For example Brick came out in 2005 but the golden Matty O for that year went to Collateral. I don't think I could pick the 10 best movies ever, because, well, there's too many to choose from.

Cinemawhatty?

If you don't know me and you're reading this, I am somewhat of a film buff. I talk about cinematography, and director's bodies of work, I analyze subtext, and I view storytelling on both an intentional and sublime plain, and I look at most movies, even bad movies, as artwork, as pieces of art to be understood and affected.

But something I just realized about 5 minutes ago is that one of the reasons I watch movies and like them so much, is because not only do I enjoy them, consider them philosophical platforms, and engage my mind in creative ways when I watch them. It's because in a way, watching movies makes me a more interesting person.

In the last 48 hours, I've actually become more aware of how I interact with the medium, and how I talk, act, etc. It's not informed by movies, persay, but it's definitely influenced. You'd have to be an idiot to claim that media doesn't affect you. I embrace that fact, but I also use discernment.

I was having a conversation last night, and I turned a scene from a movie into a conversation piece, without referencing the movie at all. I think a number of my "witty remarks" are allusions or direct quotes to some of my favorite movies, however obscure or immemorable to my audience. It's not even an act of mimicry, or even intentional; I have always been drawn to movies where the characters and dialogue reminded me of me in the first place. When I discover a movie that is one of my favorites, it's often because I feel that lines, sometimes pages of dialogue, character attributes and even minor plot points were taken out of my journal/inner monologue.

That is all, just an observation. Let me know if you catch me doing it :)

Also, if you didn't catch it, the title of this post is an allusion to a movie line from a really really really ridiculously funny movie.

Do you deserve your weekend?

I had a great weekend. I refereed some little kids playing football which I actually enjoy despite the vitriolic ranting of parents and coaches alike. I read a great book, I spent some time with friends, I went to church, I had some of the best food that one can buy in my city and I saw a summer blockbuster movie which wasn't too disappointing. I met a really cool person, and had more than one very good conversation.

But I didn't deserve any of it. And that's what's so mindblowing about living in this country, what is so upsetting to me when people take it for granted.

I think if you asked most any american, they would tell you of course they deserve their weekend, their vacation, their long lunch, their quality time with their boy or girl friend, their family, their free evenings to go carousing, their ability to choose their field of work.
last week, someone pointed out to me the logical error in that way of thinking. No matter how hard you work, you don't deserve any of those things; you inherited them. So claim that you deserve those things is to claim that those who do not have those things, ie impoverished people in 3rd world countries, do not deserve them. Which, to make that claim is pretty much b.s. so, don't even try it.

The idea of inheritance is pretty significant in this society as well as in the bible. And what's crazy, is that that's exactly how they describe heaven. It's an inheritance that we couldn't possibly deserve, but we get to inherit because of grace, and through which we are meant to help others.

So, if you think about it, being an average american is basically like being a prince or a princess. Do you want to live up in your castle, or do you want to share it with the world?

Vision Problems

I'm not talking about my eyes.

In basic leadership class, they tel you that every leader is a visionary, and if he's not, he's no leader at all. Now the fun part of the metaphor contained in that sort of language is that every leader is a visionary, but no leader as 20/20 vision. There are a variety of vision problems a leader can develop, and this is partly addressed in The Externaly-Focused Church. Here they give a few examples, and I am clearly guilty as I have been engaged in various tasks of leadership.

I am essentially nearsighted and wall-eyed. Meaning, It's difficult for me to really cast long-term vision, or see things in the future as being differently than they are now. This is definitely true as I consider myself, It's very difficult to envision myself changing or growing or becoming better. Which naturally leads itself to helplessness and hopelessness if unattended to.

I also tend to be concerned with what's going on all around me. What a friend of mine calls FOMO (Fear of Missing Out) and so to take a straight path toward a goal is much more difficult when, if I am honest, I have as my only real goal to do everything I want to do. Even the things which are mutually exclusive. This is the most painful when I have meditative and introspective periods, because I literally don't know which desires to follow.

One example of this is the desire for adventure. Now, one of the lessons that God taught me in the time I spent seeking out the peace corp only to withdraw 3 months before my scheduled departure, was that God has stories and adventures for us, but there is a difference between an adventurous heart and a reckless foolishness. Wisdom and Adventure are not antithetical. And yet, I feel like if I knew certain details of my life, like whether or not I'll get married, I would live my life differently depending on the verdict. I would take stupid risks if I didn't want my story to have a family in it.

How do I resolve these desires for family and adventure? I want to believe that their incompatibility is a cultural fabrication, but, it's hard. It's just hard, expecially when I feel like I could just end up frozen and not fulfill either one.

As one chaplain asked me when I commented on not being married, "What are you doing about it?" I think that's the point. If you want something, and it fits with godliness, go for it. But let God be the guide, and always hold up your heart for changing.

P-P-P-P-Pluralism....?

Hey, so few people read this, but all the same I thought I'd post what I get the most questions about in my pursuit of army chaplaincy is what I can and can't do, and what my specific role is as a chaplain, and here is a paper on pluralism that starts to answer that question. Also, I think I'm now way more patriotic than I ever imagined myself in previous years.

Pluralism is the key element of the chaplain ministry. “Army Chaplains represent faith groups within the pluralistic religious culture in America and demonstrate the values of religious freedom of conscience and spiritual choice.” [1] This is the chaplain’s calling, and pluralism is its foundation in order to “support the free exercise of religion for all members of the Army.”[2]

The basis for pluralism in the armed forces, and in the nation, consists of two primary statutes. The first is the establishment clause, "Congress shall make no lawrespecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”[3] Where many countries throughout history had joined with particular religious groups, The United States is founded on pluralistic all-inclusive values. Thus the equal treatment of all people regardless of faith tradition is paramount to the successful operation of America’s armed forces and specially tasked to the chaplain ministry.

The second statute in the US Code describes the pluralistic obligations of a chaplain: “Each chaplain shall, when practicable, hold appropriate religious services at least once on each Sunday for the command to which he is assigned, and shall perform appropriate religious burial services for members of the Army who die while in that command…”[4] These actions to a diverse religious field give rise to two distinct modes which protect the chaplains integrity with regard to his denominational allegiance and allow for free exercise of religion at the Chaplains facility.

The two major tenets of the chaplain ministry in a pluralistic environment are summed up in two key phrases: “Cooperation without Compromise” and “Perform or Provide”. Cooperation without compromise functions to protect the Chaplain as far s/he is bound by the requirements of his or her endorser, and the conviction of his or her faith tradition. According to AR 165-1, “Chaplains are responsible to keep the command informed when they perceive a requirement that may exceed their endorsement accountability.”[5]

“Perform or Provide” sums up the chaplains duty when faced with pluralistic differences. According to AR 165-1,[6] a chaplain is to perform religious education, religious rites and chapel services in accordance with his faith tradition, and provide for those who are of different traditions. Pluralism does not require that anyone affirm the validity of the faith practice of another individual, only that that individual is given equal opportunity and support in the free exercise of their faith.

In my chaplain ministry, pluralism plays a central role, and my endorsing agency fully acknowledges it. Pluralism is a part of the culture of the military, and chaplaincy is not a private church ministry. My role as a minister is not to separate myself from those of different faith, but rather to support them in any way I can under the “perform or provide” banner. Pluralism is critical in the role of a chaplain and requires tolerance towards other faith traditions. At the same time, it opens the door for interfaith dialogue, and allows others to examine their faith and values as they live them out.

---

[1] AR 165-1 pg. 1

[2] AR 165-1 pg. 18

[3] The Constitution of the United States of America, 1^st Amendment

[4] U.S Code Title 10, Section 3547

[5] AR 165-1 pg. 11

[6] AR 165-1 pg. 7

Not every day

So earlier today Mark Driscoll tweeted at me regarding my response to his blog. A little surreal, since he's the pastor of thousands, a well known author, international orator, and basically a total bad ass, and I'm a grease spot, but he wasn't TOO condescending, so that was nice. This is a popular argument he makes, and a catchy phrase to distill it, but, it's not a very sound one.

1) Hebrews 11 teaches that Moses was well prepared and trained to be the leader of a people long before he received his call at the burning bush

2) Saying Jesus didn't call any of the Pharisees is actually false. There was one named Nicodemus, another named Joseph, and another named Saul.

3) The entire reason that Stephen and his friends were appointed in ministry was because they were qualified.

4) The basis for calling elders in 1 Timothy 3 requires men who have been trained in godliness.

There's more examples, and there are plenty of examples that support his argument. Nice try, Pastor Mark, but the answer is 'both'.

Arson of the Heart

So, I don't know about you, but I was something of a pyromaniac when I was younger. Fire is amazing. And I still remember how a particular TV show which I was perhaps not supposed to watch got in major trouble cause the characters would say "fire, fire" over and over again, and then some kid burned down his house while watching it.

I think fire is amazing because it represents so much that's good, light, heat, energy, and yet it is so dangerous and destructive. So powerful, so useful, yet so lethal, and actually, quite scary. Something about a bonfire makes you just want to watch the flames and not look away. Something so poetic in their dance.

People talk about the fire that burns in our hearts, the spark of life, the man on fire, and there are a host of negative connotations as well. One such powerful metaphor comes from the Bible in James 3:5-6

How great a forest is set ablaze by such a small fire! And the tongue is a fire, a world of unrighteousness. The tongue is set among our members, staining the whole body, setting on fire the entire course of life, and set on fire by hell.

I was listening to an easter message with some friends and it was about adoption, specifically the ministry of adoption in the Gospel. Passages like Ephesians 1:5, Romans 8:23 are so amazing, and the sort of thing that to a certain degree we miss out on, because we're so caught up in our own cultural value of relationships, and a lot of static builds up.

I could write and should write an entire post about the connection between Adoption, Sonship, Image of God and Likeness, and how adoption correlates to imputed righteousness, but right now I want to understand the identity in adoption.

Another passage that people (people!) usually bring up is the Parable of the Prodigal Son, which is illustrating a very similar idea in fatherly love, but an altogether different point about forgiveness, and really these two land side by side in sermons, and need a little bit better coordination.

This is where fire becomes important. If sin, as James so suggests, is fire, then we are all arsonists. If it is God's law which explains how we have sinned, against whom we have sinned, then it's a little bit like we've burned God's house down with our sin. Flagrantly. Imagine a great house, beautiful and fair. Painted bright colors to contrast the billows of sickening black smoke. As the beams and panelling succumb to the gaudy flames, you can hear an infant crying from an upstairs nursery. This part of the story doesn't end well. The simple brilliance that our adoption in Ephesians 1 coordinates with our status as enemy in Ephesians 2 is sometimes lost. God's son died because of the fire set by you and me, and God adopted us, murderous arsonists. I hope that's not too vivid. It pains me to write it, really.

I won't carry the metaphor over into the absurdity, but, the idea of house and household, and sonship (coming soon) becomes important. We're God's children now, and we still sin. So now, it's like we're setting our own house on fire. Everyday, like children playing with matches. And God's there with a fire extinguisher, trying to help us grow up. Someone wise once pointed out that sin is usually chasing something good in a bad way. In a way that ruins it, and everything around it. Fire is useful. Fire is passion, energy, strength, beauty.

I was an arsonist. But now I can make something beautiful, something good. Being God's children means having a stake in his household, and realizing that it's not duty that holds us accountable, but the sense that to turn against God is now the purest form of self-destruction. This is the beginning. Happy Easter.

Simple Complexity

So, life is complicated. I'm probably not going to say anything terribly profound in this post. One of the more frequent issues that I've counseled people on is the apparent disconnect between the "black and white" language of the bible and the seemingly grey tension of normal life circumstances and the decisions we must make.

When people feel sorrow or fear grief, it seems trite to comfort them with God's sovereignty and the promises of the Bible, and in times of difficult choices, telling people of the simplicity of right and wrong is often unhelpful and misguided. But we can't just shelve truth when it's hard, right?

And the beauty of the Bible is it's robust complexity and simplicity distilled from it. You can explain the gospel to a 5 year old, and get a PhD in it. The major problem we have when we encounter truth is sin. Sin makes it more complicated. Sin creates tension, and makes it extremely grey. We're not supposed to be freaked out by that, resist the tension, or refuse to live in the grey zone. Christianity is a rollercoaster of grey. And being afraid of tension, of working it all out in the midst of our problems and taking the Bible and applying it is a presupposition that must be exposed.

I want to step passionately forward when I'm struck by how complicated life seems to the simplicity of the truth, because I want that truth to shape me through my experiences and I want to grasp more and more how truth applies to life. Sometimes We have amoral decisions, sometimes we have very evenly matched moral decisions, and sometimes we need to learn hard lessons, but don't pretend life is simple. Run hard, and stay focused, and my hope and prayer is that the decisions I've made will be the best that I could have made at the time. I know God is at work in and through this world, and trusting that is what has brought me to where I am, and will carry me to where I go as I passionately step forward. Philippians 2:12-13 tries to say this, and make it sound really casual. This is what life is about.

Trophies Are For Sports

The Annual gathering The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is tomorrow, and while I don't care a whole lot since they invariably get it wrong every year, the potential pleasant surprise is always welcome (like when Crash deservedly won best picture in 2005).

The big three when people talk about classic cinema and the best films ever made are of course Citizen Kane, Casablanca, and Sunset Boulevard, but only one of those three movies won best picture the year it came out. If you guessed Casablanca, you were right.

Citizen Kane came out the same year as The Maltese Falcon and both lost best picture to How Green Is My Valley?. Sunset Boulevard lost along with King Solomon's Mine to All About Eve.

So, if the academy missed those ones, it's obviously a tough call. Especially as they have expanded the field to 10 movies this year. This is probably silly, because it is obvious that some of these movies are not contenders.

District 9 won't win. The only fantasy/sci-fi movie to ever win was Return of the King.

I haven't seen Precious, A Serious Man, An Education, or The Blind Side, but I would bet none of them are going to win either.

Though it is visually stunning, Avatar should not win. Titanic should not have won either. It was up against LA Confidential, Good Will Hunting, and As Good As it Gets, which are all superior films, but the Academy likes James Cameron. I would like for him to win best director, since the amount of detailed work he put into creating Avatar is really, without question, excellent work, but the story itself and the acting and it's dependence on the visual effects really detracts from it as best picture material. It should also win all the technical awards (side note, how on earth did they not at least nominate Watchmen for best visual effects?)

Every year they talk about the annual Pixar movie being nominated, particularly the last three, Ratatouille, Wall-E and now Up. These movies don't have a chance because there's no female roles in them. There's a distinct lack of depth in the relational characteristics of the plot, though Up comes much further than it's predecessors. The only other animated feature to ever be nominated was Disney's Beauty and the Beast.

So the real nominees are Up In The Air, The Hurt Locker (directed by James Cameron's ex-wife, Kathryn Bigelow) and Inglorious Basterds. I would really be happy with any of these three winning, but I have a bias for Tarantino, So Inglorious Basterds is my pick. I would also suggest 2 movies that weren't nominated, and that's Invictus and The Messenger. I really liked Watchmen, but I realize a lot of people didn't get it, so I won't even suggest it, even though it did make my all decade list, and none of the movies nominated for this year did. This is partly because I think it's the best adaptation of a comic book ever, and that's a preview of future blogs about what I think is so special about comic books and movies.

My favorite title for a movie that was ever nominated for best picture is probably "Kiss of the Spider Woman".

People Will Always Surprise You

I'm just blown away when a person can leave these two distinct and contrasting messages within a 24 hour period.

1)

2)

(the note-leavers dirty dishes, left out for 2-4 days on average)

I get it, and I try to be respectful, and that note wasn't even directed at me, but people always make it seem like "the community is suffering" when someone has different expectations than them, yet they have no concept of reality when it comes to how they themselves act.

Next week I'll be writing a paper on Colossians 3:12-17, and in v. 12-13 it talks about the difference between bearing with one another and forgiving one another. In the simplest terms, Forgiving people is what you do when they sin against you, when it's a real issue.

Bearing with one another is what you do when it's not a sin. It's just a person that's really irritating to you for whatever reason. It's the majority habit that we need to build. And it's the fundamental principle in community and relationship. You decide together what the expectations are, but then you accept 100% for the sake of your friendship. I have been learning so much about this in the last few years. Successful relationships are based on unconditional love and conflict is only ever truly resolved by an increase in everyones humility.

Wonder what I do in Seminary?

Not really, huh?

Well here it is anyway, this is the first exegetical paper my prof proclaimed as 'excellent'. The first of mine that is, not the first ever.

Philemon 10-14

¹⁰παρακαλῶ σε περὶ τοῦ ἐμοῦ τέκνου, ὃν ἐγέννησα ἐν τοῖς δεσμοῖς Ὀνήσιμον,

¹¹τόν ποτέ σοι ἄχρηστον νυνὶ δὲ [καὶ] σοὶ καὶ ἐμοὶ εὔχρηστον,

¹²ὃν ἀνέπεμψά σοι, αὐτόν, τοῦτ' ἔστιν τὰ ἐμὰ σπλάγχνα: ¹³ὃν ἐγὼ ἐβουλόμην πρὸς ἐμαυτὸν κατέχειν, ἵνα ὑπὲρ σοῦ μοι διακονῇ ἐν τοῖς δεσμοῖς τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, ¹⁴χωρὶς δὲ τῆς σῆς γνώμης οὐδὲν ἠθέλησα ποιῆσαι, ἵνα μὴ ὡς κατὰ ἀνάγκην τὸ ἀγαθόν σου ᾖ ἀλλὰ κατὰ ἑκούσιον.

10-11

Paul resumes his thought from v.9 by restating the verb παρακαλῶ, and uses the following verses to explain the content and nature of his appeal to Philemon. The σε is evidently the direct object. Its bluntness and its personal appeal come across in the following section in which Paul uses many pronominal and structural nuances to show his personal and passionate approach to his appeal before Philemon.

The subject of Paul’s appeal is expressed in the prepositional phrase περὶ τοῦ ἐμοῦ τέκνου. In keeping with the emphatic nature of this passage, περὶ can be understood more directly as “for” rather than the more removed, referential “concerning”. The articulated τοῦ ἐμοῦ τέκνου also carries a stronger idea of concern with it. Paul actually says something very profound on a socio-cultural level here. Paul is interceding, begging for the life of a slave. So much so that he is willing to call that slave his very son. The emphatic language is warranted considering the scope of reactions his writing may provoke.

ὃν is masculine and accusative by attraction to Ὀνήσιμον, though one and the same with τέκνου. The aorist ἐγέννησα has an consummative force to it, as γεννάω refers here to the spiritual transformation of Onesimus which Paul alludes to in other verses. ἐν τοῖς δεσμοῖς modifies the verb circumstantially, giving us a better understanding that Paul met Onesimus and brought him to faith in the Lord in his imprisonment.

Ὀνήσιμον comes at the end of the verse so that his current status as a believer is established, and to transition into Paul’s statement about his character in verse 11. It’s also emphatic language, again, that Paul would give a simple slave a long title before naming him. There is also particular lexical significance, as Paul makes a play on words which relates to the meaning of Ὀνήσιμον – useful.

τόν is the second of five particles that refer back to Ὀνήσιμον and relates to the accusatives ἄχρηστον and εὔχρηστον. Following the consummative aorist, Paul employs a contrast on many levels and uses a brilliant pun. He sets in contrast ποτέ and νυνὶ establishing the definitive change that has occurred. ἄχρηστον and εὔχρηστον are both used here to establish the 180 degree difference in Philemon. There is also a noteworthy double pun: Paul states that Onesimus (“useful”) was “useless” (ἄχρηστον) but now is “very useful” (εὔχρηστον). He also uses words very similar in form to Χριστός and so Paul alludes to his status as a convert being apart from Christ, now a fellow Christian.

12

Paul continues his appeal to Philemon and praise of Onesimus. The aorist ἀνέπεμψά is epistolary, as it is presumed that Onesimus himself is delivering the letter. Paul is his most emphatic here. The intensive αὐτόν and the expression τοῦτ' ἔστιν τὰ ἐμὰ σπλάγχνα make this a very bold and heartfelt appeal. The expression of σπλάγχνα is one of several thematic words Paul uses in his argument. He places further responsibility on Philemon with this word, having already cited Philemons refreshment of the hearts of the saints (v.7) and he uses the phrase again in a request in v. 20.

αὐτόν is an emphatic intensifier and part of a deluge of pronouns that Paul uses in this passage, emphasizing the relationships involved and the importance of the three key men in this delicate affair. Onesimus, Philemon and Paul are all of deep significance in how the church will deal with this socially and culturally loaded issue. Paul seeks to intensify the personal nature of it in his writing.

13

Two pronouns, ὃν and ἐγὼ connect this verse right into Paul’s appeal and assessment of Onesimus. He uses the imperfect ἐβουλόμην as either an epistolary imperfect, but more likely as a conative imperfect, expressing a thoughtful wish Paul had. His wish is explained by the complimentary infinitive κατέχειν.

There is some deliberation as to the exact meaning of κατέχειν as to whether it was Paul’s wish “to hold back” Onesimus longer even though Onesimus may have felt burdened to make peace with his Christian master following his own conversion to Christ. Or if a simple “retain” sense is appropriate. It is usually best not to read into the situation, as it could be equally argued that Onesimus would have wanted to continue to aid Paul’s gospel ministry and no doubt would have been apprehensive at facing a potential penalty for a runaway slave.

Paul uses two uncommon prepositional expressions here in v. 13. πρὸς ἐμαυτὸν is of note as an example of atypical disagreement between a transitive verb and an adverbial stative preposition. Following the purpose clause ἵνα, Paul uses ὑπὲρ σοῦ as a substitutionary phrase. This is particularly significant to other verses of the same construction, which express soteriological principles. Here Paul is probably assuming Philemon is naturally encouraged to know He is well served in his imprisonment, and possibly alluding to what he will directly state in v. 19 – that is Philemon’s spiritual heritage in Paul.

The Present sunjunctive διακονῇ simply expresses the contingency of Paul’s wish, and anticipates Paul’s fourth reminder to Philemon of his own imprisonment ἐν τοῖς δεσμοῖς τοῦ εὐαγγελίου. Here Paul echoes his first statement (δέσμιος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ). The circumstantial sense of ἐν followed by the genitive implies that it is for the very purposes of Christ and the Gospel that Paul is in prison.

14

There is s very similar structure between v.13 and v.14. Both feature an indicative with a complimentary infinitive followed ἵνα and a subjunctive. Paul makes a clear contrast between v. 13 (Paul’s wish) and v.14 (reality) with the adversative δὲ.

Despite his wishes and insight, He does not want to diminish Philemon’s importance in this matter. It is noted here for Philemon as well as for the whole church and even the community (which would have included other slave owners) that Paul does not take or order Philemon to action χωρὶς τῆς σῆς γνώμης. The following ὡς also connotes that the appearance as well as the heart of Philemon’s actions and good deeds ought to be κατὰ ἑκούσιον rather than κατὰ ἀνάγκην. Philemons approval and consent are vital in this matter, not only for legal but moral purposes.

Paul uses the aorist ἠθέλησα to contrast his wishes (ἐβουλόμην) with his definitive will or decision. Here it is explained by the complimentary infinitive ποιῆσαι. He was truly setting this matter aside to Philemon’s choosing, and uses ἵνα to reveal his purpose yet again.

τὸ ἀγαθόν σου ᾖ is no doubt anaphoric to παντὸς ἀγαθοῦ from v. 6. It’s status as a ultimate, or general sense of abstract good, or a specific action, or generic habit is ambiguous. In either case, however, “your goodness/your good deed” could refer to Philemon’s treatment of Onesimus, which Paul elaborates even more in v. 16-17 and v.20-21.

Paul is turning up the heat in both his appreciation and love for both men, as well as the mounting tension in light of the circumstances. Paul builds towards his climax with a series of personal pronouns extolling the changed character of Onesimus and how he views a great deal of potential benefits from a peaceful and good resolution to the conflict.

Football

Why do I write about sports, movies, cultural expressions that a lot of people could call a waste of time? Because I think there is something great about them. If we didn't have sports, we wouldn't really know what it meant when the bible talks about victory, or glory. These are reflections of the eternal expressed every day on the court/field/stage/pitch.

The playoffs are approaching. This is good. The pursuit of glory is an easily deconstructed metaphor, which I think needs to project each person into a greater state of self awareness, specifically regarding why we do what we do and like what we like. Not that you need to be nitty gritty about what you like. I like football. I know some abstract reasons, and some more specific reasons, you can hear these in movies about sports, like Remember the Titans, The Express, The Program, Any Given Sunday, Rudy, and so on.

But if you don't know what motivates you, that's probably why you struggle with apathy, or find yourself doing things that you don't really want to do. And this leads to serious problems when you get into relationships.

I am just sort of wandering in this post, but that is all for now.

Tops in Cinema

Top 10 movies of the previous decade in no particular order

1. O Brother, Where Art Thou?

2. Memento

3. Watchmen

4. The Fountain

5. The Fall

6. Into the Wild

7. The Royal Tenenbaums

8. Big Fish

9. 28 Days Later

10. The Salton Sea

Best Remake: Man on Fire (Runner Up - Oceans 11)

Best Pure Visual: Avatar (duh) (Runner Up - Sin City)

Best Musical: Sweeney Todd (Runner Up - Moulin Rouge)

Best Animated Feature: The Incredibles (Runner Up - Wall-E)

Best Franchise Film: Batman Begins (Runner Up - Casino Royale)

Best Foreign Film: Pan's Labrynth (Runners Up - Tsotsi, District 9)

Best Sports Movie: Cinderella Man (Runner Up - Coach Carter)

Best Trilogy: Lord of the Rings (Runner Up - Spider-Man)

Best War/Soldier Movie: The Hurt Locker (Runner up - The Messenger)

if it were top 20:

collateral, crash, beyond the sea, millions, green street hooligans, snatch, brick, 500 days of summer, eternal sunshine of the spotless mind, Kill Bill 1 & 2 (combined)

honorable mention: American Psycho, Donnie Darko, Sideways, Road to Perdition

Processing Hardship

Here is me rambling; in part this post is an elaboration of my poem from earlier this month.

I don't think I know how to process or understand hardship, and the more I listen to other people, the more I don't think they do either. Especially on a global scale. I am a happy youtube user, and I listen to a number of Vloggers. One such commentator who I really like, said that in our lifetime (he's 21) we had NEVER seen such massive destruction and death as in Haiti, and even, somewhat arrogantly said people were welcome to question him, though he was confident in his assertion. 

But he is wrong. A pessimistic tally of the Tsunami killed over 320,000 people. That was 6 years ago. So, I think that's what I'm getting at. It's not that we should diminish Haiti at all, I have friends that are arriving there this evening, and the country is sorely in need of hands, feet, funds, prayers and miracles. But Haiti is going to take a long time to recover, and if we don't remember that as many people died 6 years ago, we're not going to stick it out in Haiti. 

But this is not new, or bizarre, or anymore difficult than any other event in the last 6000 years of human history. And that's one of the problems that I see in postmodernity, is the fact that the emphasis on experience has led people to not believe in history. They comprehend it, that's easy. But the hundred years war, the plague, World War 2, we don't believe that people have suffered for forever. And not that we should give any ground retreat anyway from bearing the burdens of others, but, we need to be realistic that the world is broken. If you admit that, you will remember it, and you will become more and more convinced of the need to trust in God. Deepening trust in God changes our lives and our decisions, and if it doesn't, it's not real. That's where experience comes in to play. It's not about what happens to you, it's about what you make happen. I'm stuck here. That's okay. I'm praying for haiti and for all those who are able to go there. It's not just about haiti, it's about the whole world. I need to change. 

I go back to this over and over again in my head: I love the story Don Miller tells in Blue Like Jazz, where he wants to go to war protests carrying a sign that says "I am the problem". Redemption starts where each person is, abject poverty, and utter need. I am a failure and a fraud, and I need grace to be authentic. I am haiti. I am the tsunami. And it gets worse when I realize my shipwreck is entirely self-inflicted. But I am being redeemed by something completely outside my metaphysical borders. It will take a lifetime for me to be right. Don't give up on me yet, Jesus. Everyday is remembering and starting over. 

My first time sharing something like this

I've given girls poems, and I've written them for me, but I suppose I ought to take the plunge and put one out there for more than 1 set of eyes to see. Needs a title.

Awaiting the arrival of a dream unseen
Serene like winter waits for spring
Alive in the tragic land
Of perpetual disappointments
And reckless optimism.
Slowly driven
From the bed of dead desires
Towards the morning-after fires
By carrion cries.
A sunshine state of mind
In rapid decline.
Tepid waters rise around
My demise abounds
Here in lonesome town.
Alive I strive to live above the waves
Of mournful desperation
And rusty wilted crowns,
Held fast by strands of eternal hope;
My threads. White with light like wires 
Bound around my wrists that twist and wind about me.
Kindness, virtue so surreal, so real a savior died for.
And death no more remains
But life abounds around the cross of loss and pain
In those sustained by grace.
Fear and shame are drowned
In throws that gnash and turn to ash.
Don't give up on me yet.