Review: Lifted, by Sam Allberry

Posted at 3:59 PM

For many years now I seem to remember hearing a very similar sermon on Easter Sunday. It goes something like this: “There is plenty of evidence to show that Jesus truly rose from the dead. It is not only reasonable to believe, but a good idea. You should become a Christian.” Okay, I’m dreadfully paraphrasing and almost mocking such a sermon, but for many years when I thought of the resurrection this was it. I gave a talk to my year group at school on evidence for the resurrection of Christ. I got into conversations with friends about it. All this was good, but my thinking about what the resurrection means for me, and not just an unconvinced unbeliever, was very much in its infancy.

I guess it’s for people like me, then, that Sam Allberry wrote Lifted: Experiencing the resurrection life. Because as Sam writes so clearly, the resurrection is not just something to celebrate one day a year; the resurrection of Christ is profoundly relevant to the believer throughout their life. In the introduction he writes: “The resurrection changes everything. It guarantees our forgiveness, empowers us to change, and gives us a hope for the future and an urgent mission in the present.” It’s these four areas that he explores in the rest of the book, and I was struck in turn by each. What I particularly appreciated was the Old Testament context given for many of the things Sam writes about, but also the way that he teases out so many implications of the fact that Christ has been raised. He does what he sets out to do, in showing how important the resurrection was for the writers of the New Testament, and how it should be important to us.

I’m not going to summarise the book, but here’s a few people who will find it particularly helpful. Firstly, the struggling Christian. Buy this book and let the assurance that Christ’s resurrection brings encourage you and spur you on. Let the confidence in God’s transforming work change your attitude to the inevitableness of sin. Let the hope of a new creation help you face the trials of this life. Secondly, the confident Christian. Buy this book and remind yourself of the miracle of new life that’s yours in Christ. Dig down deep into the Bible’s teaching on resurrection. Remind yourself that there is a life to come, and therefore an urgency in mission. Thirdly, the new Christian. Perhaps it was the resurrection of Christ that finally convinced you that he was who he said. Take that further, and see all the astounding truths that God declared by raising Christ from the dead. See what being raised with Christ means more fully. Finally, anyone who has never really stopped to think about the implications of the resurrection. I’d say I was probably one of these, and that this book has been fantastic to see all that God was doing through raising Christ from the dead.

The New Testament is saturated with Christ’s resurrection. We follow a Lord and Saviour who declares that he is “the resurrection and the life”. Sam Allberry’s book would be a fantastic way to grasp that truth further and let it shape your life. Above all, whether you fit one of my examples above or not, let this book move you to praise and proclaim Christ, the risen king!

(Lifted is released on the 15th January 2010, published by IVP.)

Review: You Can Change, by Tim Chester

Posted at 5:38 PM

Is there a secret knack to holiness? Why can’t I stop sinning? Tim Chester’s book You Can Change mines the resources of pastor-theologians down the ages who have pointed to the human heart as the root of sin, and therefore the necessity of God’s power to change us. Tim tells the reader that yes, you can change, because it’s not down to you – it’s God’s work, that we participate in. By addressing the twin errors of unbelief (where our mind believes lies) and idolatry (where our heart is set on something other than God to satisfy), he shows us how to take part in the fight of faith, armed with God’s truth and a heartwarming knowledge and love of him. Tim Chester has written a book to help Christians go after real change in their lives, but is not glibly unrealistic about the endeavour. He shows that, just as our Christian lives started with faith and repentance, through coming to Christ crucified, so it is as they carry on. Becoming more holy is not a work we achieve, but a result of grace.

I’ve begun studying Colossians recently, and it struck me that right at the heart of the letter is the same message:

So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in him, rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness. (Colossians 2:6-7, NIV.)

We can’t move on from Christ in the Christian life, because it ceases to be Christian. The Colossians were being tempted away from the sufficiency of Christ, seemingly to rules and experiences that would offer the “next level” of the Christian life, even perhaps a life free of sin (Colossians 2:16-23). Paul assures them that Christ is all they need. Sure, rules have the appearance of wisdom, but in reality have no power. When it comes to fighting sin and pursuing holiness, if the basis of change is not faith in Christ, it has no ultimate power. (I seem to have been banging a similar drum recently. What can I say? The Christian life is all about grace, and as Relay workers we get constantly reminded of this!)

As I finish this review, it turns out I’m not the best at writing them. In summary, this is an incredibly helpful book, and I’d recommend it highly. Tim suggests that you pick a particular “change project” to think about as you work through the book, and has questions at the end of each chapter to help you think this through in the light of what’s been said. I’ve also heard the suggestion that it’d be a good book to work through with friends. Both of these suggestions are excellent ones. Get a copy! (Also read a blog entry he’s written on one of the topics he covers.)

Jekyll and Hyde

Posted at 4:07 PM

Last night I went to see Jekyll and Hyde, a musical based on the novella by Robert Louis Stevenson. Everyone knows the basic idea – good Henry Jekyll transforms into evil Edward Hyde – but there are slightly different versions of the story around. My only knowledge of the specifics comes from a quotation in Tim Keller’s book The Reason for God, but that excerpt was enough to make me want to see the musical, let alone the fact that my housemate was the musical director!

Musically it’s a wonderful show, and the cast did particularly well on the ensemble numbers. The transformation of Jekyll into Hyde was done brilliantly by both the actor, the costume department and the lighting team. The two lead female roles were excellently cast; the choreography was done very well – I could go on, but my intention is not to review this production, nor really to write about the music itself (though it did leave me thinking “wouldn’t it be great to write a musical?”). The thing that I was constantly thinking about during the performance, however, were the things the show was saying about the nature of humanity, and particularly human sin.

The Dark Knight

Posted at 12:29 PM

Tom and I got absolutely soaked on the way to see the Dark Knight last night. About twenty seconds before we were due to leave, it started pouring with so much rain I felt I was back in the tropics – even in rainy Bristol this was impressive! The roads in the city centre became like shallow rivers in places, and the water came up above the toes of my shoes. We arrived, epitomising the word bedraggled, and fortunately found there were still tickets left.

Once the film had started, we didn’t notice any more, because it’s one of those films that doesn’t let up the pace throughout the (almost three hours long) film. In terms of reviewing the film, I’ve not much to say; I enjoyed it a lot, Heath Ledger is as good as the reviewers say he is, and there’s lots of action, good dialogue and fun set-pieces. As before, though, one of the best parts of the film was some of the moral questions it raises. (Spoilers follow.)

The most interesting one came towards the end, with the introduction of Two-Face, the corrupted district attorney (read “chief prosecuting lawyer”) Harvey Dent. Dent is driven mad by the death of his girlfriend at the hands of the Joker; the concept of what is “fair” emerges, and Dent’s conclusion is that the only thing that’s fair is to leave things up to chance:

You thought we could be decent men in an indecent world. But you were wrong; the world is cruel, and the only morality in a cruel world is chance. Unbiased. Unprejudiced. Fair.

Morality is only determined by chance; in the end, we don’t make the moral decision, but chance decides. That is the only way to be fair.

Now, this isn’t the morality the film portrays, but as a result Tom and I got discussing where morality comes from.

In the world of the film, Batman is portrayed as morally good, despite being a violent, law-breaking vigilante. Why? He wants to save people from pain, fear and death, and in his view the end justifies his means. Here, the highest good is to improve life for humans, in some sense whatever the cost. Batman’s moral philosophy, then, is a form of humanism. When thinking about this I was struck with a similarity to the Operative from the Firefly universe:

The Operative: I believe in something greater than myself. A better world. A world without sin.
Mal Reynolds: So me and mine gotta lay down and die… so you can live in your better world?
The Operative: I’m not going to live there. There’s no place for me there… any more than there is for you. Malcolm… I’m a monster. What I do is evil. I have no illusions about it, but it must be done.

Both the Operative and Batman do what might be considered morally wrong (the Operative more so), in order that a better society might emerge – a society that, ironically, they can have no part in given what they do. It’s not quite the same with Batman, who can merely leave the cape behind and return to a normal life, but the parallel struck me nevertheless.

So Batman is a humanist, who sees a greater morality than individual actions – the long-term good justifies the short-term wrong. I guess in this situation we have to ask: who decides that this is right? Who decides whether this long-term good is the right one, if it’s at the expense of (even minor) short-term wrong?

I’m going on for far longer than I’ve planned, so I’ll not go into the humanist understanding of where morality comes from. I don’t find it convincing, however, to think that humans can logically deduce what is right and wrong; I can’t see how the concepts of good and evil make any sense in an atheistic worldview. This quotation by Richard Dawkins is probably the most commonly used by Christians, but it fits here:

In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.

If this is the case, then Two-Face might just be right that chance is the only morality. If that leaves an unpleasant taste, that’s because it’s not true. Not only does morality come from a loving, perfect God, this loving, perfect God is sovereign over everything – and so a pragmatism in morality like Batman’s is unnecessary. We’re called to live morally in whatever situation; God will sort out the outcome. We can trust him that in the end, all will be well.

Hamlet

Posted at 10:49 AM

In keeping with the “new me” who has recently rediscovered the joys of culture as a good gift from God and not something inherently “unspiritual”, I went to see Hamlet last night. I’ve never seen a live Shakespeare tragedy, so it was something I was looking forward to greatly (particularly as the Tobacco Factory do great Shakespeare). I was going with a friend who’d not ever seen Hamlet, but was a fan of Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead (based on arguably pointless characters in Hamlet). So we were both quite excited, though wondering if we were just going to be thoroughly depressed by Hamlet moping for three hours. (Major plot points mentioned in the next paragraph – just in case someone cares.)

Turns out he was a very excitable and – though depressed – lively and almost comic character, so not a stereotypical Hamlet in any way, but brilliant none the less. An incredibly young-looking Ophelia was suitably melancholic; Polonius, (“brevity is the soul of wit”) wonderfully long-winded; and Claudius and Gertrude suitably guilt-ridden, schmaltzy and scheming as the situation demanded. You’re left guessing as to what’s going on in Hamlet’s head, and it makes Ophelia’s death and Hamlet’s reaction all the more poignant when up until then it had seemed that his desire for revenge had made him forget his love for her.

On Sunday we’d been discussing how Christians should engage with art that portrays immoral acts – is it okay to enjoy watching a tragedy like this, where none of the main characters (excepting Ophelia) seem to be those you can sympathise with? Is portrayal of sin outside of the oft-quoted Philippians verse: “whatever is noble and praiseworthy, think about such things”? Maybe I’ll come back to that another time. I did enjoy it, despite the tragic ending – almost because of the tragic ending! The play shows a world tainted by sin, and its consequences. It’s not enjoyable because I’m delighting in the sin shown, but as an act of creative genius that shows us our own natures. God in his grace has restrained human sinfulness in many ways, because if he hadn’t, many more stories would end up like Hamlet’s. If reading or watching such things was wrong, then we couldn’t read much of Old Testament history!

More and more I’m seeing the wonders of God’s gift of creativity. I pray that I won’t now go to the extreme and put art in the place of God (exchanging the giver for the gift). Art was made by God, and points to God: may I never lose sight of that.

Post-Essay

Posted at 3:42 PM

I feel I should have started reading for my essay weeks ago – it would have been fascinating. Pity I only started yesterday and it was due in today. Lesson learnt*.

The new James Bond was really good, though if I hadn’t been told beforehand it’s supposed to be a “reboot” of the series, like Batman Begins was, I’d have potentially got confused. The film gets a positive vote from me, due to far fewer sex scenes/less graphic sex scenes than normal, plus being vaugely realistic. No super-villians plotting to take over the world with spaceships or lasers – just good old-fashioned middle-men funding terrorism.

Of course, if gritty violence and tense set-pieces aren’t your thing, it’s probably not for you. But then, Bond never would be. I’m coming round to actually like the whole franchise at the moment. I’ve never been such a fan of ridiculous, over-blown plots like the last few. This was more sophisticated. Not my ideal film, but then action never is.

The chocolate raisins were good.

Department social tonight, to which I am potentially wearing a kilt. That, or a pink hoodie. I may explain later, but I’m off to meet my cousins for coffee.

* Yeah, right.

The Da Vinci Code

Posted at 2:04 PM

The Da Vinci Code in film form is an excellent adaptation of the book – which if you’ve read the book, isn’t saying much. Like the book, I found it to be a gripping story. Also like the book, I didn’t particularly like it, even though it gripped me.

Most of the film’s faults seemed to lie in the plot and the acting, with a couple of exceptions. Tom Hanks was probably planning to look slightly dazed throughout the film, as it is rather a confusing plot for the characters themselves to go through. However, looking dazed (or occasionally scared when in enclosed spaces) for the whole film got a little irritating. He’s done some good work, but this isn’t among it. Audrey Tautou wasn’t bad, but she wasn’t anything special either.

The plot, of course, is legend. A secret society called the Priory of Sion have been keeping the secret of the Holy Grail safe from the Catholic Church, who want to destroy it, as the Grail would rock the whole Christian faith to the core. What is the Grail? That Jesus, far from being the Son of God, was a normal bloke who got married to Mary Magdalene and had a child. This child was the first of the royal bloodline, whose existence is protected by the Priory of Sion. The code of the title is the clues that Leonardo da Vinci left in his work to this truth, as well as the series of clues left for Tom Hanks’ character to trace the location of Mary Magdalene’s last resting place.

What the film (nor indeed the book) never explains is why, if Jesus isn’t the Son of God, this is such a big issue. So there’s someone alive who’s descended from a man executed by the Romans two thousand years ago. If Jesus isn’t who Christians believe he is, what does this matter? Sure, the revelation would shock the church to its core, but it doesn’t make the descendants anything special, nor Mary Magdalene herself. However, right at the end of the film we find Tom Hanks kneeling, seemingly in prayer, at the grave of Mary Magdalene. This doesn’t seem to make any sense.

So parts of the film don’t make sense. Other parts, like in the book, are just lies. Part of the book’s controversy arose from Dan Brown’s introduction, in which he claims that most of the book is based on fact. The film also presents particular things as fact. For example, the council of Nicea voted on what books to put in the Bible and what not to put in. This much we know. The film/book claims that they chose the books that confirmed what they wanted to put out – that Jesus was the Son of God. As a result, they got rid of all the books which contradicted this.

What the film doesn’t tell you is that not only is it all the earliest writings that talk of Jesus’ divinity, the canon of the New Testament was pretty much agreed apon by (if my memory serves me) the middle of the second century, two hundred years before Nicea. The Gnostic gospels mentioned in the film (the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, the Gospel of Philip) were written about a hundred years later.

So that’s just one example. There are many other inaccuracies, but as I’m not an expert I’d read one of the many books on the subject if you’re interested. There are far too many “facts” assumed that have almost no historical basis. It was the same with the book of course.

What else to say? Well, for a film full of historical inaccuracies, illogical events and ridiculous co-incidences, it was reasonably enjoyable, but so bad that I felt guilty for enjoying it. It’s one of those things which I don’t regret having seen, but if given the choice again I’d have seen something else. There were some brilliant moments though. When Langdon (Hanks) and Neveu (Tautou) take refuge from the police with Sir Leigh (Ian McKellen), they neglect to tell him of their pursuers. When he discovers the police arriving at his door, his out-of-the-blue response is along the lines of “not to worry, we can fly my jet to Switzerland”. Or later, with Langdon beating himself up over an obvious clue: “Of course, why didn’t I see it?! A pope doesn’t mean ‘a pope’, it means Alexander Pope! How stupid was I!” Or the albino monk Silas speaking Latin into a mobile phone. So, not all bad then. Ridiculous on so many levels, sometimes funny, mainly not.

The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe (and another film)

Posted at 11:50 AM

Last night I saw the new Narnia film for the first time. I’d wanted to see it in the cinema, but for some reason never managed it. The night I could have gone with my family, I had a gig that clashed. They had come home and raved about it, so I wanted to see it more, but still couldn’t manage it. The DVD was released just before I came to Japan, and I was too busy to rent it. Luckily, Bethany (eldest daughter of my hosts) had borrowed it and wanted to watch it, so we set up the church projector and my laptop and watched it on Sunday evening. (As a result, my laptop is currently set to Region 1. Any ways to get round regional encoding on a DVD would be very useful…)

The film is generally very good. The acting is all very good, though some of the CGI animation left a bit to be desired, I felt. Aslan, for example, looked definitely computer animated rather than a real lion. Still, that was me being critical – it doesn’t matter so much because it’s still reasonable.

The film seemed to have a good balance of the serious and amusing moments. The action scenes not featured in the book worked very well, and didn’t feel like taking a liberty with the original. I also liked the costumes and a lot of the different creatures. Some of them just looked awkward and badly animated though. (Actually, “badly” is too strong a word. Not brillianty animated, then.)

It was probably about as good as I thought it would be, neither exceeding expectations nor disappointing. What did exceed my expectations though was the film “Sky High”, which was far better than I expected of a Disney family comedy. In a different way to the Incredibles, Sky High managed to distort superhero conventions to create a different take on the whole concept, and did it well. It’s also a pretty good take on American high schools. It’s not as good as the Incredibles at first viewing, but I get the feeling there were lots of little jokes that I missed (as I remember some little unobvious jokes that I managed to catch, and there must be more).

I was surprised to enjoy it so much, and while it won’t win any awards it’s by no means a waste of time. I’d say it’s definitely worth seeing, and I will probably see it again.

It’s our plan to see the Da Vinci Code on Monday with some Japanese friends, which shall be interesting. I will post a report if we do.

Things I’ve seen recently

Posted at 12:19 PM

Elizabethtown

Cute but predictable, with some funny moments. Not as bad as people make out, but not as good as the few fans might argue.

Hustle (series 3)

Started off well, but after a couple of episodes almost felt like it was running out of ideas. This was solved by the next week though, and the finale was suitably impossible and slick.

Persuasion (1995 film)

Possibly I should have read the book first, but the film is well acted and well put together and (apparently) faithful to the original. I really enjoyed this film, but don’t have much to say on it. It was just really well done and well worth seeing.

Doctor Who (new series)

The first episode wasn’t quite as spectacular as some would have it, but was nonetheless a good start. I will miss most of the new series by being in Japan, but will have far more interesting things on my mind to care. A new series of Spooks on the other hand would be a sore trial – thank goodness that’s not until autumn. (What if others don’t want to watch it at uni though?)

Awesome God (a somewhat tardy review)

Posted at 4:20 PM

Awesome God is a CD from Sovereign Grace Ministries (for those who know about these kind of things, that’s C.J. Mahaney’s organisation) aimed at 7-12 year-old kids. I help out with the 9-11s at my church, and have also helped with the 7-9s (and have a seven-year-old cousin) so this seemed like something I could review.

I’d been getting increasingly frustrated with some of the kids’ songs we’d been singing in church. A lot of them seemed to be of the “Jesus, you’re my best friend” tradition, with nothing in them about why he should be and what else he should be (salvation and Lord respectively). (One of the songs is in fact called “Jesus, you’re my best friend” and is actually very difficult to sing.) There’s nothing wrong with singing about Jesus being your best friend, but songs are to “teach and admonish” (Collosians 3:16) also. It’s all very well singing “Jesus, you are my best friend; you will always be; and nothing will ever change that”, but when faced at school with non-Christians challenging your faith, unless you’re remembering why he’s your best friend you’re not going to be particularly encouraged. I like having good Christian songs and hymns stuck on my brain because it helps me remember what God is like and what he’s done. Songs like the above do not help.

So, to Awesome God. Well, immediately the lyrics attracted me. This is sound doctrine and catchy tunes which had me singing along and singing after the CD had finished. So far so good. However, I’m not sure all of these songs will work so well in a congregational setting. They’re almost too pop-song-like for their own good – catchy, but with confusing pauses designed to embarrass those who don’t know the song too well. Some would actually be quite tricky for your average kid to sing – I’m musical, so have almost no problem, but the best congregational songs are singable by the majority and I’m not sure these ones always will be. (Then again, I’d criticise the majority of songs we currently sing in our church along the same lines. I guess I’m just hard to please in this area.)

As to the album as something for kids to listen to (in the car etc.) I found myself feeling far more critical than I wanted to be. I wanted to really like this CD. I wanted to write a glowing review, but instead I found myself finding it slightly irritating after a bit. The reason is that it sounds, to my British-indie-rock-loving ear, too American. I hate using American in a bad way, but there’s just some typically American music that I don’t like. Production decisions on this album were very much American. This isn’t a bad thing for some people – for me, I found it very hard to recommend this recording, though I would probably recommend the songs.

All in all, kudos to Bob Kauflin and the team for wanting to do something like this. I like almost all of the lyrics (but I’m slightly fed up with church songs going on and on and on and on so Forever God’s chorus grated slightly), I think the songs are good for the musical and have no idea how an average church congregation (especially one full of kids) would cope, and I guess I’m just not a fan of the American pop-rock production though I can appreciate it’s well done.

To people chosing kids’ songs, either get hold of the album, or download the lead sheets and try them out on a piano. I’ll probably send the CD onto Richard Simpkin (music director at St Helen’s) for him to review next – he is the person whose opinion I value most on matters of music in church. To be honest, I’m not really qualified to write this review, but if Richard ever writes a review I’ll be sure to mention it here.

(There. Finally, I’ve got around to writing this review. It’s been far too long. Apologies to you all.)

Currently listening to: Sovereign One – Sovereign Grace Music