"Celibate Sex" is Now Available!

Abbie Smith — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 06:35:44 -0800

Check-out www.unsteadysaint.com for the scoop!

“Satan Made Me Do It” and No One Saw It

John Barry — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 21:30:01 -0800

“Satan made me do it,” and no one recognized it. Is it just me, or does this seem to be an accurate adage for how the Christian faith often functions today? As much as we may mention evil, and its ramifications upon our lives, how often are we really combatting it? Resisting temptations is one manifestation of opposing the dark powers that may be, but it is only one among many.

The evil things that creep into our lives and communities are often the kind that we don’t recognize—“a wolf in sheep’s clothing.” Most people can recognize a temptation when they see it, but there are also many subtle, evil things that slowly dwindle away at our dedication to following God’s will. These subtle, evil things manifest themselves in simple ways, like “reason” overpowering faith, and demonic possession being excused as merely mental illness.

There is a spiritual gift that those who know how to recognize evil have. Paul mentions it in one of his lists of spiritual gifts.

To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills (1 Corinthians 12:7–11 ESV).

More literally, this gift can be rendered as “distinguishing of spirits” or “distinction of spirits.” Paul regularly talks about good and evil—recognizing how these two opposing forces interact in our lives and in our communities.

The author of Hebrews makes nearly the same point as Paul: “But solid [spiritual] food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil” (Heb 5:14). Like faith, everyone who claims to believe in Jesus should have the ability to distinguish between good and evil things and spirits, but some are more gifted in this area than others. And note how the author of Hebrews prefaces this topic: using the word “constant.” The “practice” must be constant. It’s constant because evil is constant.

Although its not regularly discussed in most church communities—probably because its viewed as weird by those who don’t believe the same way—the warring powers of good and evil are a regular topic in the New Testament. Jesus, the apostles, and his disciples regularly cast out demons. Paul writes letters that have the fight against the powers of evil as a central topic, like his second letter to the Corinthians. And, Peter makes the fight against evil the crux of his second letter; ditto for Jude and John’s apocalypse that we call Revelation.

At the center of the Bible, thematically, is the idea of a war for souls, and the tragic love story of a God trying to prompt His beloved people away from these evil spirits and evil choices. These evil spirits are warring for our allegiance. They exist because, like us, they chose to follow their own wills over God’s perfect will.

Buy why would God let them exist at all? Everyday that God doesn’t vanquish the evil spirits from the earth is an opportunity for people to come to salvation. For the day that He vanquishes evil, He will destroy all of it, including evil people because they keep the evil spirits and other kinds of evil alive in them. But that day is not today. Instead, today Jesus offers grace in the hope that before the end we will choose Him back.

Between now and the last day, we as Christians must distinguish between good and evil spirits. We must know when it’s truly God performing miracles, offering a prophetic word, and speaking in tongues, and when its evil powers doing work that mimics God’s. This distinction comes through a knowledge base in the difference between good and evil, as articulated in the biblical text, and a dedication to prayer, so that we may receive wisdom and discernment. Furthermore, the distinction itself is simple in most cases: Is the [you name it] being used to free people and offer them the gracious way of Jesus, or is [you name it] being used for the power or gain of select individuals? (Who is it really about?) Now there are many situations that are too complicated for this question to answer—requiring those with the spiritual gift of discerning between spirits—but for most, this question can be used.

Those who are gifted in the area of discernment between the spirits must act. For if they don’t, we will all end up in a situation we don’t want to be in: a place where evil is guiding in our communities and hearts, not God. Christ has overcome evil; we must rely on Him to help us identify it and fight against it. For this reason, we must grant people with the gift of distinguishing between spirits the freedom to do so. We must embrace their gift, not be afraid of it.

How can you make people with the spiritual gift of discerning between spirits feel comfortable to speak up when the time comes?

Join the movement. Be the first to know. Sign up for updates here.

Want to read the entire series? Here is a round-up:

Faith as a Gift

John Barry — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 19:47:31 -0800

I don’t know anyone that authentically follows Jesus that hasn’t struggled with faith at some point. Some people struggle intellectually: they learn something new and don’t know how to compute it with their faith. Others are troubled because of crisis: Something horrible happens and they don’t know if they believe anymore, because they can’t imagine God letting the pain or evil they’ve experienced go unchecked.

A little observed fact about Christianity is that struggle is a good thing. Few good things happen without scars. (And everyone needs to grow up, out of the ignorance of youth.) No one ever lived a great life without some sort of turmoil. The greatest leaders in Christianity have suffered for their beliefs, and nearly all of Jesus’ earliest followers died for their beliefs.

But it’s a major problem when we blame God for the physical, spiritual, and intellectual struggles we experience. This problem is rooted in a misunderstanding of how God operates in the world. The pain in our world is rooted in how people respond to God; not in God’s decisions. If we were all in perfect relationship with God, evil people wouldn’t exist. Likewise, if we were in perfect relationship with God, we wouldn’t have intellectual struggles. We would know Him and understand Him. And if we were in perfect relationship with God, the world wouldn’t be a chaotic mess full of physical pain.

In addition, intellectual struggles are usually rooted in ignorance, like the kind often manifested in fundamentalism. (“Just believe what we say,” is how I define fundamentalism.) In many sects of Christianity, faith is seen as something separated from intellect. Thus, when intellect is actually used to analyze faith, faith begins to crumble. I’m betting that if we taught the full truth in our churches, we wouldn’t see people lose faith in college. Instead, we would see them encounter things they already had an answer to. And when they didn’t have an answer, they would have a support system—in other people and in their own faith—to rely on. We would support them in the struggle. We need people to rely on, but who are they? How do we identify them?

Here’s where it gets really good: There is a spiritual gift to support people in faith struggles. Yes, faith itself can be a spiritual gift.

To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills (1 Corinthians 12:7–11 ESV).

Have you ever met someone with the gift of faith? They just seem to be faithful no matter what. They’re always loyal, always attached to Christ, and never cease to believe in the betterment of others. People with the gift of faith place everything in the hands of Jesus—claiming that He will redeem, no matter what the circumstances. These people are encouraging. They give us hope (which happens to be part of the definition of faith, in Hebrews 11:1).

Now, faith is required for all Christians, as is wisdom and knowledge. But the thing about spiritual gifts is that they are a way of labeling what comes easier for some people over others. (Spiritual offices are more unique in this regard.) Some are almost naturally wise—always observing. Others seem to just remember things—they know when others forget. And others just believe—no matter what, they have faith when others don’t.

The most faithful among us are rarely recognized. They’re uncompromising, but we don’t realize it because nothing ever seems to change about them: they don’t complain when things get difficult, but instead believe. They’re forcing us all to grow, but we don’t recognize their growth because it’s too consistent. People with the gift of faith are like an oak tree in the front yard. It’s growth is slow and steady. It’s not until we reflect on pictures of the tree when it was small that we realize that it has been with us all along, and has been a subtle reminder of providence. God has cared for it, because it simply waited patiently for the sun and the rain. And something as simple as its leafs and fallen branches become a nurturing place for others.

We need people who will remind us of what we’re meant to be, and people with the gift of faith do just that. Every community needs someone who remembers what it’s all about: the gospel and the gospel alone—showing the love of Jesus to the world and the hope of salvation He offers.

We all need hope. And we all need someone to believe in us when we’ve stopped believing in ourselves. People with the gift of faith see God’s faithfulness working in us and through us. They recognize Jesus’ plan for our lives, as individuals and collectively as church communities; and they continue to remind us of it.

Who has faith no matter what in your community? How can you promote people with this gift?

Join the movement. Be the first to know. Sign up for updates here.

Want to read the entire series? Here is a round-up:

Faith over Intellect? Intellect over Faith?

John Barry — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 11:34:47 -0800

Mind over matter. Faith over intellect. Wisdom over knowledge. We’re convinced that the alternative is better: that one of these is better than the other. But Paul says that knowledge is a gift. It’s not something to be set aside when you start believing, but incorporated.

Intellect itself convinces us that some people are more gifted with knowledge than others. We’ve been in classes with these people, and we all know the stories of the most gifted among them (e.g., Albert Einstein, Thomas Edison). But Paul is talking about a different kind of knowledge. It’s not just one about facts and numbers. (Although the type of people gifted with the type of knowledge Paul is referring to would likely be good with that as well.)

To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills (1 Corinthians 12:7–11 ESV).

Earlier in his letter to the Corinthians, Paul defines what he means by “knowledge,” or more aptly how the knowledge he is referring to defers from other kinds of knowledge in its purpose.

“I give thanks to my God always for you [all (this is a plural “you” in Greek)] because of the grace of God that was given you [all] in Christ Jesus, that in every way you [all] were enriched in him in all speech and all knowledge— even as the testimony about Christ was confirmed among you [all]” (1 Corinthians 1:4–6 ESV).

Knowledge is about enriching others. Its about the testimony of Christ among us. Intellect for intellect’s sake is a wasteful endeavor. (I’ll resist the urge to rant about the higher education system here, and the urge to rant about the problems with curriculum and teaching methods of many Biblical Studies and Theological Studies programs.)

In Graeco-Roman culture, knowledge was the basis of achieving not only higher status but (more often than not) a higher level of spirituality. This would later in church history, only about a generation after Paul, become a major issue. A religion, known today as Gnosticism (from the Greek word for knowledge, gnosis), would creep in that synchronized the ideas of Graeco-Roman culture with Christianity. They would exploit grace and make Christianity about knowledge instead of experience. Rather Christianity being about a constant living relationship with Jesus (and the salvation He brings through His death and resurrection for us), it would become about simply saying the right words and knowing the right things. Gnosticism was very popular, because it was easy and exciting, but that didn’t make it true.

This religious movement, in all its diverse forms, would produce works like the Gospel of Judas and the Gospel of Thomas. These fictional works, written in the epic of people that had previously died, would claim special knowledge about the workings of Jesus with His disciples, and that salvation comes through ascension to the special intellectual level they proposed.

Does Gnosticism sound like a familiar form of Christianity? That’s because it is. It’s rampant in our churches today: “If I say I believe (and I confirm it in my mind), I can do what I want through grace and God will still bless me with salvation (and other things).” It’s not usually proposed this way, but faith without actions is what’s often being preached. This type of faith is the type Jesus condemned, not confirmed, because its not faith at all. It’s admitting truth. Admission without action is useless.

Jesus didn’t come to save through knowledge. But he also didn’t come to do away with knowledge. The lack of real knowledge about the biblical text is what allows for gnostic-like religion to continue in our churches today. If we knew what Jesus really said, and really believed, for ourselves, this problem would be minor or perhaps even absent.

Paul is proposing that we emphasize and acknowledge people with the gift of knowledge of God and His workings. Yet, this is one of the many things in our churches today that is downplayed, and it’s to our detriment.

We need people with knowledge (most of which likely hold the spiritual office of teacher). Without them, we will lose our way.

How can your church cultivate knowledge, and especially emphasize the needs for those with it to speak to others about it regularly?

Join the movement. Be the first to know. Sign up for updates here.

Want to read the entire series? Here is a round-up:

"The Vow" Movie Review

Christopher Faris — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:08:58 -0800

Imagine waking up tomorrow in a hospital bed, unsure of how you got there. As you look up around the room, you notice several unfamiliar faces that are looking empathetically at you. In the midst of your aching head and confusion, one of those persons says they're your spouse. But you don’t recognize them, and you have no idea how you got there. You just want to go back to your life as you know it and wake up from this bizarre dream.

Suppose in that old familiar life you were already engaged or even married to someone else. Suppose you had a career in law but in your newly awoken life you were a renowned visual artist. The amount of disorientation – a rebirth and change in your life that was unforeseen and now unrecognizable – would be staggering. Yet, it would be true.

That’s the basic set up of “The Vow,” where Rachel McAdams is the car crash victim who has head trauma that manages to erase several formative years of her adult life. Elements of her family history, love life, and career get erased. The story especially works on the strength of what the 20’s are as a stage of development. The early 20’s are generally a time of going from uncertainty and dreaming to actualizing those dreams and cementing them in a career or owning ones purpose in life. Major life questions begin to get answered like; who do I want to spend my life with, what do I want to spend my life doing, and how do I grow into an independent adult? Only in this case, imagine having no say or recollection of how you grew and what you learned about yourself – you just woke and were there.

“The Vow” focuses on the marriage and relationship between Leo and Paige (Played by Channing Tatum and Rachel McAdams). The movie spends its time asking some great questions: What if you had to woo your spouse all over again? Would you do it? How? Could you do it? Implicit in this question is a central truth about marriage, which is that the wooing doesn’t stop at the altar. Rather, the wooing keeps going all marriage long. You commit to loving one another based on the relationship, not based on the feelings alone. It is challenging and difficult, and any marriage can be faced with any degree of hardships and struggle.

The film is inspired by the lives of Kim and Krickitt Carpenter, a real life couple who wrote a book about their experience where Krickitt woke up from a severe accident and didn’t recognize the man calling her his wife. In the real story, the couple cites their faith in God as a major reason for their ability to overcome their circumstances. In the film, this is mentioned nowhere, which for some viewers will be disheartening. In fact, the film is careful to tell us that it is “inspired by” not “based on” true events. The Carpenter’s lives were not utilized as a blueprint for the script (The screenwriters informed us at a press event that only a month or two before the film released did they learn that the Carpenters wrote a book about their true experience).

The story plays out like something of a mash up between “Memento” and “The Notebook.” We learn about the couple’s history for the first time as Paige does, leading to some shocking revelations about her family history and an interesting reason to be compelled to the plot's changes. But it plays like other familiar love stories in its style and tone. Two of the prettiest actors were chosen as the leads, and the surrounding cast looks like they were plucked from a modeling agency.

The film certainly tries to fight this stereotype. The soundtrack is laden with indie rock superstars like The National and Lykke Li, McAdams character has a hipster haircut (which is a very obvious and silly looking wig) to show her “artsy” side, and Tatum’s character owns a recording studio where he produces indie rock bands in the heart of Chicago. Therein lies the films greatest frustration, which is Channing Tatum himself. He is not a strong actor, and in this film there are a few moments where he seems to struggle (such as when he nearly breaks a stereo because he is angry). In addition, it is really hard for me to buy into him being a hip music producer. Channing is too “pretty” to look like a guy who spends his time in cowboy boots and skinny jeans while going through 80 cartons of cigarettes telling bands to run one more take of a song. Also, the film features requisite bare butt and shirtless moments of Channing that I’m sure the ladies will see as a treat. I thought it might be humorous if Jack Black was in the lead role instead. At least he knows music.

Also problematic is McAdams road to recovery. We see the accident scene (which is brilliantly done visually and aurally) and then McAdams is in the hospital. However, after what appears to be a few days her scars are basically gone. In spite of having major head trauma, she still has all her hair and goes through almost no physical therapy on the road to a remarkable recovery. I recognize my bias – my Mom was nearly killed in a car accident where there was major head trauma over 10 years ago. To this day she still has the physical affects of the accident plaguing her life. I get why it is for film and story sake – the film is about the questions the couple faces emotionally and relationally, not the reality of the accident’s physical effects. Still, it was notably distracting.

Overall, "The Vow" is a good love story that finds its strength based on its premise. I wasn't sure I'd like the film at all. I was prepared to mock it, but I came away pleasantly surprised. In my eyes, the questions are so good that the film really can’t lose. It’s confidently directed, looks good, and is acted well enough. I went in expecting “The Notebook” all over again (which also shares amnesia in its plot), and to some degree it feels really similar. But to another degree, “The Vow” has better questions at its core: Does your vow to love your spouse for better or for worse really hold true? How do you continue to love your spouse even after the big day? They are questions that challenge us even when trauma does not play a role in our married and romantic lives. I left the film thinking about what I could do to show my wife I loved her. I really can't fault any film that provokes that sort of response from me.

Check out our interview with the cast and filmmakers of "The Vow" for more on the story and the experience making the film:

http://www.conversantlife.com/film/the-cast-and-filmmakers-of-the-vow-talk-with-conversant-life

Ten Verses to Defend Your Faith

Sean McDowell — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:26:13 -0800

For the past few days I have been trying to think of the top ten verses that would be most helpful to apologists and evangelists. I have reflected on my own experience and also gotten feedback from many of you on Facebook and Twitter. So, here are my top ten verses to defend your faith (in no particular order):

1 Peter 3:15: “but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;” As an apologist you may find yourself having to defend the purpose of apologetics. This is the classic verse indicating that everyone is to be prepared to give an answer with gentleness and respect.

John 1:1-3: “¹In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ² He was in the beginning with God. ³ All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.” This is one of the most compelling and clear articulations of the deity of Christ. It shows that Christ is the eternal creator and is one with (although distinct from) the Father.

Acts 5:3-4: ^“3But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land? ⁴ While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” There is much confusion among Christians as well as groups such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses about the identity of the Holy Spirit. This passage shows the deity and personhood of the Holy Spirit.

Isaiah 43:10: “ ‘You are My witnesses,’ declares the LORD, ‘And My servant whom I have chosen, So that you may know and believe Me And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me.’ ” This passage clearly lays out that there is only one God and there has always only been one God. Mormons have to get very creative to avoid the clear meaning of this passage.

Romans 1:20: “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.” This verse helps with the question, “What about those who have never heard?” It establishes that people do have knowledge of God through creation.

Romans 2:14-15: “¹⁴For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, ¹⁵ in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,” This passage demonstrates that the moral conscience is written on our hearts. The moral law is universal, even among those who do not have the written law.

John 6:29: “Jesus answered and said to them, ‘This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.’ ” Many pseudo-Christian religions base salvation on works. In this passage Jesus clearly lays out the requirement of salvation—belief.

John 20:30-31: “³⁰ Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; ³¹ but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.” Skeptics often believe that faith is blind. John clearly states that the miracles of Jesus were recorded as proof so we would believe.

2 Peter 3:9: “The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.” This passage clearly shows that God desires all to turn to repentance and be saved. This can be helpful when talking about Hell.

Luke 1:1-4: “¹ Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, ² just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, ³ it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; ⁴ so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.” Some claim that the disciples were inventing myths and legends. This passage shows the clear concern with historical accuracy and eyewitness accounts.

This list is certainly not exhaustive. I’m sure there are many more verses that could be included. I would love to know of any other key verses that should be added. (All Scripture quotations are taken from the Holy Bible, New American Standard Version.)

Christians Need Apologetics

Brett Kunkle — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 13:49:26 -0800

“Just some ordinary conversation over dinner.” At least, that’s how my host described this event. In January, I was invited to have dinner with a couple of dads and their sons to facilitate a discussion on the problem of evil. It was a spur-of-the-moment request and details were a bit fuzzy, so I met my host Jon 30 minutes prior to talk specifics. He informed me that not only would Christian dads and sons participate, but his 60-year old parents, both skeptics of Christianity, would join us as well. That night’s conversation turned out to be exceptional. Why? Because of apologetics.

For too long, apologetics has been given a bad rap. Too many Christian voices point to a few poor apologetic examples, extrapolate them to every apologist and apologetic encounter, and then dismiss the entire enterprise. But in doing so, Christians abandon one of our greatest tools to engage the world for Christ. My recent conversation demonstrates why.

(1) It was intelligent. Any robust discussion of the problem of evil will include a host of issues. We covered almost all of them, exploring objective and subjective views of morality, the definition of evil, human freedom, moral intuitions, the soul, and more. It was a rational, well-informed dialogue between Christians and Jon’s skeptical parents. And it was my apologetic training that enabled me to lead an intelligent discussion.

(2) It was gracious. The apologists I know take I Peter 3:15 seriously. All of it. We are not to be defensive with our defense, but gracious. Apologetics can give you confidence that what you believe is actually true and reasonable. That kind confidence can keep you from getting defensive. And when you’re not defensive, you can relax, give others space to question and doubt, and even enjoy the challenge of a tough question. My apologetic training has done just that for me.

That night there were no raised voices. No frustration or irritation. Not a hint of defensiveness. Rather, the entire group was cool, calm, and collected. Yes, this occurred in the context of a religious discussion, where participants held diametrically opposed viewpoints. Jon’s parents raised serious intellectual challenges to God from evil, but heard a defense that was gentle and respectful.

(3) It was patient. Beforehand, Jon was clear with his instructions to me. He wanted a methodical discussion, walking carefully through the arguments and objections. No jumping to unjustified conclusions. And there was no pressure to “close the deal.” Rather, his stated goal was to leave a stone in his parent’s shoes, an approach he picked up from Stand to Reason. He was patient with their skepticism, knowing there were many barriers to be removed before Jesus ever came into view. Apologist Ravi Zacharias puts it this way:

“The longer I am in this work, the more I realize that intellectual struggles are merely the hazardous waste of life, blocking the heart from truth. The task of apologetics is to carefully remove that hazardous material and keep it from igniting into a destructive fire. Once that is done, the way to the heart is always through the way of the Cross, God’s love for each and every one of us.”

I wanted to use apologetics to move some of that hazardous material away from Jon’s parents’ hearts, but my apologetic training helped me to understand this approach takes time and requires patience. That night, his parents were able to air a few of their intellectual grievances, which were met with listening ears and patient answers.

When you pay careful attention to what most Christian apologists are saying today and you avoid the temptation to demonize the entire apologetic endeavor because of one or two bad examples, you’ll be open to one of the great tools the Church has employed for 2,000 years. When I teach apologetics, this is the approach I commend. It’s the Stand to Reason way, the Ambassador’s way. Of course, it’s always nice to be reminded it’s also an effective way.

What was the result of that night’s intelligent, gracious, and patient conversation? As we said our goodbyes after dinner, Jon’s skeptical dad shook my hand, looked me in the eye, and with a smile said, “Let’s do this again.”

Review: The Grey

Brett McCracken — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 17:10:32 -0800

Joe Carnahan’s The Grey is the first truly great 2012 release. Which is surprising. I didn’t expect all that much from it, thinking it might just be a typical “angry Liam Neeson” action film. But wow is it more than that.

Ostensibly a “been there done that” narrative (survivors of a plane crash in the harsh environs of remote Alaska try to stay alive), The Grey adds impressive layers of depth to what might otherwise just be a serviceable action thriller.

Neeson leads a band of seven survivors when a plane full of oil drillers crashes in the wintry, impossible wilderness of Alaska. From there, the movie could essentially be called Man vs. Wild. Or, more appropriately: Man vs. Wolves. There are wolves everywhere, and they are territorial and hungry. They like killing humans. And, one by one, they savagely pick off the band of plane crash survivors, stalking them mercilessly with those big, bad, glow-in-the-dark eyes.

The only option for the men is to fight back. To become wolves themselves, savage as they have to be. But just when you think this movie is going down the well-worn, Jack London-esque path of “humans are just as base, savage and instinctual as animals!” it becomes clear that that’s not what this film is about at all. The “grey” is not about the blurry lines between man and beast. It’s about the mysterious no man’s land in between life and death. It’s about the spiritual space at the end of one’s life, as the light of life dims and mixes with the unseeable darkness of whatever lies beyond.

The Grey is a movie about death. But don’t worry, it’s not depressing. It’s about dying well, dying humanely. What separates humans from animals? Among other things: the way that we die. Sure, we are like animals in that we instinctively fight to the death. Like wolves, we do not go quietly into the good night. But unlike wolves, when we do go into that good night, we do so self-reflectively, mournfully, existentially. We reflect on our lives and contemplate our conclusion like a philosopher, holding the hands of our loved ones as we go.

The Grey is essentially one death scene after another, though not in the Final Destination sense. These are beautiful scenes. They don’t milk emotion gratuitously or take up more time than is necessary. But they pack a punch. Especially in the last 30 minutes of so, The Grey really hits you.

This is a poetic film. There is literal poetry in it, and it’s central. But it’s also poetic in the way that’s it’s shot, in the way that flashbacks are utilized (like in The Thin Red Line, women only really appear in flashbacks), in the way that manhood and masculinity are explored. It’s poetic in its honesty about fear, dread, bravado, faith.

God is a major character, albeit mostly as an absentee, unbelieved-in-but-raged-against force in the sky. He may not seem to have a place in a story about plane crashes, unholy blizzards and demonic wolves who tear apart humans, but make no mistake: The Grey has its mind on God, or at least His imprint on it. What gives humans the grace to die well? What is it really that separates us from animals and makes us, for example, willing to appreciate a handshake, a memory, and a mountain vista in our final moments of life? The image of God which we bear. It sets us apart. It is the light that gives reprieve from the “only the strong survive” darkness. It is the light which, in clashing with the dark, creates the grey.

The Public as High Priest: Who Has the Power to Forgive Sins?

Caroline Ferdinandsen — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 15:38:16 -0800

This week Daniel Radcliffe and Demi Moore--with personal demons to spare--have again shown how celebrity confessions redefine redemption for a public community. I always believed forgiveness was an act of God wherein a man’s spirit is made right again through divine mercy. Yet the new faith for a secular world has made public opinion the modern high priest: we allow you to do bad things--and then forgive you for it--as long as a self-effacing confession comes with it.

It’s Public Relations 101: If You Judge Yourself, We Won’t. High profile confessors fare much better than high profile defenders. If you cop to your sins quickly in this country, you’re beloved. Radcliffe, who recounts struggling with alcohol as a young actor in the spotlight, humbly admits his faults this week and suddenly the public swoons over his maturity. Moore, who openly confesses a life of self-destruction and narcissism, is surrounded by supporters who wish her a safe passage.

But Charlie Sheen or Bill Clinton, whose self-delusions made them fit for public floggings, didn’t fare so well. Men and women who don’t own their sins are rarely given any grace from a judgmental public. You see, others’ faults give us plenty of steps on which to climb, until we feel morally higher than the rest. Who wants to give mercy to a sinner who has manufactured plenty of it in his own mind first? If you play the victim, you’re doomed.

This public system of redemption and punishment is certainly not Jesus’ way. When he teaches, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness,” it is not a public relations reaction. It is a deeply spiritual and private repentance wherein we gain access to a divine Savior’s compassion and justice. The enormity of Jesus’ sin-trade is sobering; it’s a gift beyond comprehension. A man who has fallen--and understands his brokenness under the sway of the Holy Spirit--is a man who needs no public redemption; he only needs God’s. The repentant man seeks only to be reclaimed by his Lord and Savior. Sometimes his reputation is rehabilitated, but sometimes it is not. God’s forgiveness is enough.

When Isaiah cries out Woe to me! . . . I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty, he agrees with two truths: one, that he is depraved, and two, that God’s holiness stands in contrast to that depravity. I might even go so far to say that he only realizes his depravity because he has “seen the King Almighty.” In a secular society, where reputations are often our paychecks, we might admit the first but only in isolation of the second. Fixing our depravity usually means we are seeking restoration of our public image--an effort as familiar as the Pharisees’ chronic public relations stunts among their Jewish peers.

In a secular society it makes perfect sense that we create our own kingdoms of righted wrongs. The wrongs are whatever strikes the public as icky at the time, and we right them by addressing the public with transparent confessions. Rehab, quite simply, isn’t the same as redemption. Neither is willpower, counseling, or public contrition. I make no judgment on the sincerity of Radcliffe, Moore, or any public persona for I do not know them. But for me, until I’m able to say, like Isaiah, that my eyes have seen the King, my admissions of guilt will only lead me back to myself.

The Cast and Filmmakers of "The Vow" Talk With Conversant Life!

Christopher Faris — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 15:01:42 -0800

When a Hollywood studio options the rights of a book to make into a movie, fans of said book get nervous. And rightly so – how many adaptations have we seen in the past where things go from grand and glorious, to botched and reworked?

So, when I had the chance to learn more about the film “The Vow” (due out this Friday), I learned that fans of couple Kim and Krickitt Carpenter, whose lives and book inspired the film, will be in for a potentially unpleasant surprise: Screenwriters Marc Silverstein and Abby Kohn have never read the book. They just got some ambiguous direction. “They (the studio) really said ‘a couple, they’re married, a crash, she doesn’t remember him.’” So naturally, we are in for rough waters, right?

But for “The Vow,” the filmmakers were intent on making a compelling narrative inspired by true events, not based on true events. Said Kohn, “I’d prefer that. It leaves us free to create whatever we think would make the most of that dramatic situation. Whatever characters we want to create, whatever past we want to have for them, we can invent. I think that left us free to create something that we felt best served that.” After all, there are some book adaptations that are so faithful that they lose sight of the possibilities given the medium of film.

Instead of utilizing the book as a go to framework for the script, Silverstein and Kohn played with a DVR of the human life while skipping through various stages of development. It creates an interesting idea and dilemma, partly because it can actually happen. Says Silverstein, “We were more interested in – if I looked at myself at 29, and I was transported to my 22 year old self…what would I be thinking? How would I function in this world with how different I was in those 2 time periods?” But what if you woke up and completely missed out on one of life’s biggest questions – Who you’ll be spending it with?

Director Michael Sucsy seemed to appreciate the degree of flexibility as a filmmaker. Coming off of an award winning machine with his directorial debut in the HBO film “Grey Gardens,” Sucsy had the chance to make the film more personalized, with multiple moments that Sucsy stated were either his own real life experience or allowing Channing Tatum to interject some of his interpretation of the character, whom Sucsy insists really is Leo. “He had some questions about Leo and the character arc and he was like, ‘I would take more action, I wouldn’t do this, he’s sort of too passive, I’d get really angry if this was happening.’” Sucsy allowed Tatum's interpretation to influence the film. This kind of flexibility is part of what helped Tatum join the project, after initially turning it down.

Sucsy is also quite aware that his film shares characteristics of modern romantic films, but was happy to be able to put his own spin on things. The characters journey’s, the stunning crash sequence, or his choice to record a soundtrack that was lighter on the stringed instruments to try and avoid manipulating his audience. “We had the budget for a 250 person orchestra. I think we only had 7 or 10 instruments.”

With so much distance from the real life couple, one would think they might be glad to distance themselves from the set. But the filmmakers and cast insist otherwise, talking about set visits from the Carpenter’s and their interactions with the filmmakers and cast. Of the Carpenter’s, Tatum stated they are “One of the most lovely couples I’ve ever come across.”

There seems to be an easygoing relationship between the true-life events and the desire for a good narrative fostered in a creative environment. Said Tatum, “Specifically, Michael didn’t push me to read the book because Leo was really different. I wanted to experience Leo in this situation anew. I didn’t want to have these experiences and these stories from the real couple that I could expect something and go into every scene being like, okay I’m not sure what she is going to do and I don’t know how to deal with this and deal with it in the best way I could.”

In addition to this kind of creative approach to the story, Tatum and co-star Rachel McAdams seemed to genuinely enjoy one others company on set – something well communicated in the films expression of the character’s relationship. In one scene, the two are tasked with eating a large box of chocolates. Leading up to the scene, McAdams seemed to take pleasure in egging Tatum on by frequently eating junk food in front of him while Tatum worked out to look good on camera. “We were looking so forward to that, we were running everyday, doing sit ups, but then she got so, so sick.” Says McAdams, “I felt like the kid who eats their whole advent calendar.” The fun the two seemed to have on set comes through on screen.

But with so much flexibility and distance from the Carpenter’s book and life experience, a freshly created story, and the chemistry fought for by the films leads, is “The Vow” any good? You’ll have to check back on Friday for the full review!

In the meantime, check out the trailer.