Rewriting the Graphic Novel Bible has been the most fun thing I’ve ever done at work. But it’s also really challenging  my faith, my Bible knowledge, and my storytelling. There are just so many narrative gaps. Usually I’m able to fill them by reading one of the SIX commentaries I have. But some questions I seem to be the first one to have ever asked. So I’m going to start throwing my toughest questions out there to all my Bible-knowing friends.

Several of you may be tempted to answer one of these questions with, “Because it was God’s plan.” Please don’t be that guy. God’s plan is fulfilled through humans, and through human motivations. Samson didn’t burn the Philistines fields because it was God’s plan. Yes, it was part of God’s plan, but Samson did it because the Philistines had just stolen his wife. Do you see the distinction? I’m looking for a consistent plot, not just God’s divine nature. I already know that part.

So, here we go:

  • Why didn’t Jonathan fight Goliath? 1 Samuel 17:1-11

After all, he was brave, believed in God, and had killed many Philistines himself. Previous chapters in 1 Samuel show that Jonathan was willing to do brave things because he believed the Lord was with him. So when the Bible says “everyone in the Israelite army was afraid to fight Goliath,” does that include brave young Jonathan? Shouldn’t Jonathan have been the first to step up and slay the giant in the name of the Lord? He didn’t know David was going to show up to the battle.

  • How did Michal know Saul was planning to murder David that night? 1 Samuel 18:11

I don’t understand how Michal’s subterfuge worked? 1 Samuel 18:13-16
I mean, picture it: You’ve been sent to kill David, his wife stops you at the door and says he’s sick. So you say, “Oh, sorry ma’am, we didn’t know. We’ll come back to kill him once he’s healthy.” NO! You’d break down the door, and kill him, whatever his state of health is.

  • Also, what good did making a fake-David mannequin do? 1 Samuel 18:13, 1

Seriously, fake-body-under-the-covers works for making parents believe you haven’t snuck out past curfew. What earthly good does it do for men who are coming to kill you. At most, it buys you an extra 3 seconds for your escape.

I would love any ideas or suggestions. Don’t necessarily exclude yourself because you’re not a Bible scholar. I need creative suggestions that can fill in the details of the scant narrative skeleton that the Bible gives us.

I’ve been working on 1 Samuel, and I read something this week which has really stuck with me, that I would like to share.

So Saul went down to the Desert of Ziph, with his three thousand chosen men of Israel, to search there for David.  David (who only had about 600 derelicts, homeless men, and men of his tribe. -Doug) then asked Ahimelech the Hittite and Abishai son of Zeruiah, Joab’s brother, “Who will go down into the camp with me to Saul?”

“I’ll go with you,” said Abishai.

So David and Abishai went to the army by night, and there was Saul, lying asleep inside the camp with his spear stuck in the ground near his head.  Abner and the soldiers were laying around him.

Abishai said to David, “Today God has delivered your enemy into your hands.  Now let me pin him to the ground with one thrust of my spear; I won’t strike him twice.

But David said to Abishai, “The Lord forbid that I should lay a hand on the Lord’s anointed.  Now get the spear and the water jug that are near his head, and let’s go.”

1 Samuel 26:2,6-9,11

Who’s this story about?  David and Abishai.  If you go on to read a chapter called David’s Mighty Men (2 Samuel 23:8-39) you find out that Abishai later killed three hundred men by himself with a spear and was held in the greatest honor of all of David’s men.

But what about Ahimelech?  Was he a mighty man of David?  He is never mentioned again in the Bible after this story.  The Bible doesn’t even bother to tell us that he said, “No.”  Because that’s too strong an action.  His problem was inaction.  The Lord’s anointed called him to battle and he didn’t go, and his life after that was of no importance to God’s people.  I don’t think anything bad happened to him.  I’m sure he lived a good life with his wife, serving in David’s army, but he certainly didn’t help further the Lord’s plan.  God gave him the call, and he passively did not follow.

I don’t want to get preachy here, and tell you that you’d better listen to God’s call.  But I wonder:  Why didn’t Ahimelech follow David?  Was it fear?  Busy-ness?  Wrong priorities?  Distrust?

What keeps me from listening to God’s call?  And I know that God will work good in my life no matter what happens. (Rom 8:28)  But what great works and miracles has He given me to do if I only say YES when He calls me? (Eph 2:10)  God has given us power and authority in His Spirit!!  We will do miracles greater than Jesus did if we will only say, “Yes.” (John 14:12)  What warriors we could be!

Wow.  I pray that God will work in your lives as He’s been working in mine these last few weeks.

Love = Pure Heart + Good Conscience + Sincere Faith

At its best, The Seeker is a pretty vivid fantasy book come-to-life; it does a decent, passable job of adding to the canon of kid-lit flicks.  —Kelly L. Carter, Chicago Tribune

The Seeker: The Dark is Rising is the first eye-popping, jaw-dropping installment in a film fantasy series that could turn out to be the new Harry Potter. Tautly scripted, smartly cast, beautifully shot in an England of snow and fog, it’s a dazzling slice of cinematic imagination.  —Roger Moore, Orlando Sentinel

It seems to me that it was intellectually dishonest for Ms. Carter and Mr. Moore to give a review of John Hodge’s adaptation of The Dark Is Rising without actually having gone to see the movie. But I’m sure I cannot blame them; if I had press privileges, a free movie pass, and the choice between seeing The Seeker or 3:10 to Yuma, I’m not sure I could have resisted the temptation myself.

In point of fact, Mr. Hodges fell short of “dazzling,” and apparently thought “passable” too high of a goal.

There are 17 laws of making a film out of a popular book. Mr. Hodges broke all of them, and then—perhaps feeling he had not done enough for cinema—invented 3 other rules so that he could trample upon them as well.

Picking out just a few:

  • It is understood that a two-hour movie cannot contain the full length of narrative from a 200+ page book. Some cutting—of depth, of secondary plotlines, of characters—is a necessary evil. But the Seeker movie felt the need to ADD several characters mentioned nowhere in the book, none of whom added anything meaningful, all of whom distracted from the ultimate goals of the story.
  • In addition to adding new characters, The Seeker added new plotlines to the story, all of which were shockingly inferior to the original plotlines of the book.
  • The main character drives the story, and is generally the main reason people are fans of the book in the first place. In the movie, John Hodges decided to change the main character’s age, nationality, family system, personality, hobbies, talents, physical features, goals, and love interests. The spelling of the protagonist’s name is about the only thing which survived the transition unscathed.
  • One shall assume that the intelligence level of the book’s readers is a good baseline to keep the movie at. One will not dumb down the movie in the hopes of catering to the illiterate masses. Illiterate masses don’t like movies based on books anyway, and the original reader base will become disgusted at your pandering attempts.
  • For all of Hollywood’s revenue models predictions, good explosions can not cover for bad dialogue.
  • Narrative arc in movies moves more quickly than in books. But this should not be a reason for throwing away all arcs completely.
  • Artsy filmography can be a useful tool for prosaic story. But when presenting a fantasy story, more straightforward techniques are required. The fantasy parts of the story can carry the film on their own. In other words, if you already have dragons, you don’t need to further dazzle the viewer with stylistic zooming.

On top of all these glaring mistakes, John Hodges showed a lack of understanding on the basic art of storytelling, aside from his sins against the original novel.

A quick recap: In the book The Dark Is Rising, Will Stanton, a young boy from a small English town, turns 11. On his birthday, he discovers that he is the last to be born of a race of magical protectors of humanity, The Light. They fight to protect man’s free will against the powers of The Dark, who wish to see mankind a slave to its own darkness and sin. Will, and the rest of the Old Ones of the Light, have powers which make Harry Potter and Dumbledore look like carnival magicians. Will’s quest is to be the Sign Seeker, and find six ancient artifacts which can help rout the forces of the Dark. This series of books is the reason I’ve never fully been able to enjoy the Harry Potter series, because it handles similar themes in a vastly superior way.

And to clarify that I’m not just a book snob, who hates all movie adaptations, I thought that the Harry Potter movies and The Lord of the Rings movies did very good jobs with their original source material. I might not have agreed with every artistic decision, but it was clear that the movie-makers respected the books they were adapting.

Hodges clearly had no respect for the original book, his intended audience, or the magic of a good fantasy story.

Even ignoring their differences from the book, Hodges’ characters fall flat and act illogically even within the simplistic plot. At one point Merriman (in the book, a wise and compassionate mentor) refuses to answer Will’s question about his new powers. Then later, he complains that Will is using his powers immaturely. Considering Will has only known about them for a day, and his one mentor insists on being mysterious rather than helpful, who can blame Will?

The new movie story line relies on Will being as ignorant as possible, so he can accidentally stumble on the right answers in his quest. This is not fulfilling for the viewer. We don’t want to watch a series of accidents, which somehow result in a happy ending for everyone. We want to see characters with power over their destiny, who are able to work together to overcome the Dark. In this case, because Will has been painted as a stupid, shallow American for the whole film, his final epiphany on how to beat the Dark comes across as nothing but an ass-pull.

Will has been given unbelievable magical powers. Yet, in the movie, he does NOTHING with them, except have a temper tantrum where he blows up a building. Also, he somehow accidentally time travels. It’s like Chekhov’s Gun—if in the opening of the movie, we see a kid get super powers, we want to see him USE them. In the book, Will uses his new powers for all kinds of cool things: he stops time, he erases memories, he controls fire, he speaks with animals, he travels through time and place, he flies. It’s inexcusable for a movie which could have shown these things so fantastically to turn Will’s quest into a haphazard hide-and-seek, where he mostly just rummages through things to find the Signs. No powers necessary for this quest.

J.K. Rowling believes that there is magic in reading about an 11-year-old discovering a higher destiny, and powers beyond what mere mortals can hope for. Susan Cooper, the author of The Dark Is Rising, believes that there can be a maturity and amazement in a coming-of-age fantasy story. John Hodges believes that enough money can be made on opening weekend, before critics warn everyone how bad a movie is.

Here’s hoping that someone in the near future will be willing to relaunch the franchise. Maybe the movie’s 11% positive rating on Rotten Tomatoes will be a persuasion.

(3X + Faith • Hope • Love) / X = 3 remainder FHL

Love > Faith

Love > Hope

The reality of life is that much of it is boring. The reality of fiction is that it must keep the reader interested, or the book will be shut—the TV turned off. So how is fiction to depict the fullness of the life? The answer is, it skips most of the boring parts. You never see people using the restroom (unless they’ve just been given a laxative), and you don’t watch people sleeping—unless they’re about to be woken up. I’ve been forced to realize that I spend most of my free time sitting on a couch, staring slack-jawed at the TV. That’s not going to make interesting reading or viewing.

So, fiction skips the boring parts. However, life also contains boring people. You can skip those, too, but it makes for an artificial feel to fiction that is striving for verisimilitude. You can get away with it, if you’re writing a con movie, and all of your main characters are quipping crooks and con artists. Or a movie about politics, where everyone is smart or has strong personalities. But if you’re just trying to write a normal little story about normal people, you can’t have all of them be clever and interesting. Even if it’s simply to be a foil for your interesting main character, someone has got to be boring. So how does fiction demonstrate boring, without actually being boring to its audience?

It makes up “funny” boring. It’s a convention. Just like in bad sitcoms from the ’80s—every time somebody turned off a lamp, the whole set turns blue. And we, as the audience, understand that it’s supposed to be pitch dark and the characters can’t see anything, even though we can see their blue-lit faces quite clearly. A pitch-black screen would be boring to watch, so TV made up the blue-lamp convention of dark. In the same way, to express boring people, there is the convention of “boring” funny.

An example from a forgotten Neil Simon film, The Lonely Guy. Larry (Steve Martin) is the epitome of a lonely guy, and is hanging out with his lonely friend, Warren (Charles Grodin), who is maybe the most boring guy in the universe. He talks to ferns, plays chess with himself, and has a day job sitting in and making conversation with women until their boyfriends show up. And he’s balding. Here’s an example of one of their dialogues:

Warren: You know what gets me? I go to get a haircut, they charge me like 4 bucks. Which is the same amount of money they would charge anybody to come in. But like, say Michael Landon goes into the shop where I go, they would charge him 4 bucks, yet he’s got like a hundred times more hair than I do. By rights, they should be charging Michael Landon like 400 dollars!
Larry: Yeah, but they don’t charge it by how much hair you’ve got; they’re paid to make it look good with what you’ve got.
Warren: Well, I don’t even know if they’ve done that. I mean, how does that look? (Larry grimaces.) See that’s what I’m saying.
Larry: Have you ever tried, maybe like,  swooping it over? You know, how some guys they grow their hair real long and then they swoop it over. You can do a lot like that. You can get a pompadour and everything.
Warren: My hair doesn’t grow long enough to swoop it over. Besides, I think when you see a guy with his hair swooped over, you know he’s doing it to cover up something. If a guy has a lot of hair he’s not gonna swoop it over.
Larry: You know the guys who always keep their hair are the guys who have no use for it at all—they’re not trying to impress anybody. Like bums. You ever seen a bald bum? They always have a beautiful head of hair. 
Warren: Why is that?
Larry: I think it’s because they never wash it. It’s the only time you ever see your hair fall out is after you take a shower and you wash your hair and there’s a bunch of hair laying there.
Warren: You mean if I’d never washed my hair I’d have a full head of hair?
Larry: Of course they could lose their hair, too, and maybe it just stays in.
Warren: Just locked in there. If they ever washed it, they could be bald bums. 

I wish my friends and I had conversations this random. The reality is, it would take some pretty interesting and clever people to have a conversation with this level of outside-the-box thinking. But for the purposes of the movie, this conversation demonstrates how boring the characters are, and why women don’t date them. It’s not actually a boring conversation, but it does the job of showing boring characterization.

The best writers can make you laugh at the kind of person who would drive you nuts in real life. The office worker who talks about nothing but her kids, the jock whose whole identity is football, the nerd who understands computers but not humans—these are people you stay away from socially, but love to watch on TV. Because it’s “funny” boring. The Office has proven that boring, anti-social people can make for great comedy when done right. Look at Kelly Kapoor’s explanation of Netflix:

Kelly: So then the next movie moves to the top of the queue. So number five becomes number four. Number six becomes number five. Number three becomes number two. Etcetera, etcetera. And let’s just say that I just sent back Love, Actually, which was awesome. And they sent me Uptown Girls, which is also awesome. But guess what? Now I want to see Love, Actually again. But it’s at the bottom of the queue! Oh no, what’ll I do? What I do is this. I go online, I go “click, click, click,” and I change the order of the queue so that I can see Love, Actually as soon as I want to. It’s so easy, Ryan. Do you really not know how Netflix works? 
Ryan: I guess I forgot. 
Kelly: You’re such a ditz.
Kevin: Ryan, well done, two minutes, forty-two seconds. Additionally, Pam, you win ten because she said “awesome” twelve times, and Jim, you win five because she mentioned six romantic comedies.

Or Miss Charlotte Bartlett, from A Room with a View. She is one of the most insufferable and boring characters ever written, and yet Forster makes boringness and exasperation funny: 

 

      In spite of the clearest directions, Miss Bartlett contrived to bungle her arrival. She was due at the South-Eastern station at Dorking, whither Mrs. Honeychurch drove to meet her. She arrived at the London and Brighton station, and had to hire a cab up. No one was at home except Freddy and his friend, who had to stop their tennis and to entertain her for a solid hour. Cecil and Lucy turned up at four o’clock, and these, with little Minnie Beebe, made a somewhat lugubrious sextette upon the upper lawn for tea.
      ”I shall never forgive myself,” said Miss Bartlett, who kept on rising from her seat, and had to be begged by the united company to remain. “I have upset everything. Bursting in on young people! But I insist on paying for my cab up. Grant that, at any rate.”
      ”Our visitors never do such dreadful things,” said Lucy, while her brother, in whose memory the boiled egg had already grown unsubstantial, exclaimed in irritable tones: “Just what I’ve been trying to convince Cousin Charlotte of, Lucy, for the last half hour.”
      ”I do not feel myself an ordinary visitor,” said Miss Bartlett, and looked at her frayed glove.
      ”All right, if you’d really rather. Five shillings, and I gave a bob to the driver.”
      Miss Bartlett looked in her purse. Only sovereigns and pennies. Could any one give her change? Freddy had half a quid and his friend had four half-crowns. Miss Bartlett accepted their moneys and then said: “But who am I to give the sovereign to?”
      ”Let’s leave it all till mother comes back,” suggested Lucy.
      ”No, dear; your mother may take quite a long drive now that she is not hampered with me. We all have our little foibles, and mine is the prompt settling of accounts.”
      Here Freddy’s friend, Mr. Floyd, made the one remark of his that need be quoted: he offered to toss Freddy for Miss Bartlett’s quid. A solution seemed in sight, and even Cecil, who had been ostentatiously drinking his tea at the view, felt the eternal attraction of Chance, and turned round.
      But this did not do, either.
      ”Please—please—I know I am a sad spoilsport, but it would make me wretched. I should practically be robbing the one who lost.”
      ”Freddy owes me fifteen shillings,” interposed Cecil. “So it will work out right if you give the pound to me.”
      ”Fifteen shillings,” said Miss Bartlett dubiously. “How is that, Mr. Vyse?”
      ”Because, don’t you see, Freddy paid your cab. Give me the pound, and we shall avoid this deplorable gambling.”
      Miss Bartlett, who was poor at figures, became bewildered and rendered up the sovereign, amidst the suppressed gurgles of the other youths. For a moment Cecil was happy. He was playing at nonsense among his peers. Then he glanced at Lucy, in whose face petty anxieties had marred the smiles. In January he would rescue his Leonardo from this stupefying twaddle.
      ”But I don’t see that!” exclaimed Minnie Beebe who had narrowly watched the iniquitous transaction. “I don’t see why Mr. Vyse is to have the quid.”
      ”Because of the fifteen shillings and the five,” they said solemnly. “Fifteen shillings and five shillings make one pound, you see.”
      ”But I don’t see—”
      They tried to stifle her with cake.
      ”No, thank you. I’m done. I don’t see why—Freddy, don’t poke me. Miss Honeychurch, your brother’s hurting me. Ow! What about Mr. Floyd’s ten shillings? Ow! No, I don’t see and I never shall see why Miss What’s-her-name shouldn’t pay that bob for the driver.”‘
      ”I had forgotten the driver,” said Miss Bartlett, reddening. “Thank you, dear, for reminding me. A shilling was it? Can any one give me change for half a crown?”
      ”I’ll get it,” said the young hostess, rising with decision.
      ”Cecil, give me that sovereign. No, give me up that sovereign. I’ll get Euphemia to change it, and we’ll start the whole thing again from the beginning.”
      ”Lucy—Lucy—what a nuisance I am!” protested Miss Bartlett, and followed her across the lawn. Lucy tripped ahead, simulating hilarity. 

One of the criticisms I have received of my own writing is that all my characters are rather clever and quippy. I recognize that I need to not make everyone sound like a wise-cracking 20-year-old, but have not yet figured out how to lessen their quirks without making them boring. I’ve tried to give characters weird oddities that set them apart from the others, but I have such a fear of writing even a single sentence that can’t, itself, hold interest. 

I guess that’s one of the things I’ll be working on in the New Year. And studying the greats to see how they pull it off so well.

I like music videos. A lot. Which is interesting when you consider my music-less background. My parents never really had favorite groups that they raised me on. And, growing up in the Philippines, there was only one radio station in English—the Oldies station. To this day, I can sing all the lyrics to any pop song made before 1969. But I never got into the groups themselves, and never developed an emotional relationship with any songs or their singers. This led to a moment of supreme embarrassment in youth group. My Freshman year, the DCE (as part of a hypothetical situation) asked me to name the musician I’d most like to see in concert. And I couldn’t think of a single living musician except for Weird Al Yankovic (the only album I owned). 

But also in youth group was where I saw my first music video—Michael W. Smith’s “Secret Ambition.”  And, yes, to look back at it, it’s kind of cheesy, (and why does Jesus have an ’80s-style perm?), but this video brought The Passion to me long before Mel Gibson got saved. That was the first time that music became emotional for me, and it took a music video to do it. 

Since then, I’ve had a soft spot for music videos. Done right, they add to the meaning of a song. Unfortunately, they’re all too often done wrong. But a new video just came out that I really like. Thinking about it, I’ve realized that you can break music videos down into a few basic types:

  • The Concert – “Hey, the band already played this song at a concert, with cameras rolling! I just thought of a way to save money!” Groups who are good live can sometimes pull this off, but generally it’s just as boring as watching someone play music, without even the benefit of the “contact high.”

10,000 Maniacs – “Because the Night” 

  • The Concert with Pretentions – It’s still basically just the band playing or the singer singing directly to the camera, but with some cool imagery, collages, and artsy shots mixed in. This is the most common type of music video that you’ll find.

Coldplay – “Viva La Vida”

Sister Hazel – “Champagne High”

Anna Nalick – “Breathe (2 am)”

  • The Soundtrack – This hit song was also used in the latest hit movie. And the movie already blew millions on filming emotionally and visually provocative scenes. An opportunity for piggybacking. Celine Dion was the mistress of this:

“My Heart Will Go On” From Titanic

And for all you Twilight fans: “Decode” by Paramore

Finally, a personal plug, from my favorite movie: Enya’s music video for “Exile”
  • The Playboy Challenge – Unfortunately, it is proven gold to just find a hot chick to dance around in your video. Pretty much every music video from the ’80s reveled in this, along with most R&B. 

A classic example, with Tawny Kitaen: “Here I Go Again” by Whitesnake.

  • The Block Party – Every rap and hip-hop video EVER. Let’s just gather all our friends, all our buxom and scantily-clad lady friends, and jam out in somebody’s backyard, or “in da club.” Generally features cars, cleavage, and booty shaking. And if the song has a misspelled title, you can definitely bet lots of people are gonna be “rollin’ with the homies.”

Nelly – “Ride Wit Me”

Dr. Dre – “Nuthin’ but a ‘G’ Thang”

  • Any Excuse for a Dance Routine – Basically every N*Sync, , 98 Degrees, Britney, Usher, Christina Aguilera, and Michael Jackson video. If you like choreographed dancing (yes, yes I do), then these are the videos for you.

N*Sync – “Bye Bye Bye” 

Michael Jackson – “Beat It”

Britney Spears – “Baby One More Time”

  • Somebody was on Drugs – After this video is over, you don’t understand any of what went on. Except that somebody involved in the creative direction (and/or the musicians) was in an altered state of consciousness. 

Peter Gabriel – “Sledgehammer”

Coheed and Cambria – “The Suffering”

The Cranberries – “Zombie”

But finally, the best kind of all….

  • The Story – This isn’t necessarily a literal acting-out of the song. At its finest, The Story music video adds a new facet, a new layer of meaning to the original song. When a song has been made better, the music video has reached the pinnacle of distinction—it becomes art, instead of just a marketing tool.

Daniel Powter – “Bad Day”  This video is a romantic comedy done in three minutes. Two forlorn and lonely artists miss each other by minutes as they follow their daily humdrum routine. But a penchant for quality graffiti finally brings them together. The song by itself may be saccharine, but the video and song combine to be a charming, feel-good experience.

For a stirring country example, there’s Brad Paisley and Allison Krauss’ “Whiskey Lullabye.” A haunting tune, literally acted out as a WWII drama. Ricky Schroeder plays a GI who comes back from the war to find his true love cheating on him.

Dido’s “Thank You” video is a sweet and unique little thing. They lifted a key line from the song (“Even if my house falls down now, I wouldn’t have a clue.”) and used it as the climax of the plot. The production crew actually built that cute purple house in the middle of a downtown block, and then they actually demolished it.

A video that personally speaks to me is “Here’s to the Night” by Eve 6. An example where I just thought the song was okay until I saw the music video. For anyone who has romantic regrets from their high school years, this video is sure to be poignant for you.

Anyway, I’m writing about this topic because a new video just came out that I think will become a classic. It’s for the song “If I Were a Boy” by Beyoncé Knowles. I’ve never been a particular fan of Beyoncé or Destiny’s Child. But I’d already taken note of this song for being a well-written—if bleak—description of common gender dynamics in our society. This video fleshed out the concept even more with a compelling story, and a really good twist at the end. 
(Grammar note: I also appreciated that the title of the song was grammatically correct. It’s rare to see the proper conjugation of the conditional verb tense of “to be” in today’s illiterate culture.)

Paul Weyrich, one of the founders of the Religious Right and coiner of the phrase “Moral Majority,” died this morning. I know the things I’ve been saying on this blog have angered many of you. But my point has simply been that the way Christians currently handle their political agenda is not doing any practical good, and is simply alienating people from the Gospel.

Imagine my surprise when I read one of Weyrich’s old articles and discovered that this lion of the Christian/Republican merger agrees with me. You should check out his article. It’s only a page and a half.

He makes the very same points I’ve been trying to make. That Christians have done everything to own the political agenda, and stand by the politicians who are willing to flatter our itchy ears, and then watch as those politicians do nothing to forward our “morally superior” agenda. His conclusion is that politics is not the answer for Christians looking to redeem our country and our society. The solution is to refocus on our own “holiness” (used in the sense of “being set apart”) and live as we are called to live. That’s it. No political agenda. No demonizing of candidates. Weyrich’s epiphany was that all his political maneuvering was ineffective compared to simply living set apart for Christ.

I’m hoping that even if you don’t respect my authority on these issues, you’ll respect the authority of the man who founded Christianity’s modern political agenda, and who saw that it was a waste of our time.

You can’t legislate people into Christianity. You can only alienate and divide. I read a quote from Madeleine L’Engle yesterday:

We do not draw people to the truth by telling them how wrong they are and how right we are, but by showing them a light that is so lovely, they will long with all their hearts to know the source of it.

Also known as 1 Peter 3:15. Let’s get away from demonizing those who politically disagree with us, and let’s get back to being light shiners.

For those of you who don’t already know about it, the greatest parlor game EVER is the bluffing/killing/strategy game of Mafia. I’ve been playing it with friends since high school, and we’ve now played it with so many variations and extra characters that we just never get tired of it.

But we came up with a brand-spanking new variation last night at our Christmas party. Check this out:

Instead of an Italian town infiltrated by Mafia, we played that we were a North Pole town of Elves, with Grinches infiltrating the town to kill and steal away Christmas spirit. Here’s how this changed some of our favorite roles:

  • Peasants  –>  Elves (3-9♥)
  • Mafia  –>  Grinches (K, K♠)
  • Sheriff  –>  Santa Claus (K♥)
  • Nurse  –>  Mrs. Claus (Q♥)
  • Vigilante  –>  Jack Frost (J♦(His nipping has gone beyond noses.) 
  • Prostitute  –>  Nutcracker (A♦(Fill in your own innuendo here)             
  • Kidnapper  –>  Jack Skellington (J(This just made sense.)
  • Mayor  –>  Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer (10(He finally gets payback for being left out of the reindeer games.)
  • Governor  –>  Scrooge (10(Unfortunately, he doesn’t care whether you live or die.)
  • Tree Stump  –>  Fruitcake (3♣) (After all, both are indestructible.)
  • Bulletproof Vest  –>  Holiday Cheer (J♠) (Obviously, this person is immune to the Grinches’ power.)
  • Freemasons  –> Gingerbread Men (2,2)

 This led to some great situations and out-of-context quotes (“You just got killed by Rudolph!” and “Whose nuts were you cracking??”) The Jack Skellington character fit his role of helping out the Grinches perfectly. First of all, it made sense that he would be on their side, and the whole premise of kidnapping people (and their powers) for a day fit his movie role exactly.

At one point, Santa Claus (Tim) had identified one of the Grinches (Melanie). But that same night, the Grinches assassinated Santa. However, Mrs. Claus (Stephen) saved Santa. But then Jack Frost (Nick) decided to kill Santa for reasons known only to himself. As I was pondering whether Mrs. Claus should be allowed to save her husband from two attempted killings, Jack Skellington (Tony) kidnapped Mrs. Claus, rendering the whole point moot, and leaving Santa very, very dead.

In the end, holiday cheer prevailed, and the Grinches won none of the three games we played. (Largely due to Stephen, the sole surviving Grinch, deciding to assassinate an Elf (Brianna) he’d already publicly executed instead of Jack Frost (Nick), who was just itching to kill Stephen off and win the game for the elves.)

Great times, and a fun, new variant to a game that will never grow old.

I think many of you are fans of Mike Huckabee. He was on the Daily Show yesterday, where he and Jon Stewart got into a (mostly respectful) tangle on the issue of gay marriage. I’d encourage you to watch it. (The Mike Huckabee portion is after the second commercial break. You can click right to it on the progress bar.)

Mike Huckabee on the The Daily Show

I have to say, my stomach was in knots listening to this debate. Huckabee stayed likable, jovial, and friendly to Stewart, but he pretty clearly lost the debate. The crux of the issue, as Jon Stewart pointed out, is whether you believe that homosexuality is genetic or a choice. Conservative Christians say choice, just about everyone else say genetics. And current science is basically inconclusive. But as long as genetics/choice is an unresolved X-factor, I don’t think the debate will ever get anywhere.

I was proud of Huckabee for trying to point out the difference between being against homosexual marriage, and “hatin’ on” homosexuals, but I’m not sure that distinction got heard. 

I guess here’s the issue for me, and what I’d love to have discussed in the comments: legislation aside, how would you defend yourself to a homosexual for why you don’t think he should be allowed to get married? You have two tracks available that your argument can go down: are you making your point to someone who believes in the Bible but doesn’t believe it condemns committed homosexual relationships (many Christians these days), or someone who doesn’t believe the Bible at all?

Next Page »