Love

None of us is a sinner. Noone who knows Christ, noone for whom Christ shed His precious blood is a sinner. In Christ we are made new, we are renewed through Christ's healing power, so that even when we continue to sin, we are not sinners, because every single sin we commit has already been covered in Christ's blood. There is nothing so powerful that it can separate us from God's love. "And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous" 1 John 2:1. "There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus." Romans 8:1. This then is God's comfort for us, that we cannot ever turn away from Him. If we believe on Him, even if we feel nothing, even if we feel completely alone and as if He does not love us, His love remains steadfast forever, and His mercy continues ever on. "So when the devil throws your sins in your face and tells you that you deserve death and hell, tell him this: I admit I deserve death and hell, what of it? For I know of one who suffered and made satisfaction on my behalf. His name is Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and where He is, there shall I be also"-Martin Luther. No matter how we feel, we cannot separate ourselves from God's love "For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."-Romans 8:38-39. No sin we commit can separate us from that Love. Christ's sacrifice on Calvary paid for our sins once and for all. We need no other sacrifice, and we need no other help. Christ's sacrifice is eternal, and he intercedes now at the Right Hand of His Father for all the sins of his people. It is for this reason that David was able to say "Blessed is the man whose sin the LORD does not count against him and in whose spirit is no deceit" because when we confess our sins to God, we are forgiven, and our souls are as if we had never sinned at all. So when we feel the weight of our sins, and we confess them to God, it is really a doubting of the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice if we continue to bear the weight. "Then I acknowledged my sin to You and did not cover up my iniquity. I said, "I will confess my transgressions to the LORD" and You forgave the guilt of my sin"-Psalm 32:5

It is for this reason that we need not doubt our faith when we sin grievously. There is no sin so great that Christ's blood has not covered it. There is no reason to dwell on our guilt and sin. There is no reason to attempt to "make up for it" in some deed or work. We need only plead the Cross, and lift up our sins unto God, and turn away from those sins in repentance, and we need fear nothing, for He is with us. We need only pray "Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me" ( Psalm 51) and we are renewed. For each of us is at the same time a great sinner and not a sinner at all, as all of God's people are renewed through His sacrifice of His Son Christ on the cross, and we are made whole in His blood, and it is as if we had never sinned at all.

"Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need."-Hebrews 4:16

"What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us."-Romans 8:31-34

About to start

Since the school year is about to start again, I figured it was time to get off my dead behind and post on blogger again. So first post of the school year

I GOT TO SEE ALICE COOPER LIVE
and it was friggin' incredible, best experience of my life, and I also got to hang out with his opening band, Brent James and the Contra Band, a great Blues Rock group (I got a signed cd of theirs.) Everyone should look up Brent James on youtube and listen to their song "Moment of Silence" that they have a video for. They were really tight, really well organized, and put on a great show (especially since most of us, by the time they came on, were fed up standing around and wanted Alice to come out THEN) and really impressed a lot of people.

Alice himself was freaking incredible, though he only did one song of his new album, "Vengeance is Mine," with most of the other songs being from the early 80s, such as "Under My Wheels," "Guilty" and "Is it my body?" He "died" four different times, one guillotine, one noose, one lethal injection, and being stabbed, which was the last death that cued the chorus of "I love the dead." I'd have liked to hear more of his Christian songs, personally, but his choice of songs were still very good. I spent the entire concert screaming the songs, throwing up the horns, and jumping up and down like I never thought I'd do (I guess it wasn't the time for dignity.) His guitarists and bassist were very tight as well, especially since they spent half the time they were playing being "shoved" and climbing platforms. Keri Kelli especially impressed me, playing incredibly quickly and energetically, and sweating so much it looked like he'd flood the stage. All in all, it was the best concert I've ever been to, I'm definitely seeing him again if I can, and I had the time of my life

The Nightmare Returns-A Nightmare on Elm Street

First off, I'm not a fan of slasher films. At best they annoy me, at worst, they disgust me (Saw is the most disgusting waste of a film budget I've ever seen.) I don't even really consider them a member of the horror genre-they're like horrors deformed little bastard cousin. This isn't to say I haven't been entertained by the occasional one-I liked the Halloween series, for example. One film, however, that I have always felt was misclassified as a slasher was "A Nightmare on Elm Street." Now yes, the sequels were slasher films, but the original, I think, transcends that genre into full blown horror. Of all the horror movies I have seen, only two have ever scared me: The Exorcist, and A Nightmare on Elm Street. The new reboot is all that the first was and better. In my opinion, this came down to three factors: The deaths, the use of sleep and sleeplessness as a story driver, and Freddy himself.

Now, yes there is plenty of death in Nightmare. You expect it (The claw on Freddy's hand isn't a backscratcher), and you shouldn't be surprised at its presence. However, unlike the deaths of the original, Freddy's methods of execution in the new Nightmare are far more cruel and brutal than before. He doesn't, for example, eat anyone with a bed. He does, however, slash people open brutally, stab them through the throat, and do it all in such a menacing way that realizes perfectly Freddy's personality as a psychopath. There is gore, but nothing too excessive, merely enough to be horrifying without being nauseating.

Sleep and sleeplessness figured big in the original Nightmare, but it lost its focus in the sequels, being replaced by Freddy's horrible puns and almost likeable personality. This movie brings back the sleep factor and the suspense affiliated with it. Freddy can kill people, but ONLY if they fall asleep. The lines between sleep and reality begin to blur, and so the audience is sometimes left wondering whether Freddy is going to pop out, knives a'flashin' at any moment.

While sleep and death certainly made the new "Nightmare" effective, it is Freddy himself, both design and character-wise that leads me to regard the remake more highly than the original. In the original Nightmare, Freddy is confirmed early on as a child murderer, and serves as a being of pure, unadulterated evil. The newer Freddy is more ambiguous, and we even doubt his guilt for a portion of the movie. Also, instead of being a mere child murderer, the new Freddy is a sexual predator; a child molester. Thus, he is given a whole new level of evil as a character, and any sympathy the audience might have had for him evaporates with almost chilling suddenness as we realize the full scope of Freddy's evil. Gone also are Freddy's horrible and macabre puns, replaced with evil laughter at the pain of his victims. There is no humor to the new Freddy; he horrifies instead of amusing us. While his iconic design is not completely changed, per se, Freddy's burned features are given an overhaul that make him, once again, more horrifying. The more realistic burn injuries that he carries make the audience uncomfortable; they repulse and yet beg pity, and when contrasted with Freddy's repulsive character, serve to make him more horrifying.

All in all, it's not an art film. However, it's not a mere slasher film either. It impressed me, and even scared me a little. Freddy is the triumph of this movie. While most of the characters are a step up from the crap cardboard characters of the old series (minus the first) it is the revamping of Freddy as a horrifying, evil, disgusting character, bringing the scare back to him, that is truly the triumph of this movie.

*** 1/2 out of *****

Why Does Modern Music Suck?

Well? Why does it? Short answer: I don't know. Long answer: I have a theory

To start with, I don't literally believe all modern music sucks. Actually, there are a lot of "modern" artists that I like: Blink-182, Escape the Fate, Senses Fail, The Killers, etc. However, within the last decade, and especially within the last five years, there's been a major downturn in the music entering the pop world. When the abominations called "That's What I Call Music" came out, I'd often hear a couple of songs on the albums that I'd like; Bowling for Soup's 1985, the occasional Crossfade song, even the Killer's "Somebody Told Me." Now, however, I haven't heard a song from before 2005 on the radio that I can really stand, with the exception of the alternative stations. Now, I understand that Pop music has sucked for a long time, but why the hell is it getting worse?

Before I go on, I'm gonna quote my idol, Alice Cooper, on why HE (and he's been ruling the music world for over years) thinks. "Kids these days, they have all these catchy tunes, but their songs are just the saaaame thing over and over again. They don't feel their music at all. You're angry. I get it. Some girl or boy broke your heart. I get it. You're just putting out tunes, not real music." I think that Alice has it right there, that a lot of bands aren't feeling their music anymore, and the popular ones aren't feeling them period. I've heard Taylor Swift (my sisters listen, I live in a small house. I'm not gay) and Justin Bieber and the Jonas Bros. and all that other pop-music garbage; that's exactly what it is, garbage. Oh, musically, I'll admit the Bros. can play and Taylor Swift has a nice voice, but they sing about the same "feel good" crap in every single song. It's all about love (or a facsimile thereof) and self-esteem. The human touch is starting to evaporate from a lot of pop-music. Listen to your classic rock, or even modern alternative, and you get a sense of connection. There's a difference between Miley Cyrus talking about some guy who broke her heart, when she's never experienced more than the typically awkward and painful teenage relationship crap, and Buddy Nielsen of Senses Fail who really had his life butchered by a broken relationship. It comes out in the music. Now I realize contrasting Pop music with Post Hardcore may be a little unfair, but even if you look at older bands in the same genre, the problem remains. Looking at the old Good Charlotte (a talented band whatever you may think of their music) it was perfectly apparent that the Madden bros. had grown up in a significantly less privilaged environment than Miley had.

True enough, a lot of pop is meant to appeal to teenagers. Even there, modern pop is doing nothing but screwing the proverbial pooch. Blink-182, Bowling for Soup, Good Charlotte, the early Green Day; they all appealed to teenagers in a much more real sense than these Disney-backed disasters do. And why? Once again, the aforementioned bands FELT their music. I can think of no better band than Blink for expressing how teens feel. Life isn't all about self-esteem, sometimes life is shit and "It'll happen once again, You'll turn to a friend, Someone who understands, Sees through the master plan, But everybody's gone, And you've been here for too long, To face this on your own, Well I guess this is growing up." That's teenage life, in my experience anyway, not this highschool musical jonas bros. bullcrap. I'll admit, Blink-182 aren't the most talented bunch (save for Travis Barker. aMAZING drummer), but their relatively simple sound has a broader, more real, and quite versatile appeal. The Jonas Bros. rely on their good looks and self-esteem toting songs, and their time will soon be over. It ain't your skill that matters, it's your heart.

The other problem I have with a lot of modern pop is this; it all sounds the SAME. I know the sounds of Alice Cooper, of Social Distortion, of the Ramones, of the Clash, of the Sex Pistols, of AC/DC, of Aerosmith, of the Killers, of Socratic, of Blink, the list goes on. I turn on the radio, and I have no friggin' idea who's playing. Now, in a sense, I've been spoiled musically, because my dad insisted on my exposure being very broad, from Celtic to New Age to Jazz to Blues to Classic Rock. Hell, my first favorite rockband was Creedence Clearwater Revival. But as I look through all these "old" albums, watch all these "old" interviews, I see a variety of influence. Alice Cooper was influenced by everything from the Beatles to Elvis to Chuck Berry and the Stones, and then he injected his own sound. Aerosmith took influence from bluegrass, blues, and jazz just as much from the Stones. Social Distortion owed just as much to Johnny Cash as it did to the Ramones. Ozzy listened to British folk (often all lumped, quite incorrectly and to my fury, into the category of "celtic") just as much as he listened to the Beatles. Even classical music wormed its influence into the most unlikely corners of music; Randy Rhoades was a classical guitarist. Now, though, the influences are all the same; a bit of the Beatles, and then the power-pop and New Wave of the late 80s to 90s, and hence it ALLLL sounds the same. There is so much good music out there, and if you look at the influences of any good musician or band, and they will be diverse. If I was to list my influences as a musician, there'd be as much Folk as there would be rock, and even the rock would be diverse. Yes, Alice Cooper would be there, Social Distortion, Green Day, but there would be Andy M. Stewart, Tom Waits, Voltaire, Mauro Giuliani (whose method of classical guitar I subscribe to) and Vivaldi. The Jonas Bros. list Switchfoot and Prince, both of which are pop, and mediocre at best (no apologies are coming for that comment, don't even start with me.) Even if they listed Michael Jackson, who I loathe, at least it would be original. Just as eating only candy leads to ill physical health, lack of a varied musical influence will lead to crappy and unoriginal music. I'm not saying your influences can't come mostly from one genre, in fact, they probably should, because sound should be relatively concrete, but it should come OUT in your music. You can tell Aerosmith had a broad influence. Even (and I loathe to say it because I despise them SO VERY MUCH) Nirvana had a broad influence and it showed (they still blow. Just compared to Jonas Bros., they're decent.) Pearl Jam, The Cure, the Cult, Garbage, the Pogues...they all showed their influences and the broad range of music that influenced them, and so they all had a distinct style. Modern pop music....generally sounds the same.

Now, there is hope yet for music. Bands like The Killers, Matchbox Twenty, Socratic, and Fountains of Wayne are all "pop" bands that I enjoy and that are highly original. Alice Cooper and Ozzy Osbourne are still shaking things up too. Even Tom Waits will be putting out new stuff shortly. However, these guys are all gaining in years. Even the more modern bands like Blink-182 are pushing 40. Green Day's pretty much gone, their last album sucking like you wouldn't believe, and Good Charlotte having to redeem themselves from their last album, which I'll admit didn't COMPLETELY suck, but it was right up there. However, until the Popular Music world stops catering to teeny boppers, I think the musical depression we're in is gonna be lasting for a while. At least we still have classic rock and alternative stations, and that wonder of the modern world, that saviour of civilization...iTunes.

Album Review-Peace and Love

Well, I haven't listened to any "new" albums in a while, not since Alice Cooper's "Along Came a Spider" that I've liked. However, I always am on the look out for albums I haven't heard before, because new is in the ear of the listener. So I was on iTunes the other day, wanting to waste some money, when whimsy clubbed me over the head and said "You haven't listened to the Pogues in a while. Get a new album." So I looked around, and I was struck by the picture on the front of Peace and Love. I don't know if you've noticed yet, but the boxer on the cover has six fingers on his right hand. Maybe he's the cousin of Count Rogan from Princess Bride, I dunno. So I bought the albums, seeing that it did have an equal amount of Spider Stacy and Shane McGowan singing. While some of my favorite Pogues songs are absent from the album, as an album itself, I think it's my favorite.

To start with, the Pogues, if you don't know, are not just Irish folk. While they're all either Irish or of Irish descent, they play just as many non-Irish songs as Irish ones, especially on Peace and Love. The first song on the album, "Gridlock," seems to be drawn more from Benny Goodman than from the Dubliners. One of my favorite songs on the album, "Blue Heaven," sounds more like reggae than Irish folk. IMAO it's also one of the best songs to partner dance to, but I digress. The album isn't devoid of Irish influence, having the anti-English and pro-Irish song "Young Ned of the Hill," as well as love ballad "Lorelei," which also stands as one of my favorite Pogues songs.
I was somewhat disappointed by the last four tracks of the album, but as is standard for the Pogues, their experimentation with sounds can lead to less than shining results. The songs aren't bad in the slightest, they just didn't strike me, and I don't think it gave the album as strong a finish as I would have liked. However, due to the strength of the songs I liked, I would give this album **** out of ******

Best songs off the album: "Young Ned of the Hill," "Blue Heaven," "Lorelei"

Valkyrie

I saw Valkyrie when it first came out, but not that I've seen it again on DVD, I can contrast first impressions with lasting ones.

To start, Valkyrie stands as one of my favorite WWII movies ever. I normally hate Tom Cruise, because I don't think he can act anything but angry young men, but in Valkyrie, he plays Von Stauffenberg in a way that I don't think anyone else could have. The intensity and passion he brings to the role is astonishing. Terrence Stamp, William Nye, Tom Wilkinson, Sir Kenneth Brannagh, and a host of other great British actors fill the other roles to bring the acting to a caliber not often seen in hollywood war movies. There have been some criticisms of the "Nazis" not having German accents, but I have no problem with that, as I can clearly understand everybody and what they're saying, something not true when actors use fake accents and mix the odd Russian or German phrase into what they're saying.

The action and suspense are also brilliantly executed. Even though we all know that Valkyrie failed, I found myself on the edge of myself as they were executing it, from the moment the explosive is placed to the point when Hitler reveals himself to be alive. The movie's pace serves to highlight the tension it creates, though the pace is slightly too fast to give the sense of the passage of time that happened in reality.

The true strength of Valkyrie, and what makes it such a phenomenal movie, are the characters. At the beginning of the movie, General Tresckow (Kenneth Brannagh) says "If we do nothing, this will always be Hitler's Germany. We have to show the world that we were not all like him." This is the entire point of the movie; it shows the men in Germany who didn't just sit with their thumbs up their ass, but who got up and decided to do something about it. It's a risky venture to show men affiliated with Nazi Germany to be human, let alone to be heroes. If the venture had been attempted with lesser actors or a lesser director than Bryan Singer, it would have failed. As it is, however, the characters of the movie are so realistic, so believable, that we overcome the fact that they wore Nazi uniforms and see them as heroes. My Grandmother, a staunchly liberal Jewess who will remain so until she dies, point blank refused to see the movie because "Nazis were all animals. I don't want to see anything that tries to tell me any different." And indeed, we do see the absolute animals who inhabited and thrived in the Nazi Party. Hitler (David Bamber) in the main scene we see him, talks about the Valkyries of legend. "Killing the weak and preserving the strong. One cannot be a National Socialist if one does not understand [valkyries]" showing the Darwinian viewpoint of Hitler. Stauffenberg, on the other hand, is shown, although never explicitly, to be a Christian, praying in church and always wearing his cross. It is this conflict that serves as the focal point of the movie; Stauffenberg's faith and believe that he is doing good versus Hitler's evil, borne out of a misguided desire to do the same.

The movie ends as we knew it would; Valkyrie fails, the plotters were executed or committed suicide. As Tom Cruise shouts his defiant cry "Long live Sacred Germany," after a list of the plotters and how they died, we are left wondering; would we have done the same? Would we, as the movie said, "put our principles above personal gain?" Stauffenberg had a wife and family, and I have been to a couple of their estates. Most of the men who plotted against Hitler had everything to lose, and yet they all, unashamedly, defied him. Movies ought to make the audience think, and Valkyrie certainly does that. If you're only going to watch one World War II movie, it ought to be Valkyrie.


"The whole world will vilify us now, but I am still totally convinced that we did the right thing. Hitler is the archenemy not only of Germany but of the world. When, in few hours' time, I go before God to account for what I have done and left undone, I know I will be able to justify what I did in the struggle against Hitler. God promised Abraham that He would not destroy Sodom if just ten righteous men could be found in the city, and so I hope that for our sake God will not destroy Germany. None of us can bewail his own death; those who consented to join our circle put on the Robe of Nessus. A human being's moral integrity begins when he is prepared to sacrifice his life for his convictions." -General Tresckow, instigator of the July 20 Plot
***** out of *****

Top Ten Worst US Presidents

As per the request of a friend of mine. In AP Government, I've been analyzing, in detail, the presidency as an office, and the individuals who have held it. Adding into this my AP History course, I've learned a lot about a lot of presidents and their actions in office. As such, here is a list of my worst US Presidents. It's not based on my politics, or on my religion, it's based on what they did in office. (If it was my politics, Obama would be number 1 on that first list.) I'll post a list of my top ten best US Presidents at a later date.

TOP TEN WORST US PRESIDENTS

1. FDR
Ok, this guy was the most scummy guy you can find. He flouted the Constitution and manipulated a good deal of the public into accepting his openly Socialist agenda. He didn't get us out of the Depression, his Federal intervention just made it worse. He also regulated the press and the radio to stop his opponents being able to make known any opposing opinions, so that history seems to tell us everyone liked him. He extended the scope of Presidential authority so far outside the Constitutional limits that he should have been impeached, except he had the full Democratic (IE, Progressive Democratic) party at his back and he wasn't afraid to use it as a club. He bullied the Supreme Court, even threatening a justice with arrest for "treason" because the justice didn't agree with his position. FDR was nothing short of an evil scumbag, and definitely deserves number 1 on this list.

2. Woodrow Wilson
Again, Wilson flouted the Constitution openly, with an "ends justify the means" mentality and the schizophrenic belief that "God has ordained me for this office. All that I do is the Lord's will." He censored the press, had people locked up for disagreeing with him, and flouted the will of the people. Under the Espionage and Sedition Act, and Act that makes the Patriot Act seem mild, he allowed Federal Investigators to raid, beat, and imprison anyone who was "treacherous" IE, who disagreed with him. Also, the way he intervened in Mexico made what Bush did in Iraq look absolutely brilliant and moral. Add into this the fact that, in a presidential speech, he endorsed the KKK, and you have it clinched.

3. Abraham Lincoln
Lincoln was one of America's first tyrants. As with the two I placed above him, Lincoln ignored the restrictions imposed on the Executive branch with the mentality that "The ends justify the means." While slavery was an issue that started the Civil War, Lincoln never freed the slaves in the North. Four northern slave states to whom the Emancipation Proclamation did not apply. Going against the will of the people (As the South was about 1/2 the population at the time) and the Supreme Court's verdicts, Lincoln forced the issue of slavery. I'm not defending Slavery, but nor will I defend Lincoln's atrocities in managing the war including; the institution of the draft, the suspension of Habeus Corpus, and the institution of Concentration Camps that resembled something out of Nazi Germany. He was a tyrant and a horrible president.

4. Theodore Roosevelt
Roosevelt was a nice guy as a person. Ok, yes, he was a little insane, but he wasn't a self obsessed maniac like his cousin. However, as a president, Teddy was atrocious. He was a war monger and an imperialist. The Panama Canal was paid for by us instigating a revolution against Colombia when they wouldn't sell us the land we wanted. Teddy also increased our imperialist regime in Haiti, Cuba, and the Phillipines to a level that resembled the British Empire.

5. Lyndon B. Johnson
Johnson was a castrated FDR. He wanted to implement socialist policies, he just didn't have the force of will to make people obey them. His "Great Society" utterly failed, and was nothing but more socialist policies paid in tax dollars and given to those who do didn't deserve them. It's not the taxpayer's job to pay for someone else's welfare. We're still paying for this schmuck's policies, and the backdoor deals he made, including the ones that kept us in Vietnam.

6. Ulysses S. Grant
Grant was, like Teddy Roosevelt, a decent man. Plagued by propaganda campaigns from the South (from which the idea that he was an alcoholic arose) he felt threatened from the very beginning of his presidency. Not made to be a politician, his foolish choices regarding his cabinet ended up screwing the South over big time in the Reconstruction. He was incredibly ineffectual, and so many atrocities happened both to the South and in the South, that I would consider him one of the worst US Presidents.

7. Jimmy Carter
If you want to talk about an ineffective President, look at Carter. Now, I could talk about what a major league pain in the ass he's been since his presidency, but seeing as technically he wasn't in office when he did that, I'll just review what the "baby-faced Baptist" did in office. For starters, he kissed the Palestinians' ass so much that he made the situation in Israel a powder keg. Carter just had no idea what to do regarding foreign policy, and it showed. He talked when he ought to have fought, and bowed when he ought to have resisted. His ass-kissing towards the Soviet Union was sickening, his domestic spending was atrocious. He was without a doubt the most ineffectual president we've had since US Grant.

8. Barack Obama
"It's too early?" Bull. His pushing for healthcare, the most blatantly unconstitutional bit of legislation since the New Deal, earns him a place on this list. He's doubled the government spending of Bush. Bush screwed up again and again in his presidency, there's no doubt, but at least Iraq was constitutionally acceptable by previous interpretation. After William McKinley's presidency, it became legal (although stupidly so) for the President as Commander in Chief to deploy troops, and Congress would have to approve within 60 days for it to be considered a war. Whatever your feelings on Iraq, it was handled Constitutionally (although not as constitutionally as I'd like.) Healthcare is SO anti-constitutional, blatantly anti-constitutional, that the Founders are probably spinning in their graves at such a velocity that we could use the motion as a source of power.

9. William McKinley
I don't think we've had a president, besides Jimmy Carter, who spewed out as much pseudo-Christian bollocks while justifying stupid actions while in office. McKinley's foreign policy was even worse than Carter, and he'd have Carter's place on the list if he hadn't been better at regulating domestic policy. The Spanish American war, and the subsequent occupations of Cuba and the Phillipines were McKinley's brilliant ideas. He felt that God wanted us (well, you, I'm half Jewish and thus subservient in the minds of such men) to extend a hand to the "racially inferior" and "disadvantaged" and show them the "light of Christianity" at rifle point. He bowed to the will of the people when they wanted the Spanish American war, had us interfere in foreign affairs that weren't ours, and basically made a complete ass of himself, earning him number 9 on this list.


10. Andrew Johnson
Lincoln at least was a powerful tyrant. Johnson was a putz. He was completely ineffectual, and simultaneously screwed over the Northern and the Southern states when Reconstruction began to be enacted. Adding into this his refusal to heed the will of Congress, and his shenanigans to get them to agree with him after they overrode his vetoes, has me place him as the 10th worse president.

A Blog to Follow

Here is a link to the blog I set up for Kylie's and my fanfiction project. I'm gonna take control of it because college and other things are taking a lot of her time, which is one reason I even agreed to do this. She wrote the first chapter, and we're working together on all subsequent ones. We'll probably do commentaries of some sort on the chapters as we go, I don't know how that will work out quite. So go check it out if you want.

Fan Fiction (the admission of shame)

Normally I hate fan fiction. I hate Star Wars fan fiction even worse. However, a friend on mine was working on a novel that she sent me and said she wanted my help on. When I found out it was Star Wars fan fiction, I was more than a little hesitant, especially when considering the writing style. However, her begging and pleading, and my needing a hobby atm to take my mind off of school and my non-relaxing extra curriculars lead me to decide to do it. So it is with great shame that I admit that I am....co-authoring a Star Wars fan fic.

In my defense, it's not a stupid slash fic or anything like that. My friend (who demanded that I not tell people her name so her girlfriend doesn't tease her) at least had some originality. She decided that it would be interesting to speculate as to what might have happened if, in Episode III, Palpatine had died. Due to my extensive knowledge of the expanded universe (I was quite the Star Wars dork when I was younger) she asked me to add the EU stuff in that she didn't know about and then complete the book. She was about 1/3 of the way through and wants to see it written but she hit a block in the writing process so now it's in my hands. I'm going to leave the material she's written basically untouched (though I might rewrite certain elements of it) and then I'm going to finish the book off. When it's down, we're going to post it on a blog of it's own, chapter by chapter, and see what people think.

*hangs head in shame*

Protestantism

Something that has irked me for years is the idea of the definition of Protestantism. Now, raised as I was (a Scots-Presbyterian home, attending a Lutheran church) I was exposed to both sides of Protestantism. When I moved to New Jersey, I found more of my friends coming from the Baptist sphere of Christianity. While I love them to death, and one of them is my best friend (she's a pentecostal, never let it be said I don't give :P) it always annoyed me when they demanded recognition as "Protestants." True enough, to the world at large, there are really only two types of Christians-Catholics and Non-Catholics. However, we, inside Christianity, define ourselves by denomination. I'm not someone who thinks that denominations necessarily detract from church Unity. After all, there is such thing as unity in the freedom of ideas. I think denominations are a very necessary evil in a world where there are hundreds of thousands of beliefs, and while denominations may cause problems, the problems that would arise without them are worse. Hence we have them for the sake of identification. Protestantism works the same way. To be a Protestant, one must be more than just not a Catholic. This is not for the sake of "Dividing Christianity," but rather for the sake of definition and identification. And as any debater or advocate will tell you; definitions matter.

So first up; what are Protestants? Simply put, Protestants are those who hold to the beliefs of the Protestant reformers. Seemingly easy enough. There is significant diversity within the reformers, from Zwingli, to Luther, to Calvin, all of whom held quite different beliefs yet all were reformers. Now, the reformers disagreed on many things; the real presence in communion, systems of church government, forms of worship, etc. But what they DID agree on were the five Solas; Sola Sciptora, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Solo Christo, and Soli Deo Gloria. Scripture alone, Faith alone, Grace alone, Through Christ alone, and all Glory to God alone. The other principle that all the reformers held in common was the idea of infant baptism. I'm not going to get into the defense of infant baptism, save to say that it has been the historic position of the church since the apostolic age. The reformers did not believe in Professor's Baptism (I refuse to call it Believer's Baptism, you have no idea if the recipient is REALLY saved or not) and out of this refusal to accept the idea of Professor's baptism came the Radical Reformation of the Anabaptists. I will not condemn the Anabaptists (though I admit, some of the "brutal torture'' that they received was deserved, see John of Leiden as an example of an 'anabaptist' who got what was coming to him) it cannot be denied that they were a quite different movement to the Reformation. Was there common ground between the two movements? Of course there was; both were Christian. However, they were separate and distinct movements, and remained so for hundreds of years.

Now, we arrive in the present day. Today, the Anabaptist movement is larger than that of the Protestant movement (of course, might does not make right, nor does size prove a movement's orthodoxy or non-orthodoxy) with the largest non-Catholic denomination being the Pentecostal (IE, radical Anabaptist) Assemblies of God. Protestants, on the other hand, are restricted to the Presbyterian, Episcopalian, and Lutheran denominations, all of which have only a few non-liberal denominations (and even then, the "non-liberals" such as the PCA are pretty darned liberal.) Both movements have significantly departed from many of the beliefs of their founeders. Luther and Knox would start cracking skulls if they saw the state of the modern Lutheran and Presbyterian churches today. I know that if Calvin saw the state of any church I've attended, he'd have a conniption. Similarly, most Anabaptist movements have moved on beyond the beliefs of the original radical reformers. However, the two main criteria for each movement still hold true. Now, there is overlap between each movement; I have met Calvinistic baptists (although a true Calvinist will hold to infant baptism) and I have met "Presbyterians" who would be more at home as baptists. The issue, however, is that of definition, and it is important to realize that Baptists are.not.protestants. They follow the teachings of a related, but still separate movement, and thus they fall under a different banner. This does not make them ANY less Christian, or somehow inferior to Protestants (the most evil man I've met is a conservative Presbyterian pastor), it is simply a matter of definition. Definition does not lead to division. Division is a separate force entirely. It doesn't matter if someone considers themself protestant or not. I may consider myself black, but trust me, I'm still white (actually, technically not, because I'm half-Jewish, but you get the point.)

As a matter of definition, then it is important that Christians realize their differences. Only through recognizing where we differ can we truly reach unity by finding common ground. Pretending we're all the same is not going to lead to unity. We must realize differences and work past them, and the way we do that is through definition. Also, we must all remember three very important things: The Church Invisible encompasses men and women of many different beliefs (within Christianity. Muslims and followers of Judaism still get to go to hell, despite what C.S. Lewis believed.) We must also remember that while the instruction in the Bible to seek unity applies to the WHOLE church, IE, the Church Invisible, unity doesn't mean just all shutting up and pretending we're the same. Finally, we should all rejoice because of one very important thing: We're not Catholic!! :P

Odd Music

People seem to be thinking that my musical tastes are completely restricted, especially to metal and punk. Now, because I don't let everyone see my iPod, and noone sees my iTunes, they don't really know what bullcrap that actually is. To the end of education, then, I hereby am posting twelve "odd" musical groups and artists that I listen to that I think everyone should check out. I'm going by alphabetical order, not by how I consider the artist in question.

1. The Adventures
Formed in 80s Ireland, Belfast, to be precise, they are early pop rock, with their lyrics generally focusing on love and romance and pain. That sounds emo, but it isn't. I think they effectively use mildly distorted guitar and blend it with acoustic, as well as a subtle but reasonably complex bassline.

click here for their song "Sea of Love"

2. Andy M. Stewart
Andy is of both Scottish and Irish ancestry, with a Scottish citizenship. Known for his previous work with the famous Scottish band Silly Wizard, on his own, Stewart worked less on popular ballads and more on writing his own music. His music often deals with themes regarding Scottish/Irish history, the struggles with the English, the in fighting, and the fleeing to America that is so prevalent in Scottish and Irish history, as well as composing many love ballads.

"Take Her in Your Arms"

3. Altan
Also an Irish band, they are an example of Irish folk that goes a little bit (being hyperbolic there. By a little bit, I mean a LOT) beyond the pub songs that everyone knows and loves. A good half of their music is in Gaelic and is left untranslated. You can read the lyrics, but if you can read Gaelic, more power to ya, I certainly can't. Even when singing in English, Mairead Ni Mhaonaigh's gentle yet thick Irish accent makes the English sound almost foreign.

Stor a Stor a Ghra

4. The Cult
Now we venture a little bit into the pop music sphere, but I still think a 17 year old who listens to the Cult counts as a little bit weird. The Cult are my alternative to Aerosmith, with me much preferring the sound of Ian Astbury to Steve Tyler (plus, Ian's antics on stage are more amusing to watch than Steve Tyler's horrifically large mouth terrorizing the camera. I also prefer the more aggressive sound of the Cult to Aerosmith.

Fire Woman

5. The Dead Milkmen
If you want just plain old friggin' hysterically bizarre, there is not a band out there that can beat the Dead Milkmen. Imagine Weird Al meets Frank Zappa, both on an acid trip and simultaneously getting drunk and you still haven't approached the level of bizarre that the Milkmen routinely enjoy. With classics like "Bitchin' Camaro," "Stuart (What the Queers are Doing to the Soil)" and "Cousin Earl," the Milkmen are less music and more comedic stream of consciousness musing.

Cousin Earl ( a must listen, if this is the only thing you listen to in this post, let it be this one)

6. Enya
I've admitted before that I listen to Enya, but I'll reconfirm it here. Talent goes far beyond genres, and it is often mis-attributed, such as to Nirvana. However, Enya's talent is vast, the woman has an absolutely amazing set of pipes on her, and for mellow music, I don't think you can get better than Enya.

Book of Days

7. Mike Oldfield
For someone like me, who generally LOATHES (I use the word because I can't think of a more emphatic one) progressive rock, liking Mike Oldfield isn't something I would like to admit. However, his Tubular Bells series (three albums) are absolutely amazing. Most people know the basic Tubular Bells motif as the themesong of The Exorcist, but there is so, so, so, so much more to the song than that little bit of it. The first album is over 45 minutes long, involving over 50 different instruments, and is one of the most complex non-vocal progressive pieces in history. It serves as evidence that "classical" music is not necessarily superior just because it is old.

Tubular Bells I track 1 part A

8. Socratic
I first started listening to Socratic when I accidentally met the lead singer/guitarist at a metal show and had no idea who they were or why they were there. I later learned that Socratic is a local (relatively) band from North Jersey, with a gentle piano rock/emo sound. Emo, by the way, was originally a musical genre and has nothing to do with fat whiney goth-wannabes. Mark Hoppus of Blink-182 produced their last album, and I heard more about them on his podcast, and I liked their song so much I downloaded it ASAP (Legally, mind you) and have been listening to Socratic ever since.

Boy in a Magazine

9. Thurston Moore
Formerly of Sonic Youth, I expected Thurston to have more of a punk sound about him, but when I listened to his album "Trees Outside the Academy" I was pleasantly surprised. While the lyrics are a little out there, the talent that is exhibited by Thurston more than makes up for my usual dislike of stream of consciousness. The gentle sound he exhibits also defied my expectations, but made it very endearing to me.

The Shape is in a Trance

10. The Ting Tings
This probably means I'm gay, but I like the Ting Tings a lot. I have no reasonable or rational explanation that anyone would want to hear, but I just like them. End of discussion. lol

"Shut up and let me go"

11. Voltaire
I.like.Goth. I do not mean I like slamming heavy metal (though sometimes I do) I mean I like real Goth music, Goth as a genre. The genre of Goth is generally a mixture of post-punk, New Wave, Pop-Rock, Electronica, and, surprisingly, Folk. Voltaire falls into the last category, sounding more like a mix of dark Cabaret and gypsy music. His lyrics are often wonderfully macabre, calling to mind Edgar Allen Poe, Flannery O'Connor, and similar writers. Always lighthearted, Voltaire's lyrics skirt the lines of society, sometimes crossing over, and are delightfully dark and bizarre.

"When You're Evil"

12. 1927
Aussie 80s Pop music ought to have its own musical category, imao. They got the good pop music where we were left with Madonna. 1927 deal with love, loss, pain...the usual. I just think they did it with more originality and talent than the Americans or British did.

"All The People"

Faded Glories-Inglorious Basterds

To start with, I generally hate Quentin Tarantino. While I applaud his skill as a filmmaker, and I enjoy a violent movie as much as the next bloke, I find his glorifying of the scum of society somewhat (and by somewhat, I mean very) annoying. I enjoyed Pulp Fiction as a movie, but disliked its themes. So when I heard that Tarantino was making a World War II movie, I was not a little apprehensive. When I heard it involved Hitler, my prophetic prediction was "He's gonna kill Hitler, isn't he?" Well, as I'm sure everyone knows now, he did. Inglorious Basterds stands as a well-done movie, and a great Tarantino film, but it still has some issues.

To start on a positive note, the caliber of the acting was superb. Even Brad Pitt (whose performances I have loathed for years) more than impresses with his drawling on about "Natsees." Christoph Walt's role as a Nazi Colonel is absolutely astonishing, as he plays an almost (and sometimes definitely) comically evil villain in such a fashion as to make the role bone-chilling. Not one role was badly cast, and each and every scene was brilliantly executed.

The story, alas, is less original. I have never thought Tarantino possessed much skill as a story teller, never have, never will. "Basterds" gives me absolutely no reason to change this belief. The plot can best be described as "Guns of Navarone" meets "Valkyrie"-infiltrate Germany, kill Hitler. Now, there are some interesting twists, such as Lt. Aldo Raine's (Brad Pitt) demand for the scalping of Nazis, or the Jewish girl escaping the Nazis and years later planning their downfall, but as a whole, I knew the whole time what was going to happen. I even guessed the famed "secret ending" before it was confirmed: I knew they'd kill Hitler. It was Tarantino, and that was the best "twist" he could pull. It was the only "original" part of the movie, and it was predictable.

Another downside of the movie was that it contained nothing thought-provoking. Valkyrie, the only Tom Cruise movie I like (Tropic Thunder is not a Tom Cruise movie) was thought provoking, as it showed a side of the Germans that many (including every single member of the Jewish side of my family save my Dad) deny could even be possible. Defiance (with Daniel Craig) was also thought provoking-what would you do in the Bielski's position? Downfall (A German movie on the last days in the Fuhrerbunker that I think is a must watch) was truly thought provoking as it showed the firsthand accounts of the true evil that was Hitler and his Reich, and how that evil lasted up to very end. Basterds has not a shred of a thought-provoking theme. This is the downfall of Tarantino-he doesn't like to make you think, he would sooner rely on violence. Which is fine, if you're in the mood for blood (And I ALWAYS love watching Nazis get killed. Bastards.) but not if you want anything more.

The final downfall I saw to the movie was it's lack of emotional attachment. In "Boondock Saints II" when the father dies, you feel something. In "The Punisher," you feel it when his family are murdered in front of him. I like movies where I connect with the characters, and I think it can be done in action flicks. Do I expect to be as emotionally moved by an action film as by a drama? No. Do I still expect some connection with the characters? Yes. I felt cheated, therefore, by Basterd's lack of any empathetic character. Aldo Raine is hysterical to watch (I was dying when I him speak Italian believing "Germans are bad with Italian accents) but difficult to empathize with. Yes, I absolutely love that he kills Nazis and scars the survivors, but there is a difference between approval and empathy. The one character that I feel the audience definitely should have empathized with was Shoshanna Dreyfuss. The character had every trait that could lead one to empathize with a character, but somehow, we don't. We sympathize, yes, and we want her to succeed, but when she is shot, neither I or any of my friends who watched it with me felt anything. It was just "She's dead. That blows." I WANTED to empathize with Shoshanna, but the character's emotional deadness just ended irritating the hell out of me. When Hannibal Lecter is more of an empathetic character than you, there is a problem.

All in all, the movie was a fun watch, and I'd definitely see it again. However, I would not classify it as anything but a fun movie, and think that Basterds must bow to Valkyrie, Downfall, and Defiance as the much better war movies, and Basterds must simply rest as an action movie.

*** out of ***** (With apologies to Chris Boyajian, I'm using your star thing now :P)

Top Ten Albums

Seeing as everyone else is doing these, why the heck not? They're just my opinions, btw, no need to whine about them if you don't like 'em

1. Dragontown-Alice Cooper











2. Social Distortion-Social Distortion











3. Fire in the Glen-Andy M. Stewart











4. Enema of the State-Blink-182












5. Man of Colours-Icehouse











6. Rocket to Russia-The Ramones













7. The Last Temptation-Alice Cooper











8. Sex, Love, and Rock n' Roll-Social Distortion










9. In My Tribe-10,000 Maniacs











10. Let it Enfold You-Senses Fail

Hold on to your Horcruxes

I am a huge Harry Potter fan. I'm just going to get that out of the way. I made my own wand, my own broomstick, my own robes that no longer fit me, and haven't since I was 11....the works. Since I was 10, I have read and reread the books, and when the movies first came out, I was ecstatic. The first two movies were amazing. I even bought a poster for the fourth movie. However, then, I saw it. I was dissappointed. The changes it was bringing were not welcome. But that was nothing compared to the fifth abomination. The longest, richest book in the series was castrated and condensed into the shortest and shallowest movie. That was the last Potter movie I saw in theaters. When "Half Blood Prince" came out, therefore, I was more than wary. I waited til it was released on dvd, and then I watched it.

The movie was dissappointing. Certainly, I understand that long, rich books cannot be completely represented in film. However, there is a difference between cutting out the occasional unimportant detail, or maybe condensing a couple of events, and castrating a story. Half Blood Prince does the latter. While I was more entertained by it than by the fifth movie, I still found myself resentful of how it treated the book. It was made for those who'd read the books. No explanatory details were given at all. You understood what was happening if you had read the book, but not otherwise. This lack of explanation left me very much unsatisfied, and very much resentful of the story.

Another serious PLOT SPOILER AHEAD omission from the movie were the other memories of Dumbledore. Instead of the backstory of Voldemort being revealed, painting his past and corruption as gradual, and his entire journey to creating his horcruxes (the objects in which he hides pieces of his soul), you simply see Dumbledore meeting him and him asking about them. One is left wondering "what the hell is happening and what the hell are horcruxes" rather than actually figuring anything out. Dumbledore is also much less powerful than he was in the book, requiring much more help then the Dumbledore of the book. As for his funeral, that is also taken out of the movie, taking out most of the dramatic and emotional impact of Dumbledore's death. Dumbledore dies, yeah, but the lack of the funeral scene takes away Harry's, and therefore the audience's, ability to deal with the death.

On to the stylistic criticism. The movie also was shoddily edited. throughout the first and second movies, and even into the third and fourth, the movies told a whole story. However, in the fifth and especially the sixth movie, the movie seems more to be a collection of random scenes that have some relation to each other. There is no continuity. When Harry attacks Draco, leaving him bleeding on a floor, the scene simply ends, and we never hear about it again. If I hadn't known the result of that attack in the book, it would have been an even bigger "WTF??" moment than it was. Transitions are completely abrupt, leaving no time for adjustment at all. Though two hours long, it still gave the impression, due to the crappy editing, that it was a short movie.

Another huge stylistic problem I have is with costuming. When the series started, everyone was wearing the same style of school uniform. Then the uniforms themselves changed a little bit in the third movie, and that got a bit annoying. Now it seems that everyone in Hogwarts is wearing jeans and t-shirts, or, if you're Draco Malfoy, a black three piece suit that looks more like it belongs in a Tim Burton film. In the books, the difference between Wizard and Muggle clothing is stressed again and again, and they attempted to show the differences in the first few films. Now wizards are dressed so that if we saw most of them on the street, we'd either think them slightly eccentric or Goth, not weird.

Acting was the only thing I didn't find sub par, even if I did find it underused. Alan Rickman gives quite a different interpretation of Snape then I was expecting, but not one that at all clashes with the character of the novels, as much as it may occasionally differ from the actions of the character. Sir Michael Gambon also gives a quite powerful performance as Dumbledore, despite the bad script he was given, he still gave the role his best and the film shows it. The "kid actors," most of whom are now adults, also gave quite good performances, particularly Emma Watson, playing Hermione dealing with Ron's idiocy and Harry's stubborness. Tom Felton as Draco Malfoy, while I applaud Mr. Felton for his acting talent, portrays the character as slightly too whiny for my tastes. While I'd say there are no bad actors in this movie, I did feel that Daniel Radcliffe, who plays Harry Potter, was nowhere near as good as he's been in the other movies.

Special effects were nothing special. Myself, the scene in which Slughorn transformed from couch to human was amusing less because of the idea of a human being a sofa, but instead because the special effects were horrible. Similarly, the effect used to show Apparition looked like it came right out of photoshop. Even the inferii had a distinctly "computer" look about them. The sets, besides Hogwarts, were also sub par, especially the "locket cave." The locket cave looks like something out of a 70's Doctor Who serial, not a multi million dollar movie.

All in all the movie, while better than the 5th, was still dissappointing. If you want to see relatively clever depictions of a collection of scenes from a great book, then the movie is fine. However, if you, like me, want to see a visual representation of the STORY of the books...well, you're S.O.L.

Dracula-The Undead

Myself, I'm a big Vampire fan. Dracula, Hellsing, Angel, Buffy, Van Helsing, even the occasional bit of True Blood, I even play "Bite Me" on facebook. I love vampires. Real ones. Twilight "vampires" are freaking fairies, in both senses of the term. So naturally, when I discovered that Dacre Stoker, a descendant of Bram Stoker, was writing a sequel to the classic "Dracula," I was thrilled. Until I read it. Now I'm kinda mad.
To start with, the idea of a sequel to a book means, to my mind, it is a sequel to the ORGINAL book. Not the movie based on the book, not the myths that have sprung up around the book. "Dracula; The Undead" is not a sequel to Bram Stoker's Dracula. Rather, to my mind, it conjured up the idea of a decent fan fiction, not a worthy successor to a horror classic. "The Undead" starts off with the account of Jack Seward, from third person, not the diary/letter/newspaper format of the original which made it so endearing. Jack Seward is an opium addict, yet simultaneously a vampire hunter. He is hunting the vampiress Elizabeth Bathory. While the historian in me appreciates the shout-out to a real-life Transylvanian (the "real Dracula," Vlad Tepes, was Wallachian, a different part of Romania) who's exploits call vampirism to mind (she murdered upwards of 600 virgins, raping them and bathing in their blood) I found the way she was presented to be utterly predictable. Also, while yes she enjoyed the sexual pleasure of females (undeniable from history) she is better classified as a bisexual then a lesbian, as the book shows. As the book progresses, we meet the rest of the band that killed Dracula. Jonathan Harker is an alcoholic adulterer, his wife Mina part Vampire, their son Quincy an actor at odds with his parents. Van Helsing is a frail old man, at the point of heart failure, living from nitroglycerin pill to nitroglycerin pill, and Arthur Holmood, now known only as "Lord Godalming" is stuck in a loveless marriage, desiring nothing more to join his beloved Lucy in death. Not a single one of the band is a hero anymore. Their encounter with Dracula turned them all into pathetic whiners. I found this annoying, especially how Seward and Harker, both strong-willed men in the original work, are turned into pathetic nobodies.
The plot gets worse. SPOILER ALERT Dracula turns into a hero. He was not killed in the original, and every event in the original is re-interpreted to show him as a hero, hunting down the other Vampiress, Bathory. Dracula is a warrior for God, prideful, but not evil. This is intolerable to me. Yes, Vlad Tepes was a hero. Ok, he impaled a few thousand people, but compared to Richard Lionheart, the man was nothing as far as cruelty, and Tepes defended the church and his people against impossible odds for years. Dracula the character, however, is a soulless evil monster. He is not a good character. "Undead" took the character of Alucard from Hellsing and applied it to the original Dracula, and then made it bad.
The other plot point I cannot stand is Mina's loving Dracula. This comes from Francis Ford Coppola, NOT from Bram Stoker. Never did Mina call Dracula her "Dark Prince" in the original book. Never did they have sex. The scene where Dracula reveals that he and Mina had sex before she was married, and that Quincy Harker is actually Dracula's son, was so corny I laughed. The dialogue and plot of this novel are so corny and predictable I was outraged and amused simultaneously.
The other problem with this novel is that it's too blatant. Bram Stoker's novel was dark and sensuous, but much was left to the reader's imagination. None of this subtlety is in the "sequel." Sex and gore are blatantly described. Anne Rice, this ain't, but neither is it a novel worthy of carrying the name "Stoker" on it. Instead, it rates with halfway decent fanfiction, but not even in the same universe as the original Dracula. If you wana sequel to the movie "Bram Stoker's Dracula" by Francis Ford Coppola, this is right for you. You want a sequel to the book? You face dissappointment.

Christian Manhood

I wrote this speech for the ICC Master's conference I will be attending next week. Hopefully it goes well lol.

“C’mon, be a man!” “A man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do!” Everywhere a man goes today, he’s bombarded with phrases telling him what is and isn’t manly. “Football is a man’s game!” “Real men don’t cry!” The list goes on and on. However, despite all this blithering and advice-giving, the end result is still that the amount of real, Christian men is decreasing significantly. In today’s world, what is and isn’t “manhood” is defined less by scripture, and more by popular, and often fallacious, maxims as to what does and doesn’t constitute manhood. The decreasing amount of Christian men will lead to the downfall of the church as we know it. If the church wishes to survive, and more Christian men are to be raised, the problem must be stopped.

Before identifying what is threatening Christian manhood, one must identify what Christian manhood is. To find what a Christian man is, one should look less to ideals like Vision Forum and more to the Bible, where all our truth is taken from. Surprisingly, the Biblical ideal of a man differs from the one that many Christians think of today. The mark of the man of scripture is less that of a warrior, hiding their emotions and protecting their “weaker” wives, and more that of spirituality and maturity. Yes, Scripture has its “Jocks” in men like Samson and Gideon. However, many of the men of scripture are not as “manly” as would be supposed. David wept and wrote poetry. St. Paul was a scholar, not a literal warrior. Even Jesus wept. The men of scripture who God has given us to emulate are men of learning, men of wisdom, men of spirituality. When one looks at the Beatitudes in Matthew 5:3-11, the virtues extolled are poorness in spirit, spiritual mourning, meekness, hungering for righteousness, mercy, purity, peacemaking, even persecution for righteousness’s sake. Despite what many modern Christians put forth, the Christian man is not defined by a list of “do’s” and “don’t’s” but rather by principles, and these are less the principles of “chivalry” and more the principles of scripture.

The threats to Christian manhood are on two fronts, the church and the world. The world’s threats are numerous. Everywhere you look, the real and fictional men our society holds ideal are seen. James Bond-a womanizing assassin. Iron man-a womanizing alcoholic. More womanizing, drug using rockstars than can be counted. George Gilder, speech writer to Ronald Reagan, wrote in his book “Men and Marriage” about these role models. “It is the notion of the male deserter, lovin’ and leavin; that glamorous pattern of every male fantasy hero.” Christian society is not immune from this threat, as many christian youth idolize these secular rolemodels. Another threat of the world is the idea of the Sexual Revolution. With the sexual revolution came homosexuality, and with homosexuality died perhaps one of the most important parts of Christian manhood; friendship. To quote Doctor R. Albert Mohler of Answers in Genesis, “the most vulnerable victims of friendship’s demise are boys. Boys are no longer free to develop close friendships....because of fears that they will be tagged as homosexuals...Instead, in today’s world, they are left with surface relationships that do not edify or help them become better men.” Boys cannot be too close a friend with another boy without being labelled as “gay.” Boys cannot show physical affection for another boy unless there is enough violence involved to make even Quentin Tarantino happy. Hugs must involve pummelling the receiver’s spine into jello, and even then, if it lasts any amount of time, it is “gay.” With its sexual confusion and depictions of men as shallow, sex obsessed cavemen, the secular world has definitely played its part in destroying the notion of Christian manhood.

The other, more insidious threat to Christian manhood comes from inside the church. Our ideals as Christians have been misplaced. Those who lead the Christian pack are not the theologically educated, but instead the most charismatic. It is less important in the modern church that one can defend ones faith than whether one can pummel a ball into some assigned area. Spiritual gifts are no longer relating to how one can reason, how one prays, whether one feels connected to God, but rather-can you play music? And considering that I co-lead my church’s youthband and am the electric guitarist of my church’s praise band, I’m not speaking simply out of jealousy, but rather experience. Theology and spirituality, the traits that should be the mark of a Christian man, have been booted out and replaced with temporal and, ultimately, irrelevant skills.

The other attack from the church comes in the establishment of concrete gender roles. While yes, men and women are different beings, many modern Christians hold a notion of boyhood that, if one finds oneself outside, one is considered weird. Clipped hair, “proper” dress, and a general obsession with the culture of the last century mark this other branch of “manhood.” Never should a boy even consider wearing long hair. The proper wont of a boy should be weapons and heroes, and all sorts of things of a “chivalrous” nature. Even in ones scholarship, one should, according to such people, focus on the entire “warrior” image. It is well to notice that not one of the apostles was a warrior. The closest one, Peter, only is documented using a sword once, and judging by the fact that he could only cut off an ear, it is very doubtful that he was a trained soldier. He was a fisherman. The great missionary, Paul, was not a warrior, not a soldier, but a scholar, perhaps the best educated man in history, fully educated by the Rabbis and by the secularists. Not one of the bearers of the New Covenant has born a sword or slain thousands. To say that Christian manhood equates with being a warrior is also a fallacious picture of manhood. Some boys, myself included, like their hair longer. Some do not enjoy “manly man” activities. Some could not possibly care less that chivalry is dead, and are not obsessed with painting “the days of yore” as a picture of perfection.

Christian manhood is disappearing. The attacks from the world and from the church are killing it quickly. Now, not of the things that “attack” manhood are bad. Some can be good things. Maybe you enjoy playing sports, and love the idea of “the days of old when knights were bold.” That’s not in itself a bad thing. But if Christian manhood, and therefore the church, is to be preserved, we need to stop and refocus our ideas of what Christian manhood are. Until Christian men really “man up” and learn their theology, learn to defend their faith, until they put down their baseball bats or their toy swords and pick up their bibles, the idea of real Christian manhood will perish.