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.

In Defense of the Trinity

In nomine patris et filli et spiritus Sancti-Catholic Invocation of the Trinity

Invoking the Trinity has been a part of Christianity since the days of the Apostles. The idea of a triune God, three in one, “Father, Son, Holy Ghost,” would seem to be an important doctrine. Indeed, since the days of the Church father Athenaseus, belief in the Trinity has been a pivotal enough doctrine that those who do not believe in it are oft-considered outside salvation. Today, in this age of unitarianism and compromise, Christians are even now being driven to this point of compromise, citing “unity” as their great goal. Indeed, even in the Pentecostal church, which I like to refer to as “New Rome,” the idea of the Triune God is no longer considered necessary, as “There is no clear scriptural proof for it.” To challenge the Holy Trinity has, historically, resulted in expulsion from the Christian faith. While true, the trinity is not EXPRESSLY put forth in the Bible, the idea is. Nonbelief in the Holy Trinity puts one into the realm of apostasy, and therefore outside salvation.

“Hear O Israel, the Lord Our God is one.” That verse, from Deuteronomy, has been used to attack the idea of a Trinity since the days of the apostle. Now, Pentecostal apostates are using it again to attack the idea of the 3 in 1 God. However alien the idea may be to them, the Bible is only completely authoritative in Hebrew. In the Hebrew, Deuteronomy 6:4 reads “Shema Israel Adonai Elohainu, Adonai Echad.” Echad is Hebrew for one, true enough, but it does not mean “one and only one.” It is, in fact, the same word used to denote married couples, when they “become one” in sexual union. Obviously, crass jokes and urban legends aside, a man and a woman in the act of sex are not one body. Therefore, the “Shema” is NOT the ironclad defense against the trinity that some would hope. Nor would any proper defender of the Trinity claim that it is false. The great “Shema” is true and ironclad. There is only one God. However, our God exists in three persons. Tertullian, a very early Church Father, constructed the doctrine that the more famous Augustine made concrete that “The son is begotten of the Father, and the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father and the Son from All Eternity.” Third-century Church Father Athanasius, the writer of the first concrete creed of the Christian faith and a defender of it against Arianism, a doctrine which denies the Trinity in a similar way that modern Jehovah’s witnesses do, wrote the following in his creed. “Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic (true, not Romish) Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic (true) Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One, the Glory Equal, the Majesty Co-Eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father Uncreate, the Son Uncreate, and the Holy Ghost Uncreate. The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible. The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Etneral and yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal. As also there are not Three Uncreated, nor Three Incomprehensibles, but One Uncreated, and One Uncomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not Three Almighties but One Almighty.
So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not Three Lords but One Lord. For, like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, so are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say, there be Three Gods or Three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
So there is One Father, not Three Fathers; one Son, not Three Sons; One Holy Ghost, not Three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore or after Other, None is greater or less than Another, but the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together, and Co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity is Trinity, and the Trinity is Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity.”
Athanasius was perhaps the greatest of the early church fathers, and his creed was designed for the purpose of defending the Trinity and the divinity of Christ. From the early third century, the trinity was being challenged. The idea of attacking the trinity is hardly new or original. Unfortunately, in Christianity today, it is chique to believe in the a pseudo post-modernism that allows for Christians to believe in “different things” for the sake of “unity.” This heretical, pussy-footing spirit, put forth by men unworthy of their metal or the y-chromosome their DNA carries, has lead to the heresies (shock! I dare to use the term heresy! That might OFFEND someone) I state again for emphasis, heresies of framework, direct revelation, and theistic evolution. There is, thank the Triune God, absolute truth, and no amount of false truth, no amount of false grace, no amount of whining about “unity” can change that–Christianity is built and founded upon the rock of the Triune God. It is vain and sinful to allow apostates like this the floor in Christianity. The faith of our fathers is NOT up for grabs, nor for deliberation, nor for dispute. The presence of God in the sacrament, the baptism of infant’s verses professor’s baptism, even the idea of who is to receive communion are all debatable within the sphere of salvation and semi-orthodox Christianity. The idea of Christ’s divinity and the Holy Trinity are most definitely not.
Let us look at some of the “alternate theories” to the Orthodox Holy Trinity. One of the ones that attacks the faith at its heart is the idea that the Jehovah’s Witless, er, Witnesses put forward. The idea that God is the Father, Jesus is Michael (for the sake of generality we will insert “created being”) and that the Spirit is somehow God’s “force” that he uses. “And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” John 14: 16-17 KJV Jesus does not seem to be talking about a “force” but rather a person, a literal person. Christ also talks about baptizing in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Why would you baptize in the name of two people who don’t exist? The popular counterargument to this is that the Bible is wrong, but if you believe that, then you have no argument against any thing in the Bible, because you have no absolute truth.
There is no “ironclad” defense of the Trinity, per se. Evil will always think of another way to attack the truth. However, if Christians who consider them such have any true love for God, they will not pussyfoot around issues like the Trinity. We must defends ourselves. We must defend the Lord’s name, and therefore the name of every single member of the Trinity. If one does not defend the Trinity, then one has not only failed oneself, but the God one serves.