Author Archives: Andy

Scooped!

This news is a week or two old already, but if you’re not aware, Jon, husband of Kim and fellow refugee from hell (ha ha) has returned to the world of blogging with a very cool new blog focused around sci-fi literature, a subject in which Jon is about as expert as they come.
This is rather timely for me, as I’ve been recently feeling a desire to read a bit more sci-fi literature. In that spirit, I’m currently making my way through Perdido Street Station by China Mieville. Thus far my feelings on the novel are somewhat mixed, but I’ll wait until I’ve finished it to comment further.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Tractilicious

Last week, I went out during lunch to visit the local comic/game store (to pick up a shiny copy of BESM d20); while the store owner rang the book up at the register, we started chatting. I asked what sorts of local games were run at the store (as there always seems to be a pack of bespeckled D&D players rolling dice in the store’s back room when I visit).
He didn’t have the schedule with him, but asked if I wanted the store contact info so I could get in touch with the employee who oversaw the game scheduling. Sure thing, I said. So he handed me a little packet of paper with the store’s contact info printed neatly on it. But this isn’t an ordinary business card! I slowly turn it over, and discover that their contact info is actually printed on the back of a…
Jack Chick tract!
This tract, to be precise. Now, Jack Chick, if you’re not familiar with him, is the guy who is best known in gaming circles for his rather melodramatic anti-D&D tracts (actual tagline: “Debby thought playing Dungeons and Dragons was fun… until it destroyed her friend”). Jack Chick also has a lot to say about Catholics, Muslims, rock-n-rollers, Jews, Masons, wishy-washy Protestants, and those Satanic New Age Bible versions like the NIV. And here is a roleplaying game store with a giant shelf full of D&D books handing out Chick tracts at the counter.
I shouldn’t read too much into it. I’m sure it not a sly jab at Chick’s expense–the store owners seem very kind and sincere and I’ve remarked before to Michele that they seem to have a really good influence on the kids who hang out at the store. And I’d previously deduced that they were Christians by conversations I overheard and the occasional strains of Michael W. Smith that wafted out of the CD player behind the front counter. And it’s not like you have to subscribe to Chick’s brand of wackiness to pass out one of his tracts–especially a relatively straightforward one like this.
But it did make me smile.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Whatever happened to The Passion?

Note: I’ve written about this topic elsewhere, but would like to explore the issue in more depth (or at least more length) here.
Earlier this year I watched The Passion of the Christ–perhaps you’ve heard of it? In the weeks leading up to its release, the buzz within the “Christian community” (have fun defining that one) had become a deafening roar. Amidst all the controversy about the film, Christians and ministries throughout the country were gearing up to take advantage of what they anticipated would be a massive spiritual revival. Passion-themed websites were created, books were written, tracts were penned, Bible studies and discussion guides were distributed. All were designed in the hopes of sharing the Gospel with non-Christians who saw the film and were sufficiently moved or interested by it to do some research into What It All Means. At least one or two organizations touted The Passion as the greatest evangelistic opportunity in recent history.
Now, I am oversimplifying things a bit for effect–none of the Christians I talked to (or read) believed that millions of moviegoers would instantly convert upon watching the movie. But there was a very, very strong hope that the film would break down the walls of resistance in unbelievers and give Christians an unprecedented opportunity to share the Gospel with people who might otherwise not give it a second thought. The ministry where I work was closely involved in efforts to promote the film as an evangelistic opportunity, and I shared the hope that the film, good or bad, would pique a popular interest in Jesus that would lead them to turn to the Gospels for answers.
Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to have happened at all. Recent Barna research noted positive initial spiritual responses to the film, but concludes with a troubling piece of news:

Among the most startling outcomes drawn from the research is the apparent absence of a direct evangelistic impact by the movie. Despite marketing campaigns labeling the movie the “greatest evangelistic tool” of our era, less than one-tenth of one percent of those who saw the film stated that they made a profession of faith or accepted Jesus Christ as their savior in reaction to the film’s content.
Equally surprising was the lack of impact on people’s determination to engage in evangelism. Less than one-half of one percent of the audience said they were motivated to be more active in sharing their faith in Christ with others as a result of having seen the movie.

Now, “less than one-tenth of one percent of those who saw the film” means that some people did find Christ as a result of watching it–and that’s good news. But that’s a tiny, tiny number compared to the hopes Christians had for Passion-related evangelism. In numerical form, thats what, <.05%? Ouch. So what does this mean? One of the biggest-hyped evangelism opportunities in recent years has proved to be a bust (with the disclaimer that a small number of people were positively impacted by it). Somewhere, something went wrong. Where, and what should we think about all this?
One possibility is that the film simply didn’t live up to Christian expectations. Perhaps the film was so bad or so inaccurate that nobody liked it, let alone felt inspired by it? This seems unlikely given the movie’s massive success in theaters, and I don’t know anyone personally who didn’t find the film both moving and well-crafted. I saw it myself, and while I can easily imagine somebody not liking it, it certainly doesn’t fall into the category of “cringe-o-matic Christian cheese.” (Well, it does cause cringing, but not for the usual reasons.) Furthermore, many of the Christians who hoped to see a spiritual revival in the wake of the movie didn’t pin those hopes on the anticipated high quality of the movie–for many, it was enough that the person of Jesus was the subject of such intense public scrutiny, whether out of adoration or controversy or anything else. If the movie turned out to be good, so much the better, but it didn’t have to be good or accurate from an evangelistic perspective–it just had to get people thinking about Christ. The person of Christ, and the story of the Gospel, would speak for themselves, no matter what the movie did or didn’t get right–or so their hopes went.
So I don’t think it’s a simple matter of the movie not meeting expectations or standards of quality. What are some other reasons?
One other troubling possibility is simply that the Christian community utterly and completely misjudged the situation and saw an evangelism opportunity where none really existed. It wouldn’t be the first time that Christians have predicted a mass spiritual awakening, only to be disappointed: it happened after 9/11 and before that–oh, how it pains me to even write this–regarding the Left Behind movie. The idea of “Big Event” evangelism–witnessing based around a major world event or prevailing cultural trends–isn’t new, and there are success stories to be found in history. Sometimes it works–think everything from Jonathan Edwards to the Billy Graham crusades–and sometimes it doesn’t. That’s what happens when fallible humans try to anticipate the inner workings of the heart–or the plans of the Holy Spirit. If it is the case that the Christian community misjudged, maybe it’s just another item in a very long list of hits and misses when it comes to anticipating pop culture’s response to the Gospel.
Which leads me to another possibility, and that is that God simply didn’t intend to use this movie to spread the Gospel far and wide. I believe strongly that words and images–even when crafted into something as compelling as The Passion of the Christ–have no power to bring you to God unless God himself chooses to work through them for his purposes. Perhaps it is simply the case that Christians’ hopes for the film just didn’t match up with God’s plans, and that’s that. If so, it wouldn’t be the first time Christians have embarked on evangelism efforts without first checking to see if it’s what God really wants (not that figuring out “what God wants” is as easy as that, of course).
And lastly, I suppose it’s possible that this film really did hold massive evangelistic potential, and we as Christians completely botched it somehow. Perhaps we have separated ourselves so far from the interests, loves, and desires of non-Christians that we are unable to anticipate their spiritual impulses–and thus cannot provide them with the Answer in a way that they understand. If this is the case–that Christians dropped the ball on a huge opportunity–I’d say we as a community of believers have a lot of thinking, talking, and praying to do about how we should be bringing the Gospel to the world.
What do you think? It’s an issue that has been on my mind lately. Why do you think that Passion evangelism has produced so little fruit compared to the veritable harvest for which evangelicals hoped? Somewhere along the line, we miscalulated or misguessed the impact that this film would have. Some were saved, yes, but for the most part, spiritual life in America has returned to its pre-Passion levels. We shouldn’t judge Passion evangelism a failure just because it produced fewer visible results than anticipated, but I think it’s important to ask ourselves why our expectations of spiritual revival so far exceeded the results.
final paragraph edited 8/15 for clarity and to remove an implication I hadn’t intended to make.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Worth reading

A couple of quick notes again today.
If you’ve got some time to spare, you really ought to read Losing the War, about the general weirdness, horror, and confusion that was World War II. It’s incredibly lengthy, so if time is limited, I suggest starting in on the second half of the piece, which is where the most interesting discussion material surfaces.
I read this last week and have been pondering it ever since. (I may comment on parts of it at more length in the future if I can muster the will to do so.) At any rate, it has some terribly insightful perspectives on how and why the war was perceived as it was. Well worth the read.
On a different note, Kim and Jon have posted their much-anticipated dual-reviews of Left Behind and The Da Vinci Code, and the results are spectacular.
There, that’s two (three, if you count the book reviews as separate entities) items for you to read today, which should tide you over until I post some real content here one of these days.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Rainy Saturday

Instead of a longer post today, I’ll fire off a few miscellaneous items for your reading enjoyment.
I really enjoy Penny Arcade’s occasional “Cardboard Tube Samurai” comic strips. I think the most recent two part strip is especially good. Great stuff. (And as an unrelated side note, “occasional” is one of those words that I spell incorrectly every single time I use it.)
Michele and I saw The Village last night. I won’t spoil anything, except to say that I was mildly disappointed. It had some wonderful characters, interesting ideas, and a few moments of brilliance, but overall it just didn’t seem to come together quite as well as it should’ve. I left the theater thinking it would’ve made a really good short story, but not such a great movie. That said, I did enjoy it, and I’d recommend going to see it–it’s just not as good as it could’ve been. I have some more specific comments about it, but I’ll wait a bit until a few more of you have seen it before doing so, as it’s difficult to discuss the movie’s merits and flaws without spoiling some of the surprises.
Speaking of movies–every now and then, against my better judgment, I get excited about movies that I know are going to be horrible. Such is the case with Alien vs. Predator, which I’ve been reading about this morning. The odds of this being a good, or even halfway-decent, movie are astronomically low (Alien Resurrection, anyone?). But there’s just something about those aliens that keeps me coming back for more, despite the fact that the franchise is quite thoroughly past its prime. Go figure.
On to another, semi-related topic: Doom 3 is coming out soon, and I’m quite excited about it. I was even more excited this week to learn that it might even run on my computer. Genuinely scary computer games are few and far between (System Shock 2 and Undying being the two most frightening games I’ve played); it looks like Doom 3 might be a contender. We shall see.
I’ll close this post with a question: is there any pagan deity in the ancient world that even comes close to the coolness of Horus? I didn’t think so.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Revenge of the Cloned Phantom

You have probably heard by now that Episode III has received an official title: Revenge of the Sith. It is customary for Star Wars fans (and non-fans) to descend like jackals upon Lucas’ movie titles, arguing about their merits (or lack thereof). In keeping with that spirit, I’ll offer a few thoughts on the new title. In short, I like it quite a bit. It’s the best and most fitting of the prequel titles, in my opinion.
I have been somewhat ambivalent about the titles of Episodes I and II. The Phantom Menace doesn’t work terribly well for me as a title. While it is somewhat relevant to the movie, the plot arc to which it refers (Darth Sidious’ secretive scheming) is really just a sideshow compared to the movie’s main function, which is to introduce a cast of new heroes and show off their, well, heroism. Calling attention to this sideplot when the real meat of the film lies elsewhere seems… disproportionate, if that makes sense. Granted, A New Hope is even more vague, but that movie at least had another catchy title by which it could be known: Star Wars.
Attack of the Clones as a title is equal parts good and bad. It’s good in that it perfectly fits the pulpy space-opera feel that the movie is aiming for. (Claims that it’s cheesy or stupid-sounding miss the point; it’s an excellent fit for its genre.) On the bad side, I think it’s somewhat misleading. For one, it sort of implies (to me, at least) that the Clones are bad guys who will be attacking (possibly surprise-attacking) the Good Guys, when in fact this is not the case. That is a bit of meta-analysis on my part, but I can’t shake the feeling that a more accurate (though far less entertaining) title would have been Attack of the Separatist Union or Attack of the Rebel Scum. And “attack” sounds a little… aggressive, given that in the film, the Clone Army is really just reacting to Separatist acts of war. Technically, they are attacking, but the title implies to me that the Clones would be launching some sort of massive invasion, not reacting to acts of aggression initiated by somebody else. Maybe it should have been Episode II: Aggressive Response of the Clones?
Which brings us to Revenge of the Sith… which I like. Firstly, as Ron noted in a recent conversation, the word “Sith” is really cool. Secondly, it’s a perfect counterbalance to Return of the Jedi (doubly so given that Episode VI was originally titled Revenge of the Jedi). Both Star Wars trilogies track the rise to prominence of a Force philosophy and end with one faction overthrowing the System and returning to power. The difference lies in the nature of this takeover: for the Sith, revenge is their motive; their assumption of power is almost an act of spite directed at their long-hated Jedi enemies. For the Jedi, their assumption of power is a simple returning to their rightful place; revenge and hate have no place in it, as is demonstrated in Luke’s confrontation with the Emperor. Revenge of the Sith… Return of the Jedi. I like it.
What do you think?

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Natural order is restored

Well, as most of you know, Michele has returned safely from the sordid depths of Late Bronze Age archaeology fieldwork. (She will hopefully have an official report for us at her blog sometime in the near future.) Once we get the photos from the dig developed, I’ll see if I can persuade her to put some of them online for your perusal.
update: Wow, that was fast–she just posted about the dig.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

I got your pop-up right here

I interrupt your afternoon work routine for a brief rant about pop-up ads.
I use the exquisite Firefox as my web browser of choice. Among its many virtues is the fact that it blocks pop-up ads by default; you can allow a specific site to display pop-ups, but only by deliberately adding that site to your “Allow Pop-ups from…” list.
So anyway, today I encountered a pop-up ad for the second time in about a week. When this first happened, I was momentarily confused, as I haven’t seen a pop-up in quite a while (what with the pop-up blocking) and had forgotten how annoying they are. Then it occurred to me to wonder how this pop-up was displaying in Firefox when I most certainly had not added it to my pop-up whitelist. Sure enough–checking my settings, somehow the site had been added to my “Allow pop-ups” list.
The first time it happened, I figured it was a weird fluke, or that I must have accidentally hit a button or keyboard combination that disabled the pop-up blocker. But I now think I was being foolishly naive; there are actually people out there intent on evading pop-up blockers.
This fills me with rage for a number of different reasons. For one, the idea that somebody is actually changing the privacy settings of my web browser without my knowledge makes me wonder how the marketer responsible for this will avoid an eternity in Hell. Secondly, think about the advertising strategy behind this. Potential customers indicate that they do not want to receive pop-up ads, and will even go to the effort of installing a new web browser or pop-up blocker to escape them. Advertisers respond by… investing time and money in violating said potential customers’ privacy and bypassing their stated preference.
Talk about contempt for their customers. Does anyone think that being ambushed by a pop-up like this makes somebody more likely to become a customer? To go for a real-world analogy, this is like a salesman wrapping his advertisement around a brick and chucking it through your back window because you put a “no solicitors” sign on your front door.
Sometimes I hate the Internet so very, very much.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Supervillainy

Read between the lines of this story. If that’s not a perfect setup for the creation of a supervillain (mad scientist flouts safety in his ambition for fame, something goes Horribly Wrong!), I don’t know what is. We’ve got an “accident” with a laser, the disappearance of classified nuclear materials, and a frantic shutdown of the facility.
I’m just saying, when Dr. Nucleo makes national news next week demanding ransom money or he’ll destroy California with his Class 4 Laser, you heard it here first.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather