Left Behind? Facts and Fiction

LeftBehindFacts.jpgWhile the Left Behind books conceived by Tim F. LaHaye and written by Jerry B. Jenkins are “just” novels (kind of like the DaVinci Code is “just” a novel), the influence they have on forming people’s views of the end times is enormous. My own eschatological views aside, my interest was piqued when I saw this book dealing with the “Left Behind” phenomenon:

Leann Snow Flesher, Left Behind? The Facts Behind the Fiction (Judson, 2006).
Buy from Amazon.ca | Buy from Amazon.com

The work gets a pretty good endorsement from Walter Brueggemann: “The ‘Battle for the Bible’ continues, largely in a context where fear feeds ignorance. Flesher presents a careful, well-informed comment on dispensationalism in general and “left behind� eschatology in particular. Flesher shows the way in which Scripture is distorted to serve a political ideology that is grounded in fear. Her book is an accessible invitation to find out what the real scoop on the matter is. There is much to unlearn, and Flesher contributes to that task.�

Obviously the work does not share the premillenial dispensational outlook of the Left Behind series, but seeks to provide alternative understandings of end-times events from a biblical-theological perspective.

The book looks interesting and I think it is worth a gander — especially those who are “into” the Left Behind series, if only to let you become more informed about some other eschatological views.


The God Who Wasn’t There?

GodNotThere.jpgThe other day I watched the straight to DVD documentary by Brian Flemming, The God Who Wasn’t There (Buy from Amazon.ca | Buy from Amazon.com). The promotional blurb promised that what Bowling for Columbine did to the gun culture and Super Size Me did to the fast food industry, this film will do to religion. This is what the official website says about the film:

In this provocative, critically acclaimed documentary, you will discover:

  • The early founders of Christianity seem wholly unaware of the idea of a human Jesus
  • The Jesus of the Gospels bears a striking resemblance to other ancient heroes and the figureheads of pagan savior cults
  • Contemporary Christians are largely ignorant of the origins of their religion
  • Fundamentalism is as strong today as it ever has been, with an alarming 44% of Americans believing Jesus will return to earth in their lifetimes
  • And God simply isn’t there

Dazzling motion graphics and a sweeping soundtrack propel this uncompromising and taboo-shattering documentary that Newsweek says “irreverently lays out the case that Jesus Christ never existed.”

While I am not going to bother to provide a thorough review, I figured I’d offer up a couple impressions. First, I was underwhelmed. My faith remained intact after viewing. In fact, I thought that I could do a better job raising questions about the Christian faith and the biblical accounts of Jesus contained in the gospels. It is clear that Brian Flemming was a very, very, very conservative Christian (I daresay a fundamentalist) who really seemed to react to his upbringing rather than seriously consider some of the historical problems scholars throughout the centuries have had with the biblical witness. Second, despite its facile and sometimes silly interpretation of the gospel accounts, the documentary was pretty well done. It looked professional and had its entertaining moments. I enjoyed the use of clips from Jesus films throughout, especially the characterization of Jesus Christ Superstar, The Last Temptation of Christ, and The Passion of the Christ as “the singing Jesus, the horny Jesus, and the bloody Jesus.”

If you see it at your local video store you may want to rent it, otherwise I wouldn’t bother with it.


Shiloh Nouvel Jolie Pitt: What’s in a Name?

shiloh_JP.jpgI recognize by internet standards this is old news, but I have to ask what sort of name is “Shiloh Nouvel Jolie-Pitt“? Talk about a mouthful — they’re giving the name “Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz” a run for the money! (see Isaiah 8:1). Many newspapers reported that the first name of the new daughter of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie means “Messiah,” while others are a bit more nuanced and report that the name means “something like ‘his gift’ or ‘the peaceful one’ and refers to the Messiah.” While these different proposals each have some merit, when it comes right down to it, the etymology and meaning of the name Shiloh remain obscure.

The name Shiloh, written variously in Biblcial Hebrew as ש×?ִלֹה , ש×?ִילֹו, ש×?ִלֹו, is derived from a Hebrew name for a town in the hill country of Ephraim. There are many traditions surrounding the place called Shiloh. It was one of the main northern shrines in ancient Israel and was also associated with the Aaronite priesthood of Phinehas.

The name is masculine in form and — depending on the spelling — may be derived from the root verb shalah (ש×?לה) or shalev(ש×?לו), “have rest, be at ease.” The other two meanings that the newspapers suggest are tied to different interpretations of the use of the word in Genesis 49:10, which is considered by some to be one of the most difficult verses in the book of Genesis. Compare the following translations:

לֹ×?־יָסוּר ש×?ֵבֶט מִיהוּדָה וּמחֹקֵק מִבֵּין רַגְלָיו עַד כִּי־יָבֹ×? ש×?ִילֹה וְלֹו יִקְּהַת עַמִּי×?

The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be (KJV).

The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until tribute comes to him; and the obedience of the peoples is his (NRSV).

The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs and the obedience of the nations is his (NIV).

The problem with the Masoretic Hebrew text of his verse (as represented by the KJV) is that it is not clear what precisely “when Shiloh comes” is referring to. If it refers to a time when a Judaean ruler controls Shiloh, this would have been under the Judaean Davidic monarchy, though Shiloh plays no significant role at that time or later. The other two translations are based on emendations of the text involving dividing the words differently. The alternative found in the NRSV, “until tribute comes to him,” redivides and repoints the consonants as: יֻבָ×? ש×?Ö·×™ לה , . This connects the word with the Hebrew shay (ש×?×™ ), “gift, tribute.” The third option takes the initial shin as a relative: ש×?Ö¶ לּה , “to whom it belongs” = until the owner of the scepter (i.e., the messiah) comes.

When it comes right down to it, depending on how you understand this passage, it may create some associations between the name Shiloh and a coming Messiah, or it may refer to a gift or somekind, or it may refer to the place Shiloh — but it is unlikely that it refers to all three. The meaning of the name is best taken as “the peaceful one” or the like and doesn’t necessarily have any messianic connotations.

So the moral of the story is, if you are a rich celebrity and want to give your child a foreign name, make sure to do your research! Of course, if they just picked the name because they liked the sound of it, then that’s their perrogative. If they picked the name because of its meaning, then they would likely be disappointed in realizing that it may not mean what they think.


The Da Vinci Dud?

I guess “the critics” (who exactly are “the critics”?) didn’t care for Ron Howard’s The Da Vinci Code. It premiered at the 59th Cannes Film Festival yesterday (17 May 2006) and was panned by most critics according to Reuters. That makes Ron sad — again according to Reuters.
I enjoyed the book, though I would never say it is a literary masterpiece. I would have figured it would make an entertaining movie. Of course, historically and theologically it is a bunch of bunk… but it’s entertaining bunk nonetheless.

Of course, it will still make tonnes of money considering that most movie-goers don’t really pay much attention to what those “critics” say. And I think many people will see it just so they can see what all the controversy is about.

I will likely see it with my sister who will be in town for the weekend.


Easter, Grace, and U2

I’d be in big trouble if Karma was going to finally be my judge. I’d be in deep ship. It doesn’t excuse my mistakes, but I’m holding out for Grace. I’m holding out that Jesus took my sins onto the Cross, because I know who I am, and I hope I don’t have to depend on my own religiosity. I love the idea of the Sacrificial Lamb. I love the idea that God says, “Look, you cretins, there are certain results to the way we are, to selfishness, and there’s mortality as part of your very sinful nature, and, let’s face it, you’re not living a very good life, are you? There are consequences to actions.” The point of the death of Christ is that Christ took on the sins of the world, so that what we put out did not come back to us, and that our sinful nature does not reap the obvious death. That’s the point. It should keep us humbled. It’s not our own good works that get us through the gates of heaven.

– Bono (Michka Assayas, Bono in Conversation with Michka Assayas [New York: Riverhead, 2005] 204).

Grace
She takes the blame
She covers the shame
Removes the stain
It could be her name

Grace
It’s a name for a girl
It’s also a thought that changed the world
And when she walks on the street
You can hear the strings
Grace finds goodness in everything

Grace, she’s got the walk
Not on a ramp or on chalk
She’s got the time to talk
She travels outside of karma
She travels outside of karma
When she goes to work
You can hear her strings
Grace finds beauty in everything

Grace, she carries a world on her hips
No champagne flute for her lips
No twirls or skips between her fingertips
She carries a pearl in perfect condition

What once was hurt
What once was friction
What left a mark
No longer stings
Because grace makes beauty
Out of ugly things

Grace makes beauty out of ugly things

All That You Can`t Leave Behind (2000)


Hebrew Tattoos: Buyers Beware!

Believe it or not, one of the more frequent Google searches by which individuals happen upon my blog is a search for “Hebrew Tattoos.” This search, which appears to happen once every few hundred visits to my site, leads readers to my tongue-in-cheek post “Posh Hebrew Tattoos, David! (Beckhams Inscribe their Love).” I have also had individuals email me asking advice on Hebrew tattoos, primarily wanting verification about the spelling of this or that word. My own students also ask similar questions (the latest being just last week).

This interest in Hebrew tattoos intrigues me. It obviously piggy-backs on the popularity of tattoos in general, though I suspect that the fact you have high profile celebrities like David and Victoria Beckham, Madonna, and Britney Spears with Hebrew tattoos boosts their popularity. And, of course, you have the religious crowd that likes tattoos of a biblical character, whether Hebrew, Greek, or even Aramaic.

At any rate, after reproducing the Google search for “Hebrew Tattoos” you will come across a number of web sites that specialize in tattoos, even ones devoted to Hebrew Tattoos that want to cash in on the craze. Most of these sites have sample pictures of actual Hebrew tattoos. What I found troubling is the number of mistakes in these tattoos. As a public service to any individuals thinking of getting a Hebrew tattoo, I thought I would highlight some of the mistakes so that others may avoid them in the future.

Hebrew Tattoos You Don’t Want

hebrew_eloheem.jpg

This first example of the Hebrew term for “God” makes a simple mistake of confusing Hebrew characters that look similar (of which there are a few!). The bottom letter on the tattoo is a samech (a Hebrew “s”) while it is supposed to be a mem (a Hebrew “m”). Another possibility that Yitzhak Sapir noted in the comments, is that the final letter is the Rashi script for final mem. He suggests that “some Jewish figure who was uncomfortable writing out the name of God changed scripts as a result.” While this is certainly possible, it seems odd that the rest of the tattoo is standard Aramaic square script. I am also not sure how many Jewish tattoo artists are out there who know Rashi’s script! I think my explanation makes a bit more sense. This tattoo is an example of a simple mistake made by someone who was trying to match the letters from a picture or something (I get quite a few papers from students who know a little Hebrew and try to include Hebrew words but they confuse stuff like final mem and samech, resh and dalet, etc.). Either way, if you are going to get a tattoo, it’s probably better to use the same script for the entire thing!

holy_spirit_freedom.jpg

This tattoo, which has a Hebrew word purported by the website I found it on to mean “freedom” (perhaps based on Lev 19:20?) has the vowel points shifted incorrectly to the left. As such it is nonsensical. Moreover, as the comments to this post indicate, in modern Hebrew this word (if correctly pointed) means “vacation” — which I am pretty sure the individual who got the tattoo did not want (especially considering the symbol of the Holy Spirit above it!).

holy-to-the-Lord.jpg

This tattoo, which means “holy to the LORD/Yahweh,” has letters which are either not drawn very carefully or confused (note the difference in width in the second last character in the bottom word; the tattoo has what looks like a dalet or resh, which it should be a vav) as well as incorrect vowel pointing.

In_blood1.jpg

This tattoo is supposed to say “in blood” according to the website where I found it. The expression is not biblical Hebrew, but a modern Hebrew phrase for “blood relative” or the like (see the comments by Yitzhak Sapir). Of course, the tattoo is still incorrect since it is missing the silent sheva after the resh (and the resh looks a bit like a yod). (If I was going to write “in blood” in Biblical Hebrew, I would simply do it as I have it on the bottom.)

aramaic_yhwh.jpg

This tattoo of the name of the God of Israel, “Yahweh,” is fine, though the web page identified it as Aramaic. In fact, this is a paleo-Hebrew script of the divine name.

Hebrew_love.jpg

There is nothing wrong with this Hebrew tattoo. I just thought it’s funny because the word inscribed can possibly mean both “love” as well as “leather” (some scholars suggest that there is a homograph [×?הבה II] which means “leather” [see KB3]). It arguably occurs in Hosea 11:4 [perhaps] and Song 3:10 [more likely]). Perhaps this can be taken as a warning not to spend too much time in the tanning salons?! (Of course, in modern Hebrew ×?הבה clearly means love, and as I already noted, there is nothing wrong with this tattoo.)

The lesson here is that you cannot trust pictures of Hebrew tattoos on the internet! Make sure to double check the spelling of the Hebrew word you want tattooed!

Tips for Getting Hebrew Tattoos

If you are thinking of getting a Hebrew tattoo, consider the following:

First, think long and hard about getting a tattoo because they are permanent (notwithstanding modifying tattoos or erasing them). If you are set on the idea of getting a tattoo, think about getting a temporary one first. Also think about where you put your tattoo. Based on the experience of friends, I wouldn’t suggest getting a tattoo on any place where your body may change drastically as you age (and women, beware of tattoos on your stomach as if you ever get pregnant, your tattoo may be stretched beyond recognition (and it may not go back to its original shape — ask my friend!).

Second, if you are getting a Hebrew tattoo, make sure to double check with someone who knows Hebrew (or Greek if you are getting a Greek one) whether or not you have the proper spelling of the word. It would be a bummer to get a tattoo like those above — the only consolation would be that most people wouldn’t know you have a spelling mistake permanently inscribed on your body!

Third, one thing to decide before getting a Hebrew tattoo is whether or not to just use consonants (as Hebrew was originally written) or use consonants with the Masoretic vowel pointing (the little dots and dashes above and below the consonants). The vowel points were added to the text of the Hebrew Bible in the early centuries of this era by Jewish scribes called the Masoretes. While the vowel points represent an ancient reading tradition, they are not original to the Hebrew text, so you may not want to include them. (I personally wouldn’t include them if only for aesthetic reasons)

Finally, make sure to go to a reputable tattoo shop!

As a side note, I don’t have any tattoos nor any intention of getting one — and I hope that this trend will die down by the time my kids are older! My primary problem with tattoos is that they are too permanent; what you may think is cool when you are younger, you may later regret.


Movies Worth Watching (Oscars, Razzies, and Essential Films Follow-Up)

oscar_small.jpgTonight The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences will put on their yearly spectacle called the Oscars. I may watch the 78th Annual Academy Awards tonight, though I find the actual award ceremony to be way too long and way too boring — and I just can’t stand all of the glitz and glamour that surrounds the telecast. I really don’t care what so-and-so wears on the red carpet or what expensive gifts the already grossly over-paid and self-important celebrities received for the hard work of reading a prompter when presenting an award!

That being said, I like films and I consider myself an armchair movie buff. So I am interested in who the winners are; if only to see how misguided the Academy is! At any rate, if you are interested, a list of the nominees is available here. The only films that I hope win an award include A History of Violence (2005; IMDb) and Wallace & Gromit in The Curse of the Were-Rabbit (2005; IMDb); otherwise I don’t have any strong opinions.

razzieLogo.jpgMore significantly, the 26th Annual Golden Raspberry (Razzie) Awards were just announced. Legendary actors such as Rob Schneider, Jenny McCarthy, Hayden Christensen, and Paris Hilton all won well-deserved awards. The worst picture award (as well as three ohers) went to Dirty Love (2005; IMDb), which I didn’t manage to watch this last year — actually I hadn’t even heard of the film! (Don’t worry if you didn’t see it either; from the reviews it received it appears to have been very pathetic!). Perhaps the best category was the “Most Tiresome Tabloid Targets” in which Tom Cruise, Katie Holmes, Oprah Winfrey’s Couch, The Eiffel Tower, and “Tom’s Baby” were all honoured.

Now to some movies truly worth watching…

Essential Films Follow-Up

I have enjoyed the response to my two lists of “Essential Films for Theologians” (see my “Essential Films for Theologians: The ‘Director’s Cut’” and my “Essential Films of 2005 for Theologians – Extended Edition“). In the discussion of my lists (both on my blog and Ben Myer‘s Faith and Theology here and here), individuals have noted many excellent films that are definitely worth watching. In many cases these are films that I seriously considered adding to my own lists or are movies that I really should have considered but failed to remember them. In addition, David Williamson also came up with his own list of Top Ten Spiritual Films which is worthy of a gander.

In regards to my Essential Films for Theologians list, there were a number of other films highlighted in the comments that are definitely worthy of viewing. Most of them I had considered including on my list, while others I had not even heard of before and are now on my “films to view” list. Perhaps the only film which I feel I should have included for sentimental reasons is The Princess Bride (1987; IMDb).

Here are some other movies worth watching that were mentioned in the comments (in alphabetic order):

  • Andrey Rublyov (1969; IMDb)
  • The Best of Youth (La Meglio gioventù; 2003; IMDb)
  • The Butterfly (La Lengua de las Mariposas; 1999; IMDb)
  • Come and See (Idi i smotri; 1985; IMDb)
  • Diary of a Country Priest (Journal d’un curé de campagne; 1951; IMDb)
  • Fight Club (1999; IMDb)
  • The Game (1997; IMDb)
  • Itallian for Beginners (Italiensk for begyndere; 2000; IMDb)
  • Mean Streets (1973; IMDb)
  • Ordet (1955; IMDb)
  • Passion of Joan of Arc (La Passion de Jeanne d’Arc; 1928; IMDb)
  • The Pledge (2001; IMDb)
  • Pulp Fiction (1994; IMDb)
  • Pi (1998; IMDb)
  • Run Lola Run (Lola rennt; 1998; IMDb)

A couple films that I did not include in my “Essential Films of 2005 for Theologians” list or in the extended discussion, included Millions (2004; IMDb) and Stage Beauty (2004; IMDb).

All in all, there are many excellent films — as well as many not-so-excellent films — produced every year. The challenge, of course, is being astute enough to figure out which ones are worthy of our time! I only hope that I may have highlighted a few films that are worthy of viewing!


U2 – The Clear Highlight of the Grammy Awards

Despite the fact that tonight’s Grammy Awards were too long, too glitzy, too excessive, and too self-absorbed (come on — it’s only music!), I was pleased to see Irish rock band U2 clean up with a total of five awards.

Their latest album, How To Dismantle an Atomic Bomb (Buy from Amazon.ca or Amazon.com) won for Album of the Year and Best Rock Album; “Sometimes You Can’t Make It On Your Own” won Song of the Year and Best Rock Performance By A Duo Or Group With Vocal; and “City of Blinding Lights” was named Best Rock Song. (Steve Lillywhite also picked up the Grammy for Producer of the Year, Non-Classical, in part for his work on How To Dismantle an Atomic Bomb) U2 is Grammy’s most honored band.

In many ways U2 came full circle with How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb. Like virtually all of U2’s albums, I love every song on this CD. I also think that it is among U2’s most explicitly spiritual albums. According to various interviews, the “bomb” in the name of the album refers to his father, Bob, and that the songs are mostly about Bono’s efforts to deal with his dad’s death to cancer in 2001. The award winning song “Sometimes You Can’t Make It On Your Own” is a moving tribute to Bono’s father. In his acceptance speech tonight, Bono remarked, “People say this is an odd title for an album… I was talking about my father Bob. He was the atomic bomb in question and set off a chain reaction in me. I want to thank my father for giving me the voice and a bit of attitude to use it.” My own father died from cancer almost five years ago and I have found the song (and other U2 songs, such as “Walk On”) quite meaningful as I have dealt with my dad’s death.

U2’s previous Grammy Awards are as follows:

  • 2002: Record of the Year (“Walk On”), Pop Performance by a Duo or Group with Vocal (“Stuck In a Moment”), Rock Performance by a Duo or Group with Vocal (“Elevation”), and Best Rock Album (All That You Can’t Leave Behind)
  • 2001: “Beautiful Day” wins Song of the Year, Record of the Year, and Best Rock Performance by a Duo or Group with Vocal
  • 1995: Best Music Video, Long Form – “Zoo TV Live From Sydney”
  • 1994: Best Alternative Album – Zooropa
  • 1992: Best Rock Group Performance – Achtung Baby
  • 1989: Best Rock Performance by a Duo or Group – “Desire”; Best Video Performance, Short Form – “Where the Streets Have No Name”
  • 1988: Album of the Year – The Joshua Tree; Best Rock Performance by a Duo or Group – “I Still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For”

Second Annual Ralphies – First Annual Codex Edition (Best of 2005)

Welcome to the Second Annual Ralphies — First Annual Codex Edition. Following the example of Ed Cook, a number of bloggers, including Rick Brannan, Joe Cathey, and Loren Rosson, and “Targuman” (a new blog I found through Ed’s), have been compiling their favorite books and films of 2005.

What follows is my own list. While I have tried to honour Ed’s template, I find it difficult to narrow lists like these down to one top pick, so I have includes some runner-ups.

Best NONFICTION BOOK of the year: This is a tough one since I have read quite a few non-fiction books! For books published in 2005, here are my selections. My top choice is Vincent Miller, Consuming Religion: Christian Faith and Practice in a Consumer Culture (Continuum, 2004; Buy from Amazon.ca or Amazon.com). This work is not in my primary field of research and that is one reason why it would be my top choice since many of the ideas within it were so new to me. I read it in preparation for my popular culture course and found it to be a compelling and convicting expose of the commodification of religion.

A very close runner up from within in one of my primary areas of research is Ulrich Dahmen, Psalmen- und Psalter-Rezeption im Fruehjudentum: Rekonstrucktion, Textbestand, Sturktur und Pragmatik der Psalmen Rolle 11QPsa aus Qumran (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 49; Leiden: Brill, 2003; Buy from Amazon.ca or Amazon.com). This work is an impressive examination of the so-called Qumran Psalms scroll taking into consideration both literary and textual characteristics of the scroll. I highly recommend it!

Best FICTION BOOK of the year: I typically only read fiction when on holidays. Probably the best fiction work I read this year (but was published a while ago) is Susan Howatch, Scandalous Risks (Fawcett, 1991; Buy from Amazon.ca or Amazon.com). This is the fourth of Howatch’s Church of England series. I enjoy the intellegent theological discussions in Howatch’s books, among other things.

Runner-ups would include J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (Scholastic, 2005; Buy from Amazon.ca or Amazon.com). I enjoy the Harry Potter books, though I am always left with a small sense of dissatisfaction after reading them — I’m not sure what it is, though I wonder if it is the fact that they are based on the school year and therefore like a TV show, you know they will be wrapping up loose ends as the school year nears its end. I also reread Chaim Potok, In the Beginning (Ballantine, 1997; Buy from Amazon.ca or Amazon.com). I love all of Potok’s books (The Chosen, The Promise, My Name is Asher Lev, Davita’s Harp, etc.), but this one I especially appreciate because it narrates the story of David Lurie, a brilliant young Jewish boy who stuns his family and friends by laying aside his Orthodox upbringing and becoming a secular biblical scholar. I love the final exchange between David and his Rebbe (p. 435):

  • Rebbe: “… Are you telling me you will not be an observer of the commandments?”
  • David: “I am not telling the Rebbe that.”
  • Rebbe: “What are you telling me?”
  • David: “I will go wherever the truth leads me. It is secular scholarship, Rebbe; it is not the scholarship of tradition. In secular scholarship there are no boundaries and no permanently fixed views.”
  • Rebbe: “Lurie, if the Torah cannont go out into your world of scholarship and return stronger, then we are all fools and charlatans. I have faith in the Torah. I am not afraid of truth.”

Brilliant!

Best MOVIE of the year: This is a tough one for me — especially since I taught a religion and popular culture class and consequently watched a few films over the course of the year! In terms of movies released in 2005, my vote for best movie of 2005 would be Hotel Rwanda (Terry George, 2004; IMDB; Buy from Amazon.ca or Amazon.com). While this film technically came out in 2004, I didn’t watch it until it was released on DVD in 2005. I found this to be a moving/disturbing film about the genocidal atrocities in Rwanda and how the colonial powers contributed to the problems. It is an excellent case study in situational ethics (what would you do if you were in that situation?). It should be seen in tandem with the Canadian documentary based on the autobiography of Romeo Dallaire, Shake Hands with the Devil: The Journey of Roméo Dallaire (Peter Raymont, 2004; IMDB; Buy from Amazon.ca or Amazon.com).

Honorable mention goes to Batman Begins (Christopher Nolan, 2005; IMDB; Buy from Amazon.ca or Amazon.com) for a movie that ponders the notion of redemptive violence; Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (Mike Newell, 2005; IMDB) for a good film adaptation; Crash (Paul Haggis, 2005; IMDB; Buy from Amazon.ca or Amazon.com for a captivating movie about the ubiquitious nature of racism; Palindromes (Todd Solondz, 2004; IMDB; Buy from Amazon.ca or Amazon.com for a provcative use of eight different actors (playing the same character) in a thought-provoking examination of the moral complexities of abortion.

Finally, I have to give special mention to The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (Andrew Adamson, 2005; IMDB). I liked the film, though in order to really appreciate it I will have to see it again since I went with my kids and ended up spending most of my time answering questions from my four-and-a-half year old son! (Q; What is that? A: That’s a faun. Q: Why? A: Uh, because it is. Q: Why? A: Because C.S. Lewis drew upon classical mythology in his writings. Q: Is the faun a bad guy? A: Well, not really, he does bad stuff but then turns good. Q: So he’s a good guy? A: Yes. etc. ad naseum!)

Best CD of the year: This is a no-brainer! U2’s How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb is the best CD of the year (Buy from Amazon.ca or Amazon.com). I think that with this CD, U2 has returned to their roots (not that I didn’t like all of their music in between!). Sad to say that was the only CD that I purchased in 2005. I actually had my CD collection stolen from my office early in the year and I have been replacing what I lost by downloading them as mp3s since I tend to listen to music only when at my computer (and I can always burn a CD if I want one).

Song of the year: “Yahweh” from How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb. This is a catchy and intriguing song. It’s a prayer for Yahweh to intervene, to transform the singer: “Take this shirt / Polyester white trash made in nowhere / take this shirt / and make it clean, clean. Take this soul / Stranded in some skin and bones / Take this soul / and make it sing…. Take this heart / And make it break.” But it’s also a lament, questioning why God is not acting: “Yahweh, tell me now / Why the dark before the dawn?” At any rate, I am impressed that U2 included a song called “Yahweh” on their CD.

A close runner up would be “Crumbs from your table.” When I first heard this song I loved it. But then I watched the DVD that came with the CD and listened to Larry Mullen note how he was so drunk when they wrote that song that he doesn’t even remember writing it! Talk about a downer! But then I read a great blog entry on this song from Spera In Deo where he relays an interview with Bono about the song that redeems the song in my eyes. Here is an excerpt:

About the Crumbs song, he [Bono] told the story of the Irish nun, Sister Ann, who’s story broke his heart. She lives and works near a sewer and brings in people who live in horrific conditions. When he visited her, he saw people who were sleeping “three to a bed.” I had previously thought the song was about Bush’s promised–then rescinded–offer of $15b in Africa aid. But it turns out it is really (also?) about this nun and how some people in the world await crumbs to fall from the feast table of American Christianity (You speak of signs and wonders / But I need something other / I would believe if I was able / But I’m waiting on the crumbs from your table).

Once again, brilliant! Well, that’s all she wrote, so I’ll see you at next year’s Ralphies!