Author Archives: Tyler F. Williams

Essential Films of 2005 for Theologians – Extended Edition

Posted on by

born_brothels.jpgAs a companion piece to my previous post, “Essential Films for Theologians: The ‘Director’s Cut’,” I thought I would also provide a list of my “Essential Films of 2005 for Theologians.” As with my first list, this was a guest post on Ben Meyers’s Faith and Theology blog, where I noted that I would be publishing a more extended discussion. After some delay, here is my discussion of my picks.

syriania.jpgNow, before you chide me for not including this or that film, I must confess a limitation with this list: it only contains films that I have viewed. My list of “Films I wished I viewed” before making my list include, Brokeback Mountain; Capote; Caché; Dear Frankie; Good Night, and Good Luck; Cinderella Man; Murderball; Paradise Now; Saraband; The Squid and the Whale; Transamerica; and Walk the Line. While I go to quite a few movies in any given year, I typically wait for the DVD release for films I do not deem necessary to view on the big screen, which explains why I have yet to see films like Walk the Line or Brokeback Mountain, among others.

Furthermore, before you add a comment indicating that I obviously have no sense of what makes a good film, please note that these are top films “for theologians,” i.e., they are films that raise theological questions or issues. They are not necessarily great films or the best films of the year, they have weaknesses and shortcomings. That being siad, I do think that many if not all of them are the best of the year and are certainly worthy of thoughtful viewing.

munich.jpgYou will notice that some of films have a 2004 release date; these are films that had an initial limited release in 2004 (usually at a film festival) but had a more extensive public release in 2005 (including DVD releases in a few cases).

  • Batman Begins (Christopher Nolan, 2005; IMDb; Buy from Amazon.ca or Amazon.com). Without question the best of the Batman franchise and an engaging exploration of the myth of redemptive violence.
  • Born into Brothels: Calcutta’s Red Light Kids (Zana Briski and Ross Kauffman, 2004; IMDb; Buy from Amazon.ca or Amazon.com). A delightful and disturbing glimpse into Calcutta’s brothels and one woman’s attempt to provide hope via art. A book featuring some of the pictures is also available: Born into Brothels: Photographs by the Children of Calcutta by Zana Briski (Buy from Amazon.ca or Amazon.com).
  • Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe (Andrew Adamson, 2005; IMDb). I thought this film adaptation was well done. I viewed it with my kids — including a very inquisitive four-year-old, however, so I can’t say I caught all of the nuances of the presentation!
  • The Constant Gardener (Fernando Meirelles, 2005; IMDb; Buy from Amazon.ca or Amazon.com). A disturbing portrayal of large scale corporate greed and systemic evil on the part of multinational pharmaceuticals, as well as a story of personal trust and suspicion.
  • Crash (Paul Haggis, 2004; IMDb; Buy from Amazon.ca or Amazon.com). A bit over the top, but a damming look at the ubiquitous charater of racism that leaves everyone culpable.
  • Downfall (Der Untergang; Oliver Hirschbiegel, 2004; IMDb; Buy from Amazon.ca or Amazon.com). Bruno Ganz delivers a spine chilling performance as Adolf Hitler in this dark portrayal of carefully differentiated evil and the destruction of the Third Reich.
  • A History of Violence (David Cronenberg, 2005; IMDb; Buy from Amazon.ca or Amazon.com). Perhaps the most accessible film of this controversial Canadian director, this film brings together violence and small town America in a stunning confrontation with a hope of reconciliation.
  • Lord of War (Andrew Niccol, 2005; IMDb; Buy from Amazon.ca or Amazon.com). An entertaining and disturbing film about the underground world and warped ethics of gun running. Nicholas Cage does an excellent job playing Yuri Orlov, a character based on a composite of five real arms dealers. “The first and most important rule of gun-running is: never get shot with your own merchandise.”
  • Munich (Steven Spielberg, 2005; IMDb). A captivating film about the Israeli revenge for the deaths of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics, loosely based on the book Vengeance: The True Story of an Israeli Counter-Terrorist Team by George Jonas (Buy from Amazon.ca or Amazon.com). This film raised quite a bit of controversy about its accuracy and was even denounced by Jonas (see the MacLean’s article here). Despite the spin put on the events by Spielberg, I found it to be a compelling meditation on vengeance and retaliation. Kesher Talk has a series of blog posts on Munich that I highly recommend; they may be found here.
  • Palindromes (Todd Solondz, 2004; IMDb; Buy from Amazon.ca or Amazon.com). Few films have provoked as much thought and discussion around the issue of abortion for me as this one. See my previous blog posts here and here for why it ranks among my top films for 2005.
  • Syriania (Stephen Gaghan, 2005; IMDb). This left-leaning political thriller about the politics of the oil industry is disturbing even if only a fraction of it is true to life. Directed and written by Stephen Gaghan, the screenwriter behind Steven Soderbergh’s Traffic (2000), the multiple story lines (engaging in their own right) come together to form a compelling story no matter what your politics may be.

Worth Viewing: There were a number of other films from 2005 that are definitely worth viewing, but didn’t make my final cut. These include The Exorcism of Emily Rose (Almost made it just because of its subject matter); Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire; King Kong (Sorry Peter, your ape was great, but you should stick to orcs and hobbits); Serenity (Never watched Firefly before viewing the film; have to say I quite liked it); Sin City (Like sin, compelling to view, but ultimately damaging); Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith (Better than the other prequels, but that is not saying much! Who wants to try jumping over a guy holding a light sabre? Anyone?).

Please let me know if there were other “essential films for theologians” from 2005 by commenting on this post.

Bulkeley’s Amos: Hypertext Bible Commentary Launched

Posted on by

I want to join the virtual crowd of bibliobloggers congratulating Tim Bulkeley for the launch of the electronic stand-alone version of his commentary entitled, Amos: Hypertext Bible Commentary. I wish Tim all the best with this release!

While I have not had the opportunity to take a look at this electronic release of his commentary, I have had the chance to peruse his online version and I have listed it in my OT Commentary Survey for quite a while. I encourage you to spend some time looking at Tim’s commentary. It is very well done and makes excellent use of hypertext delivery– you have multiple panes that provide different information and you can also hear the passage read in English or Hebrew, among other things.

All in all it is a great commentary on a facinating biblical book!

Hebrew Bible Related Reviews from RBL (20 February 2006)

Posted on by

This week’s Review of Biblical Literature includes a few interesting reviews. Of particular interest to me is the review of Kofoed’s Text and History, which is quite positive (perhaps too positive; it would be interesting to read a review by someone more skeptical of reconstructing Israel’s history from biblical texts). There are also a couple of good reviews of Dever’s Did God Have a Wife? (see here for a previous post on Dever’s book).

Hebrew Bible/Old Testament

  • Dever, William G. Did God Have a Wife?: Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel. Reviewed by Yairah Amit and Bob Becking
  • Kofoed, Jens Bruun. Text and History: Historiography and the Study of the Biblical Text. Reviewed by Michael Licona
  • Meyers, Carol. Households and Holiness: The Religious Culture of Israelite Women. Reviewed by Linda Schearing
  • Wagner, Andreas. Prophetie als Theologie: Die so spricht Jahwe-Formeln und das Grundverständnis alttestamentlicher Prophetie. Reviewed by Wolfgang Hüllstrung

Biblical Theology

  • Reventlow, Henning Graf and Yair Hoffman, eds. The Problem of Evil and Its Symbolism in Jewish and Christian Tradition. Reviewed by Tobias Nicklas
  • Spina, Frank Anthony. The Faith of the Outsider: Exclusion and Inclusion in the Biblical Story. Reviewed by Amos Frisch

Welcome to Codex Blogspot with WordPress 2.01

Posted on by

I have finally decided to make the switch to WordPress. I decided to move to WordPress for a variety of reasons, including having more control (no more blogger frustrations) and having more extensibility.

You will notice that things are still under construction. I have to work on categorizing my blog posts (one of the major reasons I switched) and I am not entirely satisfied with the look of the blog (I really have to work on the header).
Any and all feedback on the design, what does or does not work, etc., would be greatly appreciated.
You will need to update your site feeds. The transition to WordPress wasn’t too bad, though I have not been able to move over my Haloscan comments 🙁 I will be keeping my old blogger generate posts and archives uploaded, so all of your permalinks should still work.

Cancer, John Piper, and the Falleness of Creation

Posted on by

John Piper has posted on his website an article entitled “Don’t Waste Your Cancer” (HT BlogWatch). He wrote the short reflection yesterday (15 February) before having prostate surgery (his surgery reportedly went well). I too have been thinking a lot about cancer recently. My father-in-law was diagnosed with cancer two days before Christmas, a close friend was diagnosed with breast cancer early in the new year, and some of my students have family members who were recently diagnosed. In addition, this upcoming Sunday will mark the fifth anniversary of my father’s death from cancer.

In his article, Piper produces a series of ten statements that begin, “You will waste your cancer if you….” Now most of the statements are meant to encourage believers to remain positive and hopeful when struggling with cancer (e.g., “You will waste your cancer if you seek comfort from your odds rather than from God”; “You will waste your cancer if you let it drive you into solitude instead of deepen your relationships with manifest affection”; etc.). I have no issues with the vast majority of his points.

That being said, I do take issue with his first two statements:

  1. You will waste your cancer if you do not believe it is designed for you by God.
    It will not do to say that God only uses our cancer but does not design it. What God permits, he permits for a reason. And that reason is his design. If God foresees molecular developments becoming cancer, he can stop it or not. If he does not, he has a purpose. Since he is infinitely wise, it is right to call this purpose a design. Satan is real and causes many pleasures and pains. But he is not ultimate. So when he strikes Job with boils (Job 2:7), Job attributes it ultimately to God (2:10) and the inspired writer agrees: “They… comforted him for all the evil that the Lord had brought upon him” (Job 42:11). If you don’t believe your cancer is designed for you by God, you will waste it.
  2. You will waste your cancer if you believe it is a curse and not a gift.
    “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:1). “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us” (Galatians 3:13). “There is no enchantment against Jacob, no divination against Israel” (Numbers 23:23). “The Lord God is a sun and shield; the Lord bestows favor and honor. No good thing does he withhold from those who walk uprightly” (Psalm 84:11).

Now, perhaps I am just coming from a different place theologically than Piper (actually, I know I am), but I find the notions that God “designs” people’s cancer and that cancer is a “gift from God” to be offensive. What is more, I find that Piper’s proof-texting of Scripture to be troubling. In the book of Job, God does allow “the adversary” (הַשָּׂטָ֖ן, hasatan) to inflict Job, and his so-called friends did see his suffering as from the hands of God and due to his own sin. But, in the same way it is fallaciouss to see all suffering as the result of sin, so it is not the point of the book of Job to then attribute all suffering to the direct agency of God. Similarly, his series of proof-texts for his second point are perhaps relevant to part of his point that cancer is not a “curse.” But saying that cancer is not a “curse” is not the same as saying it is a gift.

All good things are a gift from God (James 1:17) but in my books cancer is not a good thing. Cancer is an all too frequent reminder that this world is radically fallen, that things are manifestly not the way they are supposed to be — they are hebel (הֶבֶל). I do think there is a subtle, yet theologically important distinction to be made between talking about cancer (or any sickness or tragedy) as being used by God over against cancer being caused or designed by God.

Perhaps I am wrong, or at least biased by my own personal experiences. Whether or not you agree with my perspective (which I would readily admit I have not developed in any detail in this post), one thing we can all agree on is that we should pray. We should pray for John Piper and all who are struggling with cancer. I covet your prayers for my father-in-law and my friend, as well as for the others I have mentioned.

In addition, I encourage you to consider supporting one of the many agencies or foundations who work towards cures and more effective cancer treatments, such as the Canadian Cancer Society or the American Cancer Society.