Thursday, February 26, 2009

Rocky Mountain News Closes Down After 150 Years


The news that The News is closing after 150 years makes me sad. It's the paper that my family had delivered to our house my first eighteen years of life. For some reason I stayed fiercely loyal to The Rocky Mountain News when I returned to Colorado and refused to look at The Denver Post.

One of my favorite stories - some say it's an urban legend - surrounds a writer of the Rocky Mountain News, along with three other Colorado newspaper writers - who fabricated a story about the Great Wall of China coming down because China wanted to increase trade with other nations. The legend states that the fallout from this false news story helped create The Boxer Rebellion, a violent movement in China in the very early 1900's that saw thousands of Christians and Christian missionaries killed. You can read about the possible uncovering of the urban legend here.

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Top Five...Shows/Movies Starring Edward James Olmos

Here's another one of my silly Top Five Countdowns.

Today is Edward James Olmos' birthday - the man is 62 years old today! - and in honor of Olmos, I give you my top 5 T.V. shows and movies that feature him.

5. American Me (1992 movie)



An interesting movie about Latino gangs and what life after prison means. This movie was also directed by Olmos.

4. Miami Vice (T.V. show)



Who could forget Olmos as Lt. Martin Castillo, trying to keep Sonny and Crockett in line?

3. Stand and Deliver (1988 movie)



In this great movie, Olmos plays Jaime Escalante, a math teacher who is a new teacher in a high school that is just barely surviving.

I actually thought about this movie this week when I had an interview with a juvenile detention facility, because I talked quite a bit about the intrinsic good in each person, and for some reason it reminded me of this movie.

2. Blade Runner (1982 movie)



This is one of my favorite sci-fi movies. I still haven't seen the director's cut, which I've heard from some circles is better than the movie that came out in the theater. I think this movie got me interested in more dark sci-fi books and movies, and this movie (directed by Ridley Scott) definitely influenced later favorite sci-fi movies of mine (Minority Report, the Matrix).

1. Battlestar Galactica (the new T.V. series)



It was hard putting Blade Runner at #2, but the new Battlestar Galactica is my favorite T.V. show - beating out Lost and 24, surprisingly. It's well-written, the acting is amazing, and it totally blew out of the water any expectations I had of it when I first watched it last year. I'm almost caught up with this season - unfortunately it's the last season it will be on - but I'm eagerly anticipating the finale, which airs in March.

Edward James Olmos' depiction of Commander Adama is amazing. His ability to see his own flaws, the way he handles difficult decisions, the way he interacts with his crew, including his only son (he had another who died in the Cylon war), it's just perfect acting.

Church Publishes How Cheap Their People Are

I thought this was pretty funny, from the Monday Morning Insight blog.

----

What if your church put this in your weekly bulletin?

"Last Sunday, there were 661 offering envelopes turned into the offering. The denominations were as follows." Then a list showing how many people gave anywhere from the low end ($1) to the high end ($175) showing the actual breakdown is shown.

That's what St. Luke's Church in Queens, NY is doing every week.

According to a report in the NY Post, not everyone in the church likes the idea: "I don't like it," said Pat McGlinckey, 56. "It's like they're hitting below the belt to get us to give more."

"It just left a bad taste in my mouth," said a 20-year churchgoer who didn't want to be named. "What someone gives is their personal business. They shouldn't be made to feel bad that they're on the lower end of the spectrum."

More from The Post article:

Last week there were 661 donations totaling $8,527. One person stuffed an envelope with $175, while 21 parishioners gave only a single buck.

The most popular denomination offered was $5, with 196 donations. In second place were the $10 offerings, at 142.

The church’s pastor, the Rev. Monsignor John Tosi, told The Post the new feature was to ensure financial transparency and not to shame parishioners into bigger offerings.

“The idea was to let them know where our money comes from and where it’s going, which is important,” Tosi said.

“We’re not embarrassing anybody, we’re not judging anybody,” he added. And if the efforts causes a parishioner to reach deeper into his pockets, “That’s not such a bad reaction, is it?”

--------

Saturday, February 21, 2009

The Myth Of A Christian Nation


I've been waiting to check out this book from the library for the past month and a half, but somebody had it checked out and kept renewing it...so when I saw that it was available, even though I'm reading five or six other books right now, I knew I had to get it.

And I'm glad I did. So far Greg Boyd's book has articulated very well my own frustrations with politics and Christianity.

Here are some quotes from the introduction and the first couple of chapters.

- For some evangelicals, the Kingdom of God is centered on "taking America back for God," voting for the Christian candidate, outlawing abortion, outlawing gay marriage, winning the culture war, defending political freedoms at home and abroad, keeping the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, fighting for prayer in the public schools, and fighting to keep the ten commandments in government buildings.

- Instead of providing the culture with a radically alternative way of life, we largely present it with a religious version of what it already is.

- For many in America and around the world, the American flag has smothered the glory of the cross, and the ugliness of our American version of Caesar has squelched the radiant love of Christ.

- The governments of the world seek to establish, protect and advance their ideals and agendas. By contrast, the kingdom Jesus established and modeled doesn't seek to "win" by any criteria the world would use. Rather, it seeks to be faithful.

- While all the versions of the kingdoms of the world acquire and exercise power over others, the kingdom of God advances only by exercising power under others. It expands by manifesting the power of self-sacrificial, Calvary-like love.

- In all of recorded history, only a few decades have seen no major wars - and even during these times of relative peace, much local violence existed. In the twentieth century alone, over 200 million people died as a result of war and political conflict.

- The community of those who submit to Christ's lordship are in a real sense to be Jesus to the world, for through the church Christ himself continues to expand the reign of God in the world.

- God's not primarily about getting people to pray a magical "sinner's prayer" or to confess certain magical truths as a means of escaping hell. He's not about gathering together a group who happen to believe all the right things. Rather, he's about getting together a group of people who embody the kingdom - who individually and corporately manifest the reality of the reign of God on the earth. And he's about growing this new kingdom through his body to take over the world.

- Conservative religious groups involved in the kingdom-of-the-world thinking often believe that their enemies are the liberals, the gay activists, the ACLU, the pro-choice advocates, the evolutionists, and so on. On the opposite side, liberal religious people often think that their enemies are the fundamentalists, the gay bashers, the Christian Coalition, the antiabortionists, and so on. Demonizing one's enemies is part of the tit-for-tat game of Babylon, for only by doing so can we justify our animosity, if not violence, towards them.

- Our battle is not against flesh and blood, whether they are right wing or left wing, gay or straight, pro-choice or pro-life, liberal or conservative, democratic or communist, American or Iraqi. Our battle is against the "cosmic powers" that hold these people, and all people, in bondage.

- A person may win by kingdom-of-the-world standards but lose b the standards that eternally count - the standards of the kingdom of God.

- We can possess all the right kingdom-of-the-world opinions on the planet and stand for all the right kingdom-of-the-world causes, but if we don't look like Jesus Christ carrying his cross to Golgotha - sacrificing our time, energy and resources for others - our rightness is merely religious noise.

- Jesus taught that there will be many who seem to believe right things and do religious deeds in his name, whom he will renounce, for they didn't love him by loving the homeless, the hungry, the poor and the prisoner. However right we may be, without love we are simply displaying a religious version of the world, not the kingdom of God.

Monday, February 16, 2009

Dan Kimball on the Missional/Emergent/Emerging Church

This is actually a two month old article, but I just recently read it and thought it brought up some good points.

In the last few years, my thinking about the church has changed quite a bit. I think that most of this change in thinking has been a reaction to the things I see wrong with an attractional style of church. Ironically, one of the books that really caused me to re-look at what it means to be "successful" as a church is a book by Dan Kimball called The Emerging Church.

However, this article struck a chord with me, because (1) every reaction in our lives is usually an overreaction, and as I started changing my thinking concerning attractional-minded churches and megachurches, I started painting with a large brush and started assuming that every church that uses attractional means to grow must be heading in the wrong direction; and (2) I can think of several churches that are large churches and are attracting people to their churches, people who have been "unchurched" or "dechurched" and who are being discipled rather effectively. You want some examples? Try this one. Or this one. Perhaps this one is a good example as well.

Here's the article.

-----


I hope I am wrong. For the past few years, I have been observing, listening, and asking questions about the missional movement. I have a suspicion that the missional model has not yet proven itself beyond the level of theory. Again, I hope I am wrong.

We all agree with the theory of being a community of God that defines and organizes itself around the purpose of being an agent of God's mission in the world. But the missional conversation often goes a step further by dismissing the "attractional" model of church as ineffective. Some say that creating better programs, preaching, and worship services so people "come to us" isn't going to cut it anymore. But here's my dilemma—I see no evidence to verify this claim.

Not long ago I was on a panel with other church leaders in a large city. One missional advocate in the group stated that younger people in the city will not be drawn to larger, attractional churches dominated by preaching and music. What this leader failed to recognize, however, was that young people were coming to an architecturally cool megachurch in the city—in droves. Its worship services drew thousands with pop/rock music and solid preaching. The church estimates half the young people were not Christians before attending.

Conversely, some from our staff recently visited a self-described missional church. It was 35 people. That alone is not a problem. But the church had been missional for ten years, and it hadn't grown, multiplied, or planted any other churches in a city of several million people. That was a problem.

Another outspoken advocate of the house church model sees it as more missional and congruent with the early church. But his church has the same problem. After fifteen years it hasn't multiplied. It's a wonderful community that serves the homeless, but there's no evidence of non-Christians beginning to follow Jesus. In the same city several megachurches are seeing conversions and disciples matured.

I realize missional evangelism takes a long time, and these churches are often working in difficult soil. We can't expect growth overnight.

But given their unproven track records, these missional churches should be slow to criticize the attractional churches that are making a measurable impact. No, I am not a numbers person. I am not enamored by how many come forward at an altar call. In fact, I am a bit skeptical. But I am passionate about Jesus-centered disciples being made. And surprisingly, I find in many large, attractional churches, they are.

Yes, people are attracted by the music, preaching, or children's programs, but there may be more to these large churches than simply the programming. There are also people being the body of Christ in their communities. When these disciples build relationships with non-Christians, the evidence of the Spirit in their lives is attractive. The existence of programs and buildings does not mean mature disciples are not a significant reason why these churches grow.

There are so many who don't understand the joy of Kingdom living here on earth and the future joy of eternal life. This joy motivates me missionally, but I also cannot forget the horrors of hell. This creates a sense of urgency in me that pushes me past missional theory to see what God is actually doing in churches—large and small, attractional and missional. Where are disciples actually being grown? What is actually working?

I hope there are examples of fruitful missional churches that I haven't encountered yet. I hope my perception based on my interaction with the missional movement is wrong. But for now, I would rather be part of a Christ-centered megachurch full of programs where people are coming to know Jesus as Savior, than part of a church of any size where they are not.

--------

Everything Belongs, Chapter One


I've been reading a lot lately - not a lot else to do - and one of the books I've started to re-read is a book by Richard Rohr called Everything Belongs. I first heard of this book when Zach Lind (of Jimmy Eat World) raved about it on his blog. Rohr is the founder of a spiritual retreat center in Albuquerque, NM (not one of my favorite places - the city, not the retreat center) and speaks at many different conferences and workshops. I consider myself a contemplative type of person, so this book has appealed to me on pretty much all levels.

Here are the quotes I wrote down from Chapter 1:

- We do not think ourselves into new ways of living. We live ourselves into new ways of thinking.

- It seems that we as Christians have been worshiping Jesus' journey instead of doing His journey.

- The gift that true contemplatives offer to themselves and society is that they know themselves as part of a much larger story, a much larger self.

- Yet true contemplatives are paradoxically risk-takers and reformists, precisely because they have no private agendas, jobs or semantics to maintain. Their security and identity are found in God, not in being right, being paid by a church, or looking for promotion in people's eyes.

- God is always bigger than the boxes we build for God, so we should not waste too much time protecting the boxes.

- If you want a litmus test for people who are living out of one's true self, that might be it: they are always free to obey, but they might also disobey the expectations of church and state to obey who-they-are-in-God.

- By contrast, probably the most obvious indication of non-centered ("ec-centric") people is that they are, frankly, very difficult to live with. Every one of their ego- boundaries must be defended, negotiated or worshiped; their reputation, their needs, their nation, their security, their religion, even their ball team. They convince themselves that these boundaries are all that they have to worry about because they are the sum-total of their identity.

- I believe that we have no real access to who we really are except in God.

Monday, February 09, 2009

Love And Sacrfiice

There was a blind girl who hated herself because she was blind. She hated everyone, except her loving boyfriend. He was always there for her. She told her boyfriend, 'If I could only see the world, I will marry you."

One day, someone donated a pair of eyes to her. When the bandages came off, she was able to see everything, including her boyfriend.

He asked her,'Now that you can see the world, will you marry me?' The girl looked at her boyfriend and saw that he was blind. The sight of his closed eyelids shocked her. She hadn't expected that. The thought of looking at them the rest of her life led her to refuse to marry him.

Her boyfriend left in tears and days later wrote a note to her saying: 'Take good care of your eyes, my dear, for before they were yours, they were mine.'

----

it is amazing to me how the human heart acts in some situations. we reject how others treat us based on our faults yet we do the same thing. too many are unwilling to see the compassion, love, grace and care others give to us- for what ever reason - only to find that we reject the same things in others. an expression of love is not found in words, but in actions. to say you love someone is cheap, but acting on your love you open the world- and even the possibility of spending your life with someone who loves you.

open up and experience the world in feelings.


----

(from the ginkworld.net blog)

Thursday, February 05, 2009

The Awe Factor Of God


Not only am I reading a couple of library books, I also - with a Borders gift card I got for Christmas - bought a book I've heard a lot of good things about called Crazy Love. It's by a pastor named Francis Chan, and so far, so good.

In the book, he tells the reader to go to a website and look at a couple of videos that bring home a couple of points he was making. The second video is very good, it's called Stop and Think. But the first video, called "The Awe Factor of God" made my jaw drop.

You can go and view it yourself. Click on this link and click on the video called The Awe Factor Of God. In this video, Chan shows the enormity of our universe. It is truly breathtaking and will hopefully make you stop and worship the enormity of a God who made it.

The Scandal of Evangelical Politics

I picked up this book in the library last week, along with "Jesus Is Not A Republican." Finished that book, and it was...interesting, to say the least.

The Scandal of Evangelical Politics is written by Ron Sider, who also wrote one of my favorite books, called Rich Christians In An Age Of Hunger. This book was one of the beginning points to my interest in fighting human trafficking.

Anyway, I have only read the first chapter of Sider's book, but I thought that this part of the book was very interesting.

Evangelical pronouncements on the role of government are often contradictory. Sometimes when attacking government measures they dislike, evangelical voices use libertarian arguments that forbid almost all government programs to help the poor. ("Helping the poor is a task for individuals and churches, not the government. Government should provide a legal framework, fair courts, and police protection but then leave almost everything else to the free choice of individuals.") But when the issue changes from the poor to the family, the definition of marriage, abortion, or pornography, the same people quickly abandon libertarian arguments that maximize individual freedom. Instead they push vigorously for legislation that involves substantial government restriction of individual choices. It is possible that there are valid intellectual arguments for adopting libertarian arguments in the first case and nonlibertarian in the second. But a careful argument would have to be made. Without such argument, flipping from libertarian to nonlibertarian arguments looks confused and superficial.

Interesting. But then he goes on in the next paragraph, which I find even more interesting:

Or consider the agenda of many Christian political movements. One sees a great deal on abortion, euthanasia and the family. But hardly ever do they push for public policy to combat racism, protect the creation, or empower the poor. If it is the case that the Bible says that God cares both about the family and the poor, both about sanctity of human life and racial justice and creation, then should not evangelical political movements be promoting all these things? Does not a one-sided focus on just the issues that happen to be the favored ones of either the left or the right suggest that one's political agenda is shaped more by secular ideology than careful biblical, theological reflection?

It is because of this extreme narrow focus on political and social issues that makes me (and a bunch of other Christians) wary (and weary) of the evangelical political movement. After the scandal with Ted Haggard, there was another pastor who was chosen to be the head of the National Evangelical Association (of which Haggard was the president before) but decided to not be involved in the association after he tried unsuccessfully to get the NEA to look beyond just abortion and homosexuality as political issues and focus more on others, such as poverty. (Interestingly, this pastor writes one of the recommendations on the back of Sider's book.)

I have mentioned several times in my blog that I'm not a real political person. Part of it has to do with political ideologies being shoved in my face in college; part of it is due to my frustration with the American political system. Another part of me feels that the early Church was pretty much unconcerned about the political system of their day; their business was about the Kingdom of God, not the kingdom of the Roman Empire - so why should today be different? However, if there was a group of like-minded Christians who want to see the evangelical political platform expand to a more fully biblical approach and had the ability to make it happen, I would probably jump on board with both feet.

Tuesday, February 03, 2009

Millard Fuller.


Millard Fuller, the millionaire entrepreneur who gave it all away to help found the Christian house-building charity Habitat for Humanity, died Tuesday. He was 74.

Fuller died about 3 a.m. after being taken to a hospital emergency room, his wife, Linda, said. The cause of death was not immediately known.

Linda Fuller, in a telephone interview from the couple's home in Americus, said her husband was complaining of chest pains, headache and difficulty swallowing.

They planned to celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary in August with a 100-house "blitz build" across the globe, she said.

"We'll probably go ahead with the 'blitz build.' Millard would not want people to mourn his death," she said. "He would be more interested in having people put on a tool belt and build a house for people in need."

One of Habitat's highest-profile volunteers, former President Jimmy Carter, called Fuller "one of the most extraordinary people I have ever known.

"He used his remarkable gifts as an entrepreneur for the benefit of millions of needy people around the world by providing them with decent housing," Carter said in a statement. "As the founder of Habitat for Humanity and later the Fuller Center, he was an inspiration to me, other members of our family and an untold number of volunteers who worked side-by-side under his leadership."

Fuller ran Habitat for Humanity with his wife for nearly three decades but lost control of the charity in a conflict with its board. When ousted in January 2005, he and his wife started The Fuller Center for Housing to raise money for Habitat affiliates.

The ouster and a subsequent relocation of the nonprofit to Atlanta "cut the heart out of Habitat," co-founder of the Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery, Ala., and longtime friend Morris Dees told The Associated Press Tuesday.

"Like many nonprofits, though, they tend to grow beyond the founder and lose a lot of the original zeal and passion that caused it to be created in the first place," Dees said.

The son of a widower farmer in the cotton-mill town of Lanett, Ala., Fuller earned his first profit at age 6, selling a pig. While studying law at the University of Alabama, he formed a direct-marketing company with Dees focusing on selling cookbooks and candy to high school chapters of the Future Homemakers of America. That business made them millionaires before they were 30.

When Fuller's capitalist drive threatened to kill his marriage, Fuller and his wife, who wed in college, decided to sell everything and devote themselves to the Christian values they grew up with.

"I gave away about $1 million," Fuller said in a 2004 interview with The Associated Press. "I wasn't a multimillionaire; I was a poor millionaire."

The couple's search for a mission led them to Koinonia, an interracial agricultural collective outside Americus. There, with Koinonia founder Clarence Jordan, the Fullers developed the concept of building no-interest housing for the poor — an idea that eventually grew into Habitat for Humanity.

Founded in 1976, Habitat's first headquarters was a tiny gray frame house in Americus, which doubled as Fuller's law office. For the first 14 years, Fuller's salary was just $15,000; his wife worked 10 years for free.

Habitat grew to a worldwide network that has built more than 300,000 houses, providing shelter to more than 1.5 million people. Preaching the "theology of the hammer," Fuller built an army of volunteers that included former U.S. presidents, other world leaders and Hollywood celebrities.

People receiving homes from the charity are required to work on their own houses, investing what the Fullers called "sweat equity."

Fuller's works won him numerous accolades, including a 1996 Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor. For nearly three decades, he was the public face of Habitat, traveling the world to hammer nails and press bricks from local clay alongside some of the Earth's poorest.

Jeff Snider, executive vice president of Habitat during the early '90s, recalled Fuller as a man driven by his commitment to the destitute. Once, Snider said he suggested setting aside some of the money Fuller raised.

"He had one and only one response, which was, 'The poor, Jeff, need the money now,'" he said. "So we ran the place full tilt, on the edge all the time, and it was stressful — but he was right."

A scandal that had smoldered for years flared anew in 2004 to sully Fuller's legacy.

Habitat's international board moved to oust Fuller from his position of chief executive officer after allegations surfaced that he had sexually harassed a female staff member in 2003. The move came despite the board's conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the charge.

However, the allegations of inappropriate behavior mirrored complaints in 1990 from female staffers and volunteers that led to Fuller's yearlong exile from the organization's headquarters.

Fuller acknowledged he had kissed and hugged the women who made the 1990 complaints, but argued they had misinterpreted his actions. But he categorically denied the later charge, telling the AP in 2004 that "there's not even the tiniest element of truth in it."

President Carter intervened in both instances to prevent the board from ousting Fuller.

In 2004, Fuller reached a compromise allowing him to stay on in the largely ceremonial role of "founder and president." However, the Fullers backed out of an agreement not to discuss the situation publicly. The board voted in 2005 to oust the Fullers.

Months later, the Fullers and their supporters formed The Fuller Center for Housing, a fundraising group for charitable home-building efforts.

Fuller attributed his ouster to disagreements with the board over whether to slow the charity's growth. He argued Habitat was becoming more bureaucracy than mission.

Throughout the scandal, Fuller insisted that he did not want to do anything that would compromise Habitat's mission.

"I've always felt that this is God's work," he said. "And it's always been bigger than me, from day one."

Fuller is survived by his wife and four children. Funeral arrangements are pending.

Top Five...Villains

Okay, so I'm introducing a new idea to my blog. Well, not really. I think I've done top 5 or top 10 stuff before. But this time, there's a twist. I'm going to list some things that aren't really worth listing. Because if you want a real list - you know, top 10 albums of 2002 or the top 5 best dresses worn at the Golden Globes or whatever - you can always Google (or GoodSearch, see my other blog for those details) them.

So, today I present my Top Five Villains.

For this list, I eschewed the usual villains mentioned in other lists (Hannibal Lecter, Darth Vader, James Bond villains, George W. Bush, etc.) and went for my own personal list. I chose these villains because of their relentless villainy during the movies they were in. Always plotting, always scheming, always bad. So here we go.

5. Chozen (played by Yuji Okumoto) in The Karate Kid Part II



I could have possibly gone with Johnny from the first Karate Kid. But I actually met the actor when I was in college, and he is a Christian and a really nice guy despite his bullying Daniel LaRusso and all. Chozen throughout this entire movie bullies, harasses and torments Daniel, all the while whining about his "disgraced honor." Destroying gardens, forcing Daniel to chop through blocks of ice, and then of course at the end where he threatens to kill Kumiko unless Daniel fights him to the death - true villainy there.

4. Warden Drumgoole (played by Donald Sutherland) in Lock Up



Kind of ironic that two movies on my list are '80's movies - if you saw my 25 random things about me on my Facebook, I kind of ripped the '80's and all - but I guess there were some pretty good movies back then. One of them was this prison movie starring Sylvester Stallone and a sadistic prison warden named Drumgoole (even the name sounds villian-ish) who wants to get revenge against Stallone for something - can't quite remember, perhaps he broke out of prison before or something? - and makes his life a living hades.

In the movie, we see the warden try to break Stallone's spirit in many different ways: hiring prison thugs to hurt him, killing a couple of Stallone's prison friends, and finally going after Stallone's wife and child. All this so that Stallone will get mad and break out of prison so that Donald Sutherland can lock him up for good, I guess? Pretty twisted.

3. Colonel William Tavington (as played by Jason Isaacs) in The Patriot



Jason Isaac's character in this movie was supposedly a real person, however it came out that Col. Tavington was not as bad as this movie portrayed him to be, which is a good thing - because if he was, we would have probably tried to wipe England off the map, not just kick them out of our country.

In The Patriot, Jason Isaacs is a cruel military leader who wants to wipe out the American rebels any way he can. He ultimately ends up killing two of Mel Gibson's sons and causing all kinds of havoc in his life. After this movie, every time I saw Jason Isaacs in another movie, I just wanted him to die. Event Horizon, even though he plays a good guy? Check. (I do have to say, Isaacs has this villain thing down pretty good. Lucius Malfoy from Harry Potter, anyone?)

2. Fernand Mondago (as played by Guy Pearce) in The Count of Monte Cristo



I love Guy Pearce as an actor. My favorite movie is Memento, which stars Pearce. I think he has incredible range and does a good job of picking the right movies to act in (Memento, L.A. Confidential, The Proposition, Count of Monte Cristo, Ravenous - well, okay maybe not the last one).

His portrayal of the villain Mondago in the movie version of the classic Victor Hugo book is spot on. Betraying his best friend, marrying his best friend's girl, raising his best friend's son as his own, (to his credit, he doesn't know that his son is not his son), squandering all his money away through frivolous things, and then after finding out his best friend is alive again and being given a chance of redemption - he again tries to betray and kill his best friend. By the way, if you haven't seen this movie - and I apologize for giving away most of the story - you need to see it. Great performances by Pearce and by Jim Caviezel.

1. Archibald Cunningham (as played by Tim Roth) in Rob Roy



Slimy. Slimy. And more slimy. If you haven't seen Rob Roy, you've missed out on one of the best villain performances by a great actor (it came out the same year as Braveheart, and since sometimes in cinema viewer's minds, there can only be one movie a year on the same kind of subject; in this case Scotland's fight for independence from England, many people missed this good movie). Roth's Cunningham is a twisted, sick individual who through his own scheming ends up causing lots of problems for Robert Roy MacGregor (played by Liam Neeson). With his powder, wig and effeminate mannerisms, Cunningham looks kind of like a pansy - but once he starts swordfighting, you realize just how mad this man is.

There is a very difficult scene in this movie that involves Cunningham and Rob Roy's wife - I couldn't watch it - but it just adds to the reasons why Archibald Cunningham is my number one villain, which makes his comeuppance at the end of the movie that much sweeter.

---

So, there you go. Agree? Disagree? Want to add to my list? By all means, comment!

Ed Young on the Colbert Report

In case you missed it, last week Ed Young - who is the senior pastor of Fellowship Church, a megachurch in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area (actually in Grapevine) - was interviewed by Stephen Colbert on his show because of a series that the church recently did on sex. Pretty funny stuff, but if you are easily offended, don't watch it! (It's not that bad.)