When guys talk for long hours, it is usually about 2 main things (well in reality it's 3), it's either something very serious and academic (like theological arguments about free-will vs predestination, how to live life, etc) or things that we treasure from our childhood. For example, after a CCF night there were 2 guys and me who stayed in the room until 11pm talking about Dragon Ball Z. We were talking about the correct order of the succession of events in the Majin Boo arc (like in what order were the good guys eaten by Boo). It was fun times!
I remember once I also had a debate with a friend regarding Pokemon game. We were debating about what psychic attack was the most powerful, between "Psybeam" and "Psychic". I thought it was "Psybeam", but I was wrong. Just recently, 2 housemates and I were in living room area and started to talk for more than an hour about Pokemon game, and debating which Pokemons and which types of Pokemon were the strongest, and which moves were the coolest. And we realized that we are missing something important. Basically we have another housemate (who was already asleep by then), and he knows about Pokemon. Like he is like a walking encyclopedia about the subject. We know that this housemate is the "authoritative" voice to resolve any disagreement. The next day we talked to him, and the sheer of information he knows about the subject is actually quite scary...
So it is really important to have an authoritative voice in the way we live, and we find it in the Bible. With the help of the Holy Spirit, we are able to understand that the Scripture is a treasure for a believer because God reveals Himself to us through the Word, and we can learn more about Him, about the great mercies of God despite our sinful nature, we can learn about what a holy life looks like, we can learn wisdom in how to handle situations. It is so good!
Many times, when we go to a church and listen to the preacher, it is easy just to absorb everything and take it for granted that what he is speaking is absolutely truth. Also, the ways the church do things we think it is always correct. I think we have to always validate these things with the Bible. (I am not discrediting the preachers or the church, but it is a safeguard for each of us because we humans can easily made mistakes).
I was watching a clip with my housemate about "Francis Schaeffer" titled "How should we then live" and it gave a historical overview of how the church evolved from the early church up to the middle ages. During the early church times, the service was focused on speaking about he truth of the Scripture, mainly Christ. But as times went by, other things gain authority in the church other than the Bible like the things that the priest will say (like the Pope) and traditions. These became sources of truth (regarding how to live and even about salvation) and corrupted the church until the Reformation. And one of the main points of the Reformation is "Sola Scriptura" which states that the Bible is the supreme authority for a believer regarding the aspects of salvation and holiness.
So whenever we discuss about various topics or make decisions about life, let's always refer to the Scripture.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Monday, October 15, 2012
Warren speaking about influence
From the Resurgence Conference recap (http://theresurgence.com/2012/10/09/day-1-at-r12-a-recap), Rick Warren spoke about influence, and I like the main points from the recap because it resonates from what I have learned in the past years about leadership from a Christian context. These are his main points and I added my comments regarding each of them:
“The purpose of influence is to speak up for those who don’t have influence.”
“The pathway to influence is service.”
“Forgiveness is instant. Trust is earned over time.”
“The price of influence is criticism.”
“The leader’s role is to help others use their influence wisely.”
“The purpose of influence is to speak up for those who don’t have influence.”
- Leadership is about doing something for the people you're leading (Nehemiah 5)
- It is not about over-lording them, but to serve them
“The pathway to influence is service.”
- Jesus, the Lord we follow showed us that to lead is to serve (Matthew 20:26)
- To impact others, it not just about words, but also deeds of love (1 John 3:18)
“Forgiveness is instant. Trust is earned over time.”
- Leaders are humans and will make mistake, so need to be repentant and transparent about our shortcomings
- To earn trust from others, leaders need show a character of integrity and proven track of record from past experiences
“The price of influence is criticism.”
- Never can get approval from everyone, even Jesus was not approved by His own people (Luke 15:1-2)
- There is a cost of leading, besides time and energy spent, there will be people who will oppose (Nehemiah 4)
“The leader’s role is to help others use their influence wisely.”
- Leading is not about doing everything yourself, so that you end up all exhausted (Exodus 18)
- Leading is also about developing new leaders (John 21:15-19)
Friday, October 12, 2012
who do you think you are
This is a very common line from one of the greatest anime Gurren Lagaan, and it is an expression (like an outcry) of challenge and courage when fighting against enemies. One of the premise of this anime show is to overcome fear and find courage to confront our enemies, hence I consider it as the most manliness show I have seen. And I say this phrase quite often when young people are jokingly "disrespecting" the older people haha.
So my housemate jokingly recommended me this book from Mark Driscoll: http://store.theresurgence.com/products/who-do-you-think-you-are
I haven't bought it yet, but I am thinking about it (well I have this self-imposing rule that I cannot buy any more books until I finish reading a good number of the books I have). But the question "who do you think you are" is really a good question for each of us to ask ourselves.
I don't intend to target this question in its full entirety, but I want to emphasize an aspect of it that has affected me (I believe that it is a common syndrome among Chinese Christians from a conservative background).
I am Chinese, and became Christian around the age of 16, and I attended a Chinese Christian church which was fairly conservative. So I think the mix of my culture and the church environment influenced me in valuing hard work (in both serving and studying). This is actually a very good thing. But there is also a dangerous side about it because I valued myself based on the things I do (my works), and on how well I performed. My view of God was more of a supreme commander that I am serving for (like 2 Timothy 2:4), but did not understand how I can view Him as a heavenly Father.
Hence, during many times the motivation for me to serve was based solely on duty, and not so much based on the compulsion of His fatherly love towards me. Just to clarify, duty is needed (Like 17), and it is helpful to develop discipline, but the presence of a willing and loving response because of God's love is also necessarily. In some ways, I think I was trying to earn God's love through my dutiful service. This is kinda parallel with a good child trying to earn his parent's love and approval through school and life achievements. It does not seem a bad thing at first sight, but the issue of identity is at stake here.
A brother of mine told me these words "Your good work will not make God love you more, and your flaws will not make God love you less" which really spoke to me. I started to realize more of our identity in Christ, that our value is not based on how good we are, but that God has loved us so much (John 3:16, 1 John 3:16) that He has gave His only Son to die for our sins. It is by grace that we have been saved not by our works (Ephesians 2:8-9). Hence, we are dearly loved children of God (1 John 3:1) and we can be reassured by the Holy Spirit that there is not anything that will separate us from this love that is in Christ (Romans 8:31-39). This is all because God is so good, so glory and praise be unto His name!
So whenever we feel stressed, insecure, disappointed, angry, etc... ask yourself "who do you think you are?" The Almighty Creator, King of kings, Lord of lords, the Maker of heaven and earth loves you despite our faults, dear child of God.
So my housemate jokingly recommended me this book from Mark Driscoll: http://store.theresurgence.com/products/who-do-you-think-you-are
I haven't bought it yet, but I am thinking about it (well I have this self-imposing rule that I cannot buy any more books until I finish reading a good number of the books I have). But the question "who do you think you are" is really a good question for each of us to ask ourselves.
I don't intend to target this question in its full entirety, but I want to emphasize an aspect of it that has affected me (I believe that it is a common syndrome among Chinese Christians from a conservative background).
I am Chinese, and became Christian around the age of 16, and I attended a Chinese Christian church which was fairly conservative. So I think the mix of my culture and the church environment influenced me in valuing hard work (in both serving and studying). This is actually a very good thing. But there is also a dangerous side about it because I valued myself based on the things I do (my works), and on how well I performed. My view of God was more of a supreme commander that I am serving for (like 2 Timothy 2:4), but did not understand how I can view Him as a heavenly Father.
Hence, during many times the motivation for me to serve was based solely on duty, and not so much based on the compulsion of His fatherly love towards me. Just to clarify, duty is needed (Like 17), and it is helpful to develop discipline, but the presence of a willing and loving response because of God's love is also necessarily. In some ways, I think I was trying to earn God's love through my dutiful service. This is kinda parallel with a good child trying to earn his parent's love and approval through school and life achievements. It does not seem a bad thing at first sight, but the issue of identity is at stake here.
A brother of mine told me these words "Your good work will not make God love you more, and your flaws will not make God love you less" which really spoke to me. I started to realize more of our identity in Christ, that our value is not based on how good we are, but that God has loved us so much (John 3:16, 1 John 3:16) that He has gave His only Son to die for our sins. It is by grace that we have been saved not by our works (Ephesians 2:8-9). Hence, we are dearly loved children of God (1 John 3:1) and we can be reassured by the Holy Spirit that there is not anything that will separate us from this love that is in Christ (Romans 8:31-39). This is all because God is so good, so glory and praise be unto His name!
So whenever we feel stressed, insecure, disappointed, angry, etc... ask yourself "who do you think you are?" The Almighty Creator, King of kings, Lord of lords, the Maker of heaven and earth loves you despite our faults, dear child of God.
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Resistant to change
Many people know that I am like a dinosaur (as on old and obsolete) in technology, and do not yet use a smartphone. I recognize the many advantages and cool stuff you can do with smartphones, bu on my current lifestyle I really don't see a need for one.
Just for fun, I have listed all the cellphones I have owned, and they are all Nokia:
1. Nokia 6110
2. Nokia 8250
3. Nokia 8210
3a. Nokia 1208
I was thinking I could write a post about loyalty, but I decided to write about being resistant to change. In many ways we tend to be naturally resistant to change because it is nice to deal with what is familiar or with what is comfortable. Like living int he same apartment for the last two years have been quite nice because I am very used to the place it has become familiar enough as a "home".
On the other hand, there is also a sense of close-mindedness and pride that could impede someone from changing how he/she does things. For example, part of the reason why I don't have a smartphone could be attributed to some pride in me in wanting to rebel against the common trend as well my close-mindedness to see the smartphone has a beneficial tool. To extend the example, I came from a fairly conservative Chinese church and remembered vividly how my pastors were quite resistant when one of our worship members wanted to introduce some contemporary Christian songs into fellowship and worship service.
On my early experience serving at CCF, many of the ministries (cell groups, evangelistical meetings, committee) and methodologies to do ministry were done without much questioning (as in we do this because this is what has been done in the past until now). So a lot of these ministries become more driven by tradition rather than a vision from God.
One of the common examples is Lifesong (which is a huge drama production evangelistical meeting), which had much success in the early 2000s. But at the time when I was serving in CCF committee, it had become like "a thing" that we do every term, and people has forgotten the real reason of this event which is to evangelize our circle of friends. And when the committee (which I was part of) decided to stop having Lifesong every term, there were definitely some voices against this idea. I am not justifying that this was the correct decision (only Gold can tell), but I am voicing out that we need to open-minded in terms of ministry methodologies and re-evaluate the reasons why these ministries exist.
Sometimes change is necessarily in order to be more effective in the Kingdom work. One example is the use of the Internet to promote Christian doctrines (through online sermons, pastor's blogs, twitters, etc).
When Jesus was ministering on earth, He was doing something revolutionary which was not done before. Most religious people at that time took pride on their biblical knowledge, but looked down upon the sinners, tax collectors, prostitutes, basically people outside their religious circle. But Jesus intentionally invested time on them, setting a model of evangelism that caused much anger towards the Pharisees who were resistant to accept this change.
Just for fun, I have listed all the cellphones I have owned, and they are all Nokia:
1. Nokia 6110
- Specs: link here
- Period of use: ~2000-01
- Reason to terminate: dropped it in the toilet
- Pros: first time exposed to snake game
- Cons: not water resistant
2. Nokia 8250
- Specs: link here
- Period of use: 2001-2004
- Reason to terminate: moved to Canada (it is still working!)
- Pros: blue light is so cool, specially at night, and it is small and light
- Cons: trouble with the screen (dead pixels)
3. Nokia 8210
- Specs: link here
- Period of use: 2005-2010 (second hand from my cousin)
- Reason to terminate: I got a job
- Pros: indestructible
- Cons: cannot send text messages to more than one recipient
3a. Nokia 1208
- Specs: link here
- Period of use: 2008 Winter work term at US
- Reason to terminate: gave it to my brother
- Pros: cheap ($19 on Prepaid)
- Cons: a bit too thick
4. Nokia 5310
- Specs: link here
- Period of use: 2010-present
- Reason to terminate: N/A
- Pros: color screen!
- Cons: takes time to load contacts after reboot
I was thinking I could write a post about loyalty, but I decided to write about being resistant to change. In many ways we tend to be naturally resistant to change because it is nice to deal with what is familiar or with what is comfortable. Like living int he same apartment for the last two years have been quite nice because I am very used to the place it has become familiar enough as a "home".
On the other hand, there is also a sense of close-mindedness and pride that could impede someone from changing how he/she does things. For example, part of the reason why I don't have a smartphone could be attributed to some pride in me in wanting to rebel against the common trend as well my close-mindedness to see the smartphone has a beneficial tool. To extend the example, I came from a fairly conservative Chinese church and remembered vividly how my pastors were quite resistant when one of our worship members wanted to introduce some contemporary Christian songs into fellowship and worship service.
On my early experience serving at CCF, many of the ministries (cell groups, evangelistical meetings, committee) and methodologies to do ministry were done without much questioning (as in we do this because this is what has been done in the past until now). So a lot of these ministries become more driven by tradition rather than a vision from God.
One of the common examples is Lifesong (which is a huge drama production evangelistical meeting), which had much success in the early 2000s. But at the time when I was serving in CCF committee, it had become like "a thing" that we do every term, and people has forgotten the real reason of this event which is to evangelize our circle of friends. And when the committee (which I was part of) decided to stop having Lifesong every term, there were definitely some voices against this idea. I am not justifying that this was the correct decision (only Gold can tell), but I am voicing out that we need to open-minded in terms of ministry methodologies and re-evaluate the reasons why these ministries exist.
Sometimes change is necessarily in order to be more effective in the Kingdom work. One example is the use of the Internet to promote Christian doctrines (through online sermons, pastor's blogs, twitters, etc).
When Jesus was ministering on earth, He was doing something revolutionary which was not done before. Most religious people at that time took pride on their biblical knowledge, but looked down upon the sinners, tax collectors, prostitutes, basically people outside their religious circle. But Jesus intentionally invested time on them, setting a model of evangelism that caused much anger towards the Pharisees who were resistant to accept this change.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
the winner takes it all
This is the title of a very famous song from ABBA, but it had a rather sad context. But I am not really writing about that. I want to share a bit more about my observation from the exciting summer Olympics.
One thing that I notice is that some sports are judged based on points given by a panel of judges. It's not like soccer, swimming, hockey or 100m run where you kinda know who is winning. In sports like Diving and Gymnastics, how much points given to the athlete is really up to the judges and most of the time we have little idea of point system. So it gets really exciting on the very last round to wait for the judges to give the amount of points given on that last routine, which can determine who wins the competition. Sometimes it is expected, sometimes it is a surprise. Someone will burst out of joy, the other one in tears.
These are some examples:
Viktoria Komova:
This Russian girl was one of the favorites to get the gold medal for all-round women in Gymnastics (especially since the world champion Jordyn Wieber did not qualify to the last round). But she was barely by 0.259 points (see results) by Gabrielle Douglas from the United Stats (who became the first women from African descent to win gold on Gymnastics). That is such a small difference, and I remember seeing Gabrielle doing her last routine on the floor exercise (which was pretty good), and Viktoria was staring at the results screen to wait and see how much the judges will give to Gabrielle. When Viktoria saw that Gabrielle got just enough points to surpass her, she started crying on the shoulders of her coach. I really felt bad for her, and this set a tone for the rest of the Olympics for her as she was not able to gain any other individual medal.
Tania Cagnotto
She is an Italian diver (3m springboard) participating on her 4th Olympics. I didn't really know her at start since my attention was on the Chinese divers that are really beast. But she was performing quite well, and I had the sensation that she would get bronze (yeah, the gold and silver were pretty much for the Chinese girls).
Qin Kai
One of the Chinese male diver who was a favorite for the 3m springboard. The Chinese divers started a bit weak in comparison to the Russian Zakharov. But near the end, Qin Kai and Zakharov were fighting head to head for the gold. Qin had finished his last dive, and was leading and just waiting for Zakharov to not sure more than 90.30. But the Russian guy did a spectacular dive of 100+ points, and Qin was left crying in the little pool (see results).
Anyways, getting a silver medal is usually not that joyful. Our company just had a soccer tournament, and I was playing for the QA (Quality Assurance) team, and we played the final against HR (Human Resources). The game was tough and we tied 1-1, and in penal shootouts we lost =(, and it was kinda sad. I guess the fact that our team is so much younger, and that they have a couple of girls, make it even more sad.
But the fact that athlete cannot leave any margin for error when competing for a gold. Any mis-step will lead to losing, and for these two sports it is really up to the judges to decide. Imagine how tough it will be if our salvation depends on our performance, and that a little margin of error will exclude us from eternity with God. That will be so scary. It is up to us, then we will probably fail. But we have a gracious God who is full of mercy and has given us access to Him through Jesus Christ. Our failures do have a cost, the life of our Lord Jesus Christ. Once you're in Christ, you're part of the winning team.
On a separate note, there is this article that compares the focus of an Olympic athlete with how to live out our faith: http://theresurgence.com/2012/09/01/8-olympic-observations-on-training-and-faith
One thing that I notice is that some sports are judged based on points given by a panel of judges. It's not like soccer, swimming, hockey or 100m run where you kinda know who is winning. In sports like Diving and Gymnastics, how much points given to the athlete is really up to the judges and most of the time we have little idea of point system. So it gets really exciting on the very last round to wait for the judges to give the amount of points given on that last routine, which can determine who wins the competition. Sometimes it is expected, sometimes it is a surprise. Someone will burst out of joy, the other one in tears.
These are some examples:
Viktoria Komova:
This Russian girl was one of the favorites to get the gold medal for all-round women in Gymnastics (especially since the world champion Jordyn Wieber did not qualify to the last round). But she was barely by 0.259 points (see results) by Gabrielle Douglas from the United Stats (who became the first women from African descent to win gold on Gymnastics). That is such a small difference, and I remember seeing Gabrielle doing her last routine on the floor exercise (which was pretty good), and Viktoria was staring at the results screen to wait and see how much the judges will give to Gabrielle. When Viktoria saw that Gabrielle got just enough points to surpass her, she started crying on the shoulders of her coach. I really felt bad for her, and this set a tone for the rest of the Olympics for her as she was not able to gain any other individual medal.
Tania Cagnotto
She is an Italian diver (3m springboard) participating on her 4th Olympics. I didn't really know her at start since my attention was on the Chinese divers that are really beast. But she was performing quite well, and I had the sensation that she would get bronze (yeah, the gold and silver were pretty much for the Chinese girls).
On the very last dive, Tania needed a 76.80 to get the bronze, but unfortunately the judges only gave her 76.50 (see results) so she was not able to get her first medal and resigned to cry on her coach's shoulders.
Qin Kai
One of the Chinese male diver who was a favorite for the 3m springboard. The Chinese divers started a bit weak in comparison to the Russian Zakharov. But near the end, Qin Kai and Zakharov were fighting head to head for the gold. Qin had finished his last dive, and was leading and just waiting for Zakharov to not sure more than 90.30. But the Russian guy did a spectacular dive of 100+ points, and Qin was left crying in the little pool (see results).
Anyways, getting a silver medal is usually not that joyful. Our company just had a soccer tournament, and I was playing for the QA (Quality Assurance) team, and we played the final against HR (Human Resources). The game was tough and we tied 1-1, and in penal shootouts we lost =(, and it was kinda sad. I guess the fact that our team is so much younger, and that they have a couple of girls, make it even more sad.
But the fact that athlete cannot leave any margin for error when competing for a gold. Any mis-step will lead to losing, and for these two sports it is really up to the judges to decide. Imagine how tough it will be if our salvation depends on our performance, and that a little margin of error will exclude us from eternity with God. That will be so scary. It is up to us, then we will probably fail. But we have a gracious God who is full of mercy and has given us access to Him through Jesus Christ. Our failures do have a cost, the life of our Lord Jesus Christ. Once you're in Christ, you're part of the winning team.
On a separate note, there is this article that compares the focus of an Olympic athlete with how to live out our faith: http://theresurgence.com/2012/09/01/8-olympic-observations-on-training-and-faith
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Ownageness of the Dark Knight
** warning: there will be spoilers about "The Dark Knight Rises" movie in this post **
This summer I was really excited for the last Batman movie. I actually didn't watch the first two movies in theaters because I was in school so I was totally outside of the movies world, but got to watch them on DVD a few years after they were released. What got me excited was to watch the trailer for the "The Dark Knight Rises" earlier this year (I was probably watching the Avengers haha) because I really like to watch the conclusion of a story.
So two weeks before the "The Dark Knight Rises" was released, I re-watched "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight" to refresh myself of the overall story line. It was actually quite an enjoyable exercise!
On the Saturday (one day after the release date), I went to watch last movie with a group of 18 people and I reserved the seats through the Empire Plus (cost $2 more but I don't have to go for lineup). And after watching it, I started to think more about the movie, and as I thought about it more, I realized how good it is, to the point that I wanted to re-watched it (which I did). I think this trilogy of Batman can become one of the best movie trilogies of all times.
I want to take this opportunity to express my thoughts regarding the "The Dark Knight Rises" and why I think its' so great.
Weak points
First, I will start with the weak points. I heard of criticism towards this movie, and I agreed with most of them. For sure this is not a perfect movie, but I think these weak points do not overshadow the greatness of the movie. Here are the two main weak areas:
Plot
Comparing to "The Dark Knight", the "The Dark Knight Rises" is slower in pace, and it feels less intense. I guess "The Dark Knight" did set up a very high standard (94% on rottentomatoes) and it is considered one of the best superhero movie ever, often described as an art masterpiece in the form of superhero film. There is not a single boring moment, hard to predict plot, and psychologically very engaging. One has to realize that "The Dark Knight Rises" is a different type of movie. First of all, the main villain is quite different. Having the Joker definitely spices up the movie to be action-packed, unpredictable, chaotic, and mentally really engaging. "The Dark Knight" focuses more on the battle between good and evil, whereas "The Dark Knight Rises" focuses more on the resurgence of the Batman as the symbol of hope for Gotham, hence there is less action and more stuff about Bruce Wayne's internal battles, and in how he gets owned but gets back up again.
Theme
The overall theme of the trilogy is the battle of good and evil. "Batman Begins" focuses on revenge, and "The Dark Knight" touches upon the corruption and promptness of evil in men. "The Dark Knight Rises" talks about rising up after failure, not giving up after defeat but coming back even stronger to own your enemies. Something that is encouraging since we will face many failures in life.
Character development
"Batman Begins" is cool because we get to see Bruce Wayne getting trained as a ninja and growing from an angry and directionless adolescent to a man who is committed to fight crime. In "The Dark Knight" he is consolidated as Gotham's superhero but finds the possibility of retiring and letting Harvey Dent be the Knight of Gotham, and pursue a personal life with Rachel. Even though we think the Joker lost the battle in "The Dark Knight", it was actually a total lost for Batman, his love interest (Rachel) died, the guy who he thought would represent the good side of Gotham turned into a bad guy (Harvey Two-Faces), and the symbol of hope that Batman represented now turned into the embodiment of evil (for killing Harvey) so that Gotham will not resigned in its fight against evil.
So "The Dark Knight Rises" focuses on the resurgence of the superhero who had given up pursuing a personal life and is content with letting the name of Batman embodied hatred from the people of Gotham, and is slowly rotting as a human being. But he gets back in the battle, but shortly is badly defeated by Bane to the point of almost death. But his life is spared only so that he can experience the desperation of seeing Gotham getting destroyed. And it is in the hole when we see Bruce Wayne battling his desperation and fear to climb the pit to save his city. He was not able to climb it in the first couple of times because he didn't really fear death so the fear of losing his city was not at its highest peak. It's until he gets rid of the rope and knowing that is all-or-nothing so he was afraid of dying (because dying means losing Gotham) then he was able to rise and rise.
The introduction of Catwoman was genius. Her character does complement Batman very well, and her existence sheds some light for Bruce Wayne.
Legacy
At "Batman Begins", Bruce Wayne wanted Batman to be the symbol of hope for Gotham in the fight against organized crime. It was to give courage to every citizen to stand firm in this battle. By the end of "The Dark Knight", this symbol of hope became the embodiment of hatred (since Joker turned Harvey into a bad guy, so Batman had to falsely become the responsible for killing Harvey in order to not cause people from Gotham to lose hope). This was an act of sacrifice he made for Gotham's sake, and it is very honorable but at the same time does not result in a long lasting solution.
But in "The Dark Knight Rises" after he comes back from the hole, he leads the counterattack to save Gotham, and he saves the city from the nuclear explosion by sacrificing himself. The difference from the previous movie is that he sacrificed himself ensuring that his legacy of hope in fighting against rime will be carried on by the people of Gotham (especially Robin). This is key because Batman was not meant to be there forever but was intended to encourage the city as a whole in this battle against evil. This was accomplished in "The Dark Knight Rises".
There was an interesting dialogue between Catwoman and Batman right before they were about to embark in battle, Catwoman tries to convince Batman to leave with her before the city gets destroyed since Batman has already given everything to Gotham, but Batman replies, "not yet, not everything". Perhaps leaving this legacy was what he had not done yet.
Overall, "The Dark Knight Rises" resolves the problems that Bruce Wayne inherited from "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight" by establishing Batman as a lasting symbol of hope for Gotham, giving his best on his service to Gotham (to follow his father's shoes) and developing a life for his own (maybe with Catwoman). I really enjoyed how this ended, definitely a very ownage trilogy and ending.
This summer I was really excited for the last Batman movie. I actually didn't watch the first two movies in theaters because I was in school so I was totally outside of the movies world, but got to watch them on DVD a few years after they were released. What got me excited was to watch the trailer for the "The Dark Knight Rises" earlier this year (I was probably watching the Avengers haha) because I really like to watch the conclusion of a story.
So two weeks before the "The Dark Knight Rises" was released, I re-watched "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight" to refresh myself of the overall story line. It was actually quite an enjoyable exercise!
On the Saturday (one day after the release date), I went to watch last movie with a group of 18 people and I reserved the seats through the Empire Plus (cost $2 more but I don't have to go for lineup). And after watching it, I started to think more about the movie, and as I thought about it more, I realized how good it is, to the point that I wanted to re-watched it (which I did). I think this trilogy of Batman can become one of the best movie trilogies of all times.
I want to take this opportunity to express my thoughts regarding the "The Dark Knight Rises" and why I think its' so great.
Weak points
First, I will start with the weak points. I heard of criticism towards this movie, and I agreed with most of them. For sure this is not a perfect movie, but I think these weak points do not overshadow the greatness of the movie. Here are the two main weak areas:
- Too unrealistic: there are a fairly amount of exaggerated events like Bruce Wayne coming back from the Middle East to Gotham in a matter of hours after he climbed up the hole, or his back getting healed, or the terrorist group able to set up explosives so easily, etc. But if we are picky about loopholes, then most movies will fall short. In general, I don't think it was too far-fetched.
- Bane as a character: I really didn't like his muffled voice, but we don't get to know much about his motivation as a villain (other than his allegiance with Tania). It would have been nice to know a bit more about him, though there was already too many characters to focus on (Catwoman, Detective Gordon, Robin Blake, Tania).
Actually my greatest disappointment about the trilogy is that Katie Holmes didn't take the role of Rachel on the second movie.
Comparing to "The Dark Knight", the "The Dark Knight Rises" is slower in pace, and it feels less intense. I guess "The Dark Knight" did set up a very high standard (94% on rottentomatoes) and it is considered one of the best superhero movie ever, often described as an art masterpiece in the form of superhero film. There is not a single boring moment, hard to predict plot, and psychologically very engaging. One has to realize that "The Dark Knight Rises" is a different type of movie. First of all, the main villain is quite different. Having the Joker definitely spices up the movie to be action-packed, unpredictable, chaotic, and mentally really engaging. "The Dark Knight" focuses more on the battle between good and evil, whereas "The Dark Knight Rises" focuses more on the resurgence of the Batman as the symbol of hope for Gotham, hence there is less action and more stuff about Bruce Wayne's internal battles, and in how he gets owned but gets back up again.
Theme
The overall theme of the trilogy is the battle of good and evil. "Batman Begins" focuses on revenge, and "The Dark Knight" touches upon the corruption and promptness of evil in men. "The Dark Knight Rises" talks about rising up after failure, not giving up after defeat but coming back even stronger to own your enemies. Something that is encouraging since we will face many failures in life.
Character development
"Batman Begins" is cool because we get to see Bruce Wayne getting trained as a ninja and growing from an angry and directionless adolescent to a man who is committed to fight crime. In "The Dark Knight" he is consolidated as Gotham's superhero but finds the possibility of retiring and letting Harvey Dent be the Knight of Gotham, and pursue a personal life with Rachel. Even though we think the Joker lost the battle in "The Dark Knight", it was actually a total lost for Batman, his love interest (Rachel) died, the guy who he thought would represent the good side of Gotham turned into a bad guy (Harvey Two-Faces), and the symbol of hope that Batman represented now turned into the embodiment of evil (for killing Harvey) so that Gotham will not resigned in its fight against evil.
So "The Dark Knight Rises" focuses on the resurgence of the superhero who had given up pursuing a personal life and is content with letting the name of Batman embodied hatred from the people of Gotham, and is slowly rotting as a human being. But he gets back in the battle, but shortly is badly defeated by Bane to the point of almost death. But his life is spared only so that he can experience the desperation of seeing Gotham getting destroyed. And it is in the hole when we see Bruce Wayne battling his desperation and fear to climb the pit to save his city. He was not able to climb it in the first couple of times because he didn't really fear death so the fear of losing his city was not at its highest peak. It's until he gets rid of the rope and knowing that is all-or-nothing so he was afraid of dying (because dying means losing Gotham) then he was able to rise and rise.
The introduction of Catwoman was genius. Her character does complement Batman very well, and her existence sheds some light for Bruce Wayne.
Legacy
At "Batman Begins", Bruce Wayne wanted Batman to be the symbol of hope for Gotham in the fight against organized crime. It was to give courage to every citizen to stand firm in this battle. By the end of "The Dark Knight", this symbol of hope became the embodiment of hatred (since Joker turned Harvey into a bad guy, so Batman had to falsely become the responsible for killing Harvey in order to not cause people from Gotham to lose hope). This was an act of sacrifice he made for Gotham's sake, and it is very honorable but at the same time does not result in a long lasting solution.
But in "The Dark Knight Rises" after he comes back from the hole, he leads the counterattack to save Gotham, and he saves the city from the nuclear explosion by sacrificing himself. The difference from the previous movie is that he sacrificed himself ensuring that his legacy of hope in fighting against rime will be carried on by the people of Gotham (especially Robin). This is key because Batman was not meant to be there forever but was intended to encourage the city as a whole in this battle against evil. This was accomplished in "The Dark Knight Rises".
There was an interesting dialogue between Catwoman and Batman right before they were about to embark in battle, Catwoman tries to convince Batman to leave with her before the city gets destroyed since Batman has already given everything to Gotham, but Batman replies, "not yet, not everything". Perhaps leaving this legacy was what he had not done yet.
Overall, "The Dark Knight Rises" resolves the problems that Bruce Wayne inherited from "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight" by establishing Batman as a lasting symbol of hope for Gotham, giving his best on his service to Gotham (to follow his father's shoes) and developing a life for his own (maybe with Catwoman). I really enjoyed how this ended, definitely a very ownage trilogy and ending.
Monday, September 3, 2012
focusing on tradition
Just this past Sunday at Simply Church we looked at the passage in Mark 7 where the Pharisees were complaining that Jesus' disciples did not wash their hands (Jews perform a ceremonial hand washing before eating) before eating, condemning that they were eating with "unclean" hands. Then, Jesus rebukes the Jews that they had let go of God's commandments and are just holding onto tradition because the Jews were only focused on following the letter of the law instead of focusing on the purpose of the law which points back to a relationship with God.
This sort of problem is still prevalent now, and as Pastor Tim said that sometimes even going to church on Sunday might seem more of a tradition rather than an authentic desire to worship God. The danger is that attending church becomes another routine and it does not increase our adoration toward our mighty God. This escalates to other areas such as serving and participating in church events. I have personally seen ministries and serving done out of tradition rather than a given desire by God and this has often resulted in people getting burnt out and lack of fruits.
As an individual who is actively participating in many church events and ministries, I feel that it is easy to fall into the attitude of self-righteousness and condemn others who are not as active or who do not follow the traditions set by the church. This narrows my mind in the understanding that God can work outside of the domain set by traditions. (Please note that I am not stating that traditions are bad, they can be good things but when we focused on traditions above God, we are missing the point and leads to other sins).
In the recent Olympics, two Tunisian athletes Habiba Ghribi (silver on women's 3,000m steeple chase) and Oussama Mellouli (gold on men's 10k swim) won medals for their country and it was big because there aren't that many successful Tunisian athletes. Actually Ghribi's medal is huge because the women on Tunisia are fighting for equal rights. Unfortunately there are some extreme extreme religious groups that expressed that their medals should be taken away because both of them have broken certain religious rules (her sport wear is apparently too revealing, and the swimmer was drinking juice during fasting season).
This sort of problem is still prevalent now, and as Pastor Tim said that sometimes even going to church on Sunday might seem more of a tradition rather than an authentic desire to worship God. The danger is that attending church becomes another routine and it does not increase our adoration toward our mighty God. This escalates to other areas such as serving and participating in church events. I have personally seen ministries and serving done out of tradition rather than a given desire by God and this has often resulted in people getting burnt out and lack of fruits.
As an individual who is actively participating in many church events and ministries, I feel that it is easy to fall into the attitude of self-righteousness and condemn others who are not as active or who do not follow the traditions set by the church. This narrows my mind in the understanding that God can work outside of the domain set by traditions. (Please note that I am not stating that traditions are bad, they can be good things but when we focused on traditions above God, we are missing the point and leads to other sins).
In the recent Olympics, two Tunisian athletes Habiba Ghribi (silver on women's 3,000m steeple chase) and Oussama Mellouli (gold on men's 10k swim) won medals for their country and it was big because there aren't that many successful Tunisian athletes. Actually Ghribi's medal is huge because the women on Tunisia are fighting for equal rights. Unfortunately there are some extreme extreme religious groups that expressed that their medals should be taken away because both of them have broken certain religious rules (her sport wear is apparently too revealing, and the swimmer was drinking juice during fasting season).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)