At the instigation of our web administrator and designer (whose name will be kept secret to protect the allegedly innocent), a new series commences with this post — namely — what movies, dvds, or television episodes the Harts watched this week. The series name stems from the remarkable habit of our cats, Isabelle and Cordelia, to sleep through whatever we watch. Odd for cats to sleep so much, no?
One other word of introduction: since some readers mistake this blog as a form of ministry, do not take this or ensuing reports as an endorsement for all Christians. Since Paul wrote that some believers could handle meat offered to idols and others could not, readers of Old Life should consult any title for themselves before watching or ordering. IMDB is a good web resource for movies and television and should provide enough information to warn consciences appropriately. Rottentomatoes is another source for reviews of movies that I use occasionally. Readers will need to rely on their own powers of discernment.
The week started with Troubled Water, a Norwegian movie (subtitles, of course) about an ex-con who tries to make good life by playing organ for a church and befriending the female pastor’s boy. Since his crime led to the death of a boy, and since he returns to the town where the deceased boy’s family lives, his attempt to resume life is — let’s just say — complicated. The film is another reminder of how easy it is to make people who commit wicked acts into monsters (when we never see the monster in the mirror).
The week continued with the first three episodes of season three of In Treatment. Gabriel Bryne continues to play his role as a psychologist with lots of baggage in a mesmerizing way. The producers and directors also continue to make counseling sessions riveting. It was good to see Debra Winger on the screen again.
Also this week I persuaded the Mrs. to go to the theater to see Ted — and I lived to tell about it. I figured we needed to get out of the rut of staying in and streaming. So we went to the local theater, not exactly an art house establishment, and saw the best on display. Angelo Cataldi and company had recommended this movie, so I had misgivings. It was like so many Hollywood comedies, an interesting premise — a talking teddy bear who is a lifelong companion of the person who first received the stuffed animal as a gift. But once you get past the first prank of the teddy bear as grown up — smoking a bong and swearing — the movie descends into debauchery and juvenilia. Subtlety is not a three-syllable word that Hollywood does well, even though the writers did get off at least a half-dozen guffaw producing lines.
Last (it was a slow week in Hillsdale, alright?), we watched Welcome to Sarajevo, a 1997 movie about the Balkans War. Stephen Dillane, whom I like a lot, plays a journalist who turns activist and helps Muslim orphans to leave the city. The film seems to include a lot of footage from the war, which is hard to watch. The human story line is compelling but for me it could not offset what seemed to be a missed opportunity to explore a part of the world that the West has never come lost to understanding, perhaps because the Ottomans, Turks, and Muslims spook too readily.
Old Life 
Nice feature. I do this on my blog for all of my few followers. If anyone complains about your recommendations send me their name and I’ll put a marmot in their bathwater.
LikeLike
I had been meaning to watch Troubled Water, it looked pretty interesting. I’ll have to dive in now. Did you get it on Netflix, I’d prefer not to pay the On Demand price of I can stream it for free.
LikeLike
What, no Olympics?
LikeLike
knowing that you are big fan of the Wire have you been following ‘Breaking Bad”? The transformation of mild mannered Walter White from high school chemistry teacher to Scarface is a fascinating picture of the deceit of sin.
LikeLike
B – Funny you should mention that. I am an accountant and am working long hours this month. I can usually watch things at work since I am using a different part of my brain crunching numbers. As we speak I have season 1 of “The Wire” and season 4 of “Breaking Bad” by my desk. Trying to decide which one to watch first. I am DVRing season 5 of “Bad” but need to get season 4 watched first.
Interesting note on “Bad” – my in-laws, who are not Christians, quit watching in an earlier season when Walter let someone die who he could have saved. They said it was an immoral act and they could no longer empathize with his character. Reminded me of when Tony lets Christopher die in “The Sopranos”. I think Tony felt like he was doing society a favor, though.
LikeLike
Erik, you must be a nihilist.
LikeLike
Jed, streamable. It could have more character development. But the one scene with three important characters all in one car is worth the price of admission.
LikeLike
B A, I couldn’t get past the second episode, you know the one about the disposal of bodies. Call me light in the loafers. Maybe I have to go back and start with episode three. I am intrigued by what I read and hear.
LikeLike
Best things I’ve seen this summer: “Nurse Jackie Seasons 1 & 2”, “The Kennedy’s”, “Too Big to Fail”, “Mad Men Season 5”, “Carnage”, “Stop Making Sense”, “Talking Heads Chronology”, “Cinema Verite”, “Frost Nixon”, “Monterey Pop”, “Margin Call”, “Boardwalk Empire Season 1”, “Justified Season 2”, “Savages” and “Damages Season 1”.
LikeLike
“They were nihilists man. They kept saying they believed in nothing.” – The Dude
LikeLike
Sometimes popular blockbusters are good. I really enjoyed watching “The Dark Knight Rises” and “Moonrise Kingdom.” The reviews of Dark Knight from Mockingbird and a Reconstructionist from England are telling in how someones theological beliefs color the way they perceive and analyze art forms. Since you can only link one connection at a time at this site, I’ll link the Reconstructionist review and then if anyone is interested they can easily find the review at Mockingbird at their search engine.
“Moonrise Kingdom” was delightfully different. It was a treat to watch Bruce Willis, Bill Murray, Tilda Swinton, Edward Norton, Harvey Keitel and Frances McDormand play very flawed and average joe misfits. The two “troubled” teenage kids who fell in love were marvelous too. It brought back memories of those very ackward teenage years. Redemptive themes run throughout the movie without explicity saying so. The review at Mockingbird was quite good too, at least I thought it was.
Here is the Dark Knight review from the Reconstructionist:
http://www.swordandploughshare.com/main-blog/2012/7/26/judgment-and-the-crisis-of-legitimacy-theopolitical-reflecti.html
LikeLike
Breaking Bad is, like The Wire, great.
LikeLike
There are not many shows that I watch, but I am a fan of AMC’s The Walking Dead (I’m not usually a zombie fan, but this is so much more than a zombie series) and from what I’ve seen of Breaking Bad, I think I would enjoy it as well.
Dr. Hart, considering I have seen at least two movies you have spoken of on this blog that were foreign films, I highly recommend the 2007 Chinese dark comedy, Getting Home. It is hilarious, but also contemplative in good ways. Another movie I recommend is a highly artistic 1995 Japanese film, Maborosi, which is an excellent watch, though some complain it is slow. Truthfully, it is slow, but that is the point with this film. It contains little speaking at all, but the artistry is phenomenally communicative.
LikeLike
I am not sure if others at oldlife will enjoy the new HBO series “The Newsroom” as much as I am enjoying it. The premise of the show is that they want to go back and do journalism like Walter Cronkite and some of the other “fathers” of TV journalism did, ie., objectively report the news without a craving for ratings. The writer of the script goes back and redoes how a newsroom should report some of the more important “events” in recent US history. You see what the powers that be who run the newsroom do to bring a story to the TV airwaves. I would recommend going back and watching the first 6 episodes before delving into the new ones.
Warning though: there is lots of talk about relationships among the newsroom staff that gets talked about loudly so everyone else hears. For those who like to keep their relationships under lock and key that may prove to be annoying. I’m feeling a bit smart alecky and contrarian this morning. A question I have always wanted to ask you Darryl is if you think your wife is a better writer than yourself? I have been afraid to ask it. I have read a few of her reviews at Modern Reformation and I found them to be deeply moving- especially the one about the novel SNOW (I believe that was the name of it). Does she play a role in the writing of your books? I doubt if I will get an answer and I might regret my temporary lapse of judgment. I have not been on the other end of your snark- I want to know what it is like.
LikeLike
John Yeazel: I’m feeling a bit smart alecky and contrarian this morning.
RS: It is never good to start of talking about yourself and your feelings before asking Dr. Hart a question. By the way, I see you are feeling like yourself this morning.
John Yeazel: A question I have always wanted to ask you Darryl is if you think your wife is a better writer than yourself? I have been afraid to ask it. I have read a few of her reviews at Modern Reformation and I found them to be deeply moving- especially the one about the novel SNOW (I believe that was the name of it).
RS: So his wife writes in a way that move people to feeling? I am not sure Dr. Hart will appreciate that. I wonder if he will talk to the little woman sometime soon to see if she has been reading Jonathan Edwards to see how to move people to feeling something by her writing. Does her writing move Dr. Hart to feel something? Would he made an admission on this board or have to tell her that she doesn’t? John, you are trying to get him in trouble!
LikeLike
Richard,
I was not asking you. Go to the corner of the room you are in, put your dunce cap on and read the following until you are done:
http://www.aplacefortruth.org/hopkins.htm
LikeLike
John Y., since my wife rarely reads Old Life, I can maybe get away with an answer. If by better you mean more, then she is not better than I. I write way more than she does. But quantity is not quality, right? Or is it? When we met my wife was a much better writer. But the more you write the better you become (I think). I wish my wife wrote more.
Was that evasive enough?
LikeLike
Darryl,
I was bracing myself for some snark, but I probably should have known better; you’re usually generous and far too forgiving of me. Thanks for the response, I kind of suspected the answer you gave for my inquiry already. That was not evasive at all.
Richard, you deserved my response. I would not have said it if I thought you would have taken offense about it. There is not much that phases you- all in good fun.
LikeLike
JohnY., you should know that snark only follows snark (or HAL type responses). As long as I think someone isn’t trying to show me or other 2kers up, no need for attitude. (Of course, my wife doesn’t see me that way.)
I’ll be sure to tell her about your remarks.
LikeLike
John Yeazel: Richard, I was not asking you. Go to the corner of the room you are in, put your dunce cap on and read the following until you are done:
RS: But John, I refuse to violate the 8th commandment and take what is yours.
LikeLike
My wife and I did a double feature a couple weeks ago that included Ted and Magic Mike. Ted we found upsetting in the worst sort of way. Magic Mike was also upsetting but we were both impressed. Matthew McConaughey should be a dark horse oscar nomination for his supporting role.
Needless to say it was a bit awkward to be the only guy in the theater for that film. Further, I’m not sure what to make of the single seventy year old woman sitting behind us…
LikeLike
Adam – I worry about a dude being “impressed” by a movie about male strippers, but I will withhold passing final judgment on you until I see it. I assure you, however, that I will be no more than “amused”…
LikeLike
Richard,
As long as you continue to view the forensic union as not enough in regards to the Gospel I will continue to call you a dunce. You want to make it something that happens inside of us too and that is what is “real” in your view. You don’t regard the forensic as “real.” And then you say that those who read fiction get a confused view of “reality.” I personally think that what Stellman was saying in chapter 12 of his book Dual Citizens is saying the same thing that you are saying. Now, however, he has dropped imputation altogether. I see no reason why you shouldn’t either if the internal is more real than the forensic. Our sin being imputed to Christ (Christ made sin for us) and Christ righteousness imputed and transferred to us is sufficient to save us. Our guilt and condemnation from being under the Law is taken away which frees, liberates us and gives us the life of the Spirit. We are righteous forensically, it is an alien righteousness and not a “legal fiction” like the Catholics and you want to tell us.
LikeLike
Richard,
McMark can prove that from scripture better than I. That is what he has been trying to do but you will have nothing of his proofs. You keep telling him that he is interpreting the texts wrong- case closed.
LikeLike
Forgive my getting off topic but I think McMark’s emphasis on being taught what the Gospel actually is, is very much needed in churches today. We are often taught half a Gospel or, the Gospel plus, which makes it difficult to turn into a conviction. The Gospel is good news and it is the forensic union which makes it good news. There are many confusing passages in the scriptures which make the Gospel easily misinterpreted. The laypeople need to tell their local pastors that they want them to teach them and then discuss the Gospel. If they don’t, go somewhere that does.
LikeLike
I think you guys are in the wrong theater. This is the 7:00 showing of “Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure”.
LikeLike
John Yeazel: Richard, As long as you continue to view the forensic union as not enough in regards to the Gospel I will continue to call you a dunce.
RS: As I have stated over and over the declaration of God (forensic) that declares sinners just is based on the propitiatory work of Christ and the imputed righteousness of Christ alone. I am beginning to think a hammer is in order.
John Y: You want to make it something that happens inside of us too and that is what is “real” in your view. You don’t regard the forensic as “real.”
RS: But I do regard what is forensic as real and have stated that many times.
John Y: And then you say that those who read fiction get a confused view of “reality.”
RS: Well, my tongue was somewhat in my cheek when I said that but now I am beginning to wonder if that may be true.
John Y: I personally think that what Stellman was saying in chapter 12 of his book Dual Citizens is saying the same thing that you are saying. Now, however, he has dropped imputation altogether. I see no reason why you shouldn’t either if the internal is more real than the forensic.
RS: Again, both the internal and the forensic are real. However, apart from the actual work of God what is the forensic? It takes both.
John Y: Our sin being imputed to Christ (Christ made sin for us) and Christ righteousness imputed and transferred to us is sufficient to save us.
RS: Actually, that is not correct. Not only did the sin of Christ have to be imputed to Him, He had to suffer and die for it. Then He had to be raised from the dead. There are a few other things, but that is enough for the moment. But once again, I do not deny the sins of the elect imputed to Christ and the righteousness of Christ imputed to those who are united to Him.
John Y: Our guilt and condemnation from being under the Law is taken away which frees, liberates us and gives us the life of the Spirit. We are righteous forensically, it is an alien righteousness and not a “legal fiction” like the Catholics and you want to tell us.
RS: Ah, but I don’t claim that it is a legal fiction.
LikeLike
John Yeazel: Richard, McMark can prove that from scripture better than I.
RS: Well, that means you are in big trouble.
John Y: That is what he has been trying to do but you will have nothing of his proofs. You keep telling him that he is interpreting the texts wrong- case closed.
RS: But he is interpreting the texts wrong.
LikeLike
Richard,
You have not showed McMark that he is interpreting them wrongly even though you think you have. There is much more to come. First of all, there is no regeneration implications in Romans 5 or 6. I don’t know where you get that from. But the argument should go back to the Princeton post. There is so much verbage on the post that I doubt if anyone is even reading them or following them anymore. Your verbage is often non-sense and does not directly answer what McMark is trying to get at.
LikeLike
John Yeazel: Richard, You have not showed McMark that he is interpreting them wrongly even though you think you have. There is much more to come. First of all, there is no regeneration implications in Romans 5 or 6. I don’t know where you get that from. But the argument should go back to the Princeton post. There is so much verbage on the post that I doubt if anyone is even reading them or following them anymore. Your verbage is often non-sense and does not directly answer what McMark is trying to get at.
RS: John, you sound like a man that has read a lot of fiction.
LikeLike
Richard.
What the Lutheran’s have over us is they are better at pastoral application. They don’t dot their I’s and cross their T’s in exactly the right places and certainly not as exhaustively, but they understand that man’s tendency is to navel gaze and look to themselves and the better of them have been bound and determined to offset that ‘naturalness’ with objective, outside of us, salvation. When I need the gospel, I go to Luther.
LikeLike
Richard,
We are still not clear on the “righteousness” issue. In the specific passages that McMark has brought up what does Paul mean by this? Is it the imputed righteousness of Christ or something else? You were not sufficiently answering that question. If the imputed righteousness is the fulfillment of the prophecy in Jeremiah where God said He would write his Law in our hearts and put it in our minds than what is the point of us of trying to establish and fulfill our own righteousness? Paul tells the Roman Jews that their zeal was without knowledge in trying to establish their own righteousness. What I interpret you saying is that the establishment of this inner righteousness is something the Christian should be diligently applying himself towards through the power of the Spirit. And if someone is not making that a priority in their Christian lives then they are showing themselves to not be regenerate. This righteousness has already been written into our hearts and minds by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness and it is this which gives us dominion over our sin. It cannot condemn us anymore even when we struggle with it and even fall into it, as Romans 7 tells us we will do. This is the good news of the Gospel for God’s elect. Now, should we go out and sin that grace may abound, no, but you will still sin until you are glorified because you still carry around this body of sin. This is what Stellman takes issue with in chapter 12 of his book Dual Citizens. I think he interprets Romans 6:14, Romans 7 and Romans 8:7 wrongly. He thinks there is contradiction involved in the traditional ways of interpreting those passages and that “life in the spirit” is what gives us dominion over sin. McMark is saying no, it is that the Spirit but the imputation and all involved which gives us the dominion. And it is the dominion over the guilt and condemnation as a result of the sin which is what Paul is talking about.
LikeLike
sean: Richard. What the Lutheran’s have over us is they are better at pastoral application. They don’t dot their I’s and cross their T’s in exactly the right places and certainly not as exhaustively, but they understand that man’s tendency is to navel gaze and look to themselves and the better of them have been bound and determined to offset that ‘naturalness’ with objective, outside of us, salvation. When I need the gospel, I go to Luther.
RS: His Bondage of the Will is in my top ten books, but in that book some navel gazing (as you call it) is required. But I do get your point.
LikeLike
John Yeazel: Richard, We are still not clear on the “righteousness” issue.
RS: I will try to help you out with that. (TIC)
John Y: In the specific passages that McMark has brought up what does Paul mean by this? Is it the imputed righteousness of Christ or something else? You were not sufficiently answering that question.
RS: It is not that I am not sufficently answering the question, but McMark is imputing beliefs to me that I would not dream (even in a nightmare) of holdin. I cannot convince anyone of anything, but I have repeatedly said that I assert quite strongly the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. However, I don’t see it in all the texts that McMark does. Again, I hold to the teaching as an essential part of the Gospel of grace alone, but I simply don’t think it is taught in every text that McMark thinks it is in. So when I don’t see it in the text he does and so don’t apply it to the things he does in the way he does, he says that I deny it. For example, II Peter 1:1. I don’t think that text teaches us that we have our faith by the imputed righteousness of Christ. I certainly believe that the soul that has faith has it by the grace of God and that the soul that has true faith has the righteousness of Christ imputed to it.
John Y: If the imputed righteousness is the fulfillment of the prophecy in Jeremiah where God said He would write his Law in our hearts and put it in our minds than what is the point of us of trying to establish and fulfill our own righteousness?
RS: But at no point are we to establish and fulfill our own righteousness. The point of the New Covenant in that passage is that God Himself will dwell in His people and cause them to keep the Law. When it is God working in them to do what they cannot do in the slightest in and of themselves, it is all to His glory and it is by grace.
John Y: Paul tells the Roman Jews that their zeal was without knowledge in trying to establish their own righteousness. What I interpret you saying is that the establishment of this inner righteousness is something the Christian should be diligently applying himself towards through the power of the Spirit.
RS: Stop reading so much fiction (TIC, smile, etc.) My firm conviction is that there is no righteousness needed to enter heaven for those who have the imputed righteousness of Christ. However, Christ does live in His people by the Spirit and as a sovereign King His presence will be made known. There is the fruit of the Spirit that will be worked in them. Multiple Scriptures tell us that if we love Him we will keep His commandments. In fact, love fulfills the Law.
John Y: And if someone is not making that a priority in their Christian lives then they are showing themselves to not be regenerate.
RS: James 2 is quite clear on that. A faith that saves is faith that does something. If the faith we have does nothing, then it is not a true faith. Ephesians 2:7-10 tells us that the believer is the workmanship of God and that God has created them in Christ Jesus for good works. Note, they are not saved BY good works, but they are saved FOR good works.
John Y: This righteousness has already been written into our hearts and minds by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness and it is this which gives us dominion over our sin.
RS: God imputes righteousness to those who receive Christ and one cannot have Christ apart from having His imputed righteousness. In one sense it is very true that the soul that has the imputed righteousness of Christ is free from saving self by works. But the Scripture says that we must put sin to death by the Spirit (Rom 8:13).
John Y: It cannot condemn us anymore even when we struggle with it and even fall into it, as Romans 7 tells us we will do. This is the good news of the Gospel for God’s elect. Now, should we go out and sin that grace may abound, no, but you will still sin until you are glorified because you still carry around this body of sin.
RS: Despite what you think I have said on this subject, it is my belief that as believers grow in their faith and walk with God they see themselves as worse and worse sinners. The more knowledge of the holiness of God and the more light they have the more sin they see. So no one will ever be perfect in this life and in fact will be far from it, but that should not discourage us from seeking holiness out of love for God and His glory.
John Y: This is what Stellman takes issue with in chapter 12 of his book Dual Citizens. I think he interprets Romans 6:14, Romans 7 and Romans 8:7 wrongly. He thinks there is contradiction involved in the traditional ways of interpreting those passages and that “life in the spirit” is what gives us dominion over sin. McMark is saying no, it is that the Spirit but the imputation and all involved which gives us the dominion. And it is the dominion over the guilt and condemnation as a result of the sin which is what Paul is talking about.
RS: Well, I have not read Stellman’s book so I guess I have no opinion on what he says there. But the imputation of the righteousness of Christ frees believers from working for salvation which working is a dominion of sin in one sense. But Romans 8:13 does say that we must put sin to death by the Spirit.
LikeLike
John Y: McMark is saying no, it is that the Spirit but the imputation and all involved which gives us the dominion. And it is the dominion over the guilt and condemnation as a result of the sin which is what Paul is talking about.
John Y: There are some corrections needed in these sentences, they should read: “McMark is saying no, it is not the Spirit but the imputation, and all involoved, which gives us the dominion over our sin. And it is a dominion over the guilt and condemnation, as a result of the sin, which is what Paul is talking about.
I think it obvious that Richard is waffling and putting an Edwardsian spin on passages with an emphasis on the work of the spirit rather than the forensic righteouness imputed. It is the Spirit which illumines our minds to the work of Christ and points us to our forensic union with Christ. Again, it is this forensic union which gives us dominion over our sin. Our sin cannot make us guilty and condemn us anymore. The Spirit will still convict us of our sin and then point us to the forensic work of Christ. It is this which cause us to persevere unitil we die and are glorified. The Spirit is our down payment and surety while we still live in this body of sin.
LikeLike
Amazing. Hart’s a cat man! Fe-lines were part of the knot tying with a fe-male
in my case. So, makes me wonder, was it nature or nurture that made you a cat man?
LikeLike
Troubled Waters: “it works whether you believe or not.”
mark: Of course there is a modified “sacramental objectivity” in which “ordination” is magical and the real/actual presence works to create and increase faith. But I can never remember the difference between “real” and “actual”. I suspect that nurturing faith in the “sacrament” is not the same thing as the power of the gospel causing the elect to fear God and to rest in Christ’s righteousness.
LikeLike
You guys who like “Breaking Bad” and (presumably) “The Wire” need to watch the first season of “Damages”. I just finished it and it is great.
LikeLike
Erik, Jesse displayed some moving theological acumen in his latest group session in season 4 (as victims of cable conspiracy relying on Netflix, we’re a little behind). But I doubt Tony was displaying social altruism when he pinched Christopher’s nose—he was getting to be a liability on top of being a lost cause.
LikeLike
I still haven’t started season 4. I’m taking a detour to watch season 1 of “Downton Abbey”. Good observation about Tony. It would be out of character for him to do anything for the benefit of society. Briliant series. One of the best. I’m a David Chase fan going back to “The Rockford Files”.
LikeLike