Film Review: Desolation of Smaug

I think the movie--and the series in general, so far--is much better than it is given credit for.  Jackson didn’t take as many liberties as one would have expected.  Below will be observations, pros, and cons:

Observations

They did a great job with King Thranduil (Lee Pace).  They captured his amorality perfectly.  I thought the quasi-romance between Tauriel and Kili was well-done.  I understand why purists are upset, but I don’t see what was lost.   For those who are upset at Gandalf’s actions at the end of the movie, I would remind you that Gandalf himself mentions he “knew the dungeons of Dol Goldur” in Fellowship of the Ring.  

Is Thranduil a Reformed amillennialist?  It appears so.  Let the world rot as long as we are okay in our little confines. Similarly, Thorin is the archetypal Fox News Conservative:  technically on the right side but completely without principles.

Pros

• Like all of Jackson’s productions, the cinematography was perfect.
• The “Barrel Ride” may be the finest 15 minutes ever put on film.
• I have no problem with Jackson’s including Legolas.  He appears more masculine than in the original trilogy.
• The Smaug section was way over-embellished, but certainly enjoyable.
• Tauriel was perfectly cast, all purists aside.
• The scene between Throrin and Thranduil: the dwarven language is like German:  perfect for swearing.

Cons

• I don’t think anything was added by including Radagast (esp. in the first film).  In fact, I thought the book’s allusions to Radagast, but never his appearance, is what made R. so interesting.
• The cliffhanger ending (even for those who know the story) is annoying.  

Liturgy Trap: Part Two

The Second Commandment

There is no problem with the actual act of bowing.  The problem is “to what do we people in the context of worship and liturgy?”  The second commandment is very clear that we are never to bow in giving veneration toward man-made objects (24).

The second commandment isn’t saying there should be no pictures of God (a point for another day), but that no image of anything can be set up as an avenue of worship to God and the court of heaven (24).

Only one pesel

Pesel is the Hebrew word for “carving.”  Jordan neatly takes the argument a step forward by pointing out that “there is another pesel in the Book of Exodus:  The Ten Words, which God carved with his own finger” (26).  “The opposition is between God’s content-filled graven Words and man’s silent graven images.”

God’s pesel is how he relates to us.  The relationship is verbal.  It is personal.  “It is God-initiated.”  Jordan comments, “When men set up a pesel it is always man-initiated” (27).  “The ‘veneration’ of man’s pesel is not a conversation with God, but prostration before a man-made object.”  This is the one objection even the most articulate anchorite cannot answer: is conversation–words–possible?

Anchorites love to counter that “Well, God commanded Israel to make various carvings.”  So he did. We say, however, “what is prohibited is the creation of a contact-point with God in the likeness of other creatures” (28).

Jordan makes an interesting observation:  nowhere in the Hebrew scriptures do we see God’s people condemned for making a picture of God.  Rather, they make up images of God and use them as mediators (29).

Application

“God initiates the mediation between himself and us, and He controls it” (29).  “God’s mediation is verbal…God’s mediation is his pesel, the Word.  Manmade mediators are images.”

Jordan concludes the chapter with a reflection on God’s 4th generation curse on image-worshipers.

Liturgy Trap 1

Jordan, James.  The Liturgy Trap (Monroe, LA: Athanasius Press).

Jordan defines the “Liturgy Trap” as seeing worship as a technique for evangelism (xiv).  Whatever else our liturgy may be, it must always be a response to the Word of God.  Said another way: The Word of God comes first.  The rest of the introduction explains why evangelicals would be tempted to high church traditions.  Since that’s is fairly well-documented by theologians and sociologists (Christian Smith et al), I won’t belabor the point.

The Saints

Should we venerate the saints?  We should at least ask, “What does the Bible say?”  Critics might respond, “Yeah, well the Bible doesn’t say anything about the term Trinity, either”   True, but assuming the Bible to be part of tradition (which I don’t assume), shouldn’t we at least pretend it is the most important part?

Jordan first notes there is no biblical warrant to pray to saints (18).  Since the disciples asked Jesus specifically how to pray, and he gave them a specific template, it is telling that venerating saints is absent.  Jordan then gives the standard biblical arguments against necromancy,  pointing out that Saul was condemned for talking to the dead Samuel.

Interestingly, had the early Christians talked to dead people, the Jews and Judaizers would have had a field day condemning them, yet we don’t see that.

Jordan writes,

The notion that the saints can hear our petitions means that a given saint can hear thousands of petitions coming from people all over the world.  This means that the saint has become virtually omnipresent.  What happens when that saint gets his resurrection body and is once again limited to being in one place at one time? (21)

This would be prioritizing spiritual disembodiedment over Resurrection em-bodiment.

Liturgy Reading List (1)

I finished Frame's Worship in Spirit and Truth.  Had a helpful critique of hyper-puritanism.  Problematic suggestions, though.

Reviewing Worship in Spirit and Truth (Frame) part 1

Frame does a decent job defining the RPW, and he is aware of the element/circumstance distinction, but he asks a number of tough questions:

• What are these “circumstances” (WCF 21.1)?  The Confession doesn’t say, except to note “light of nature.”  I’m open to general revelation, and I would agree with the WCF on this point, but general revelation by its very definition resists specificity.  
• Saying “circumstances” are secular elements (also common to ordinary life--time, place) isn’t quite accurate.  Frame notes, “There seem to be some matters in worship which are ‘not common to human actions and societies,” concerning which we must use our judgment (Frame 41; e.g., what precise words to use in our prayers).  Prayer is not “common to society,” yet aside from repeating the psalms as prayers (and one could do far worse), it appears that we will have to use our own judgment.  Frame scores points here.
• Frame suggests we use “application” instead of “circumstance” (41).  This avoids the Aristotelianism of earlier language.  Can one use the language without adopting the concepts?  Probably, but it’s hard and eventually something must change.
• Regarding Nadab and Abihu, Frame is correct to point out that this verse does not teach “What is not commanded is forbidden,” but “what is explicitly forbidden is forbidden.”  Nadab and Abihu did not use the right kind of fire.  They were doing a forbidden act.  

Elements

Agreed that the Bible regulates our worship.  We have the premise:

1. We may only perform what Scripture commands.

We must add another premise:

2. In the end God only reveals broad generalities (52).

Frame develops (2):  Where does Scripture bifurcate worship into elements and circumstances?   Scripture (a) nowhere divides worship into independent elements and (b) then brings them together.  Which activity is elemental in character and which is simply an application of carrying out certain elements (53).  

3. For example, per the above view, the Scripture prescribes singing psalms, whose content is identified.  Scripture also prescribes public prayer and preaching, whose content is not really identified.  

4. The things we do in worship are not always easily separated into elements and circumstances.  Singing and teaching are not always distinct.  When we sing a hymn, we teach other people (Col. 3:16).  

In pp. 56-60 Frame gives his own list of a worship service, which is basically what you will find in any sane Reformed, non-covenanter service.

The apocrypha and facticity

Consider Judith

We have a seventh century B.C. Assyria, under the rule of a sixth century Chaldean (Babylonian) king, invading a fifth century restored Judah, with an army led by a fourth century Persian general (Holofernes was the Persian general under Artaxerxes III in the successful campaign against Egypt in the fourth century B.C.). In truth, no major attacks were made on Jerusalem while under Persian rule in the fifth and fourth centuries (an unprecedented period of peace for war-weary Canaan).

Observation on the FV fracas after the fact

I think I can write this as someone who has no stake in the FV debate.   Having read the church fathers and medieval theology in detail--often in original languages--for about a decade (and eventually standing in a rather critical relation to them), I think I can bring a unique  perspective to it.  I am going to evaluate Jim Jordan’s article “How not to do Reformed Theology Nowadays.”

The first section is somewhat vitriolic in tone.  That’s unfortunate, for whatever faults critics of FV have, this only gives them more ammo.  But in any case, content matters.  Jordan is responding to Prof Strange,

Concerning “theological reformulation” and “living within a received system,” Jordan notes

Again, I wonder if this is for real. Does Strange think that there has been no theological development since the Westminster Assembly? Does he utterly reject the work of Cornelius Van Til, of Herman Bavinck?

There is some truth to this, though Bavinck stayed rather close to the post-Reformers.  

There is the danger of saying “We only use the Bible’s language.”  On one hand that’s good.  Hearing healthy doses of biblical language is refreshing.  What happens when you get to the Trinity?  Further, I do worry that “we just use the Bible’s language” can be an easy way out when we come to hard passages.  I think the “Vanilla-ers” are justified in their caution, even if I don’t go with them all the way.

Part 2

I think I can agree with Jordan that when people criticize a movement for “over-emphasis” arguments, we can probably just ignore the criticism.  Emphasis-argument claims are almost too subjective to really be effective.

The next paragraph addresses the claim that FV guys are too sympathetic to NT Wright.  I can only think of one guy who might be: Rich Lusk.  The rest of the FV guys are quite critical of Wright.  I, for one, enjoy reading Wright.  I don’t follow him (whatever that means).  I

Jordan then follows with an interesting description of the PCA’s early history.

Jordan then writes,

The Reformers to whom Calvinists and Presbyterians look, such as Bucer, Calvin, Knox, Beza, and the Westminster Divines, were theocratic (Christocratic; Bibliocratic), postmillennial, sacramental, and except for some of the Divines, liturgical (sung prayerbook liturgy and weekly communion).

This is a kind-of truth.  With the exception of historic premillennialism, to say that a group of men were “post” or “a-mill” is anachronistic.  The rest of the paragraph is probably accurate.  Dabney himself thought Calvin to be too sacramental.

Part 3

Jordan says the Federal Vision holds to 5 principles, and it is to this the critics object

1. The Bible is given to help us mature and grow up as images of God so that we take dominion wisely over all of life.

2. The Bible is also given, because of Satan’s rebellion, to teach us holy war against principalities and powers.

3. The Bible is also given, because of Adam’s rebellion, to show us the history of redemption.

4. Because God is Three and One, so is human society, and so the history of redemption is not just about the salvation of individuals but also about the salvation of societies.

5. Jesus Christ has been given all power and authority, and has commanded His people to disciple all nations, promising to be with them and strengthen them by His Spirit until this has been accomplished. There can be no question that Jesus will successfully accomplish this programme, and at the end deliver all to the Father.

I agree with all 5, and I further agree that “TR Vanilla-ism” might have trouble with a few of these, but I don’t think this is why the critics object to FV.  On the other hand, if you preach a “doom-and-gloom” eschatology, it’s hard to see how one can affirm Jesus’s statement to disciple the nations.  

This section ends with the inadequacies of amillennialism.  While not postmillennial myself, I agree with his criticisms.