Voice of the Martyrs sent me a book that I didn't order, Marx & Satan, by Richard Wurmbrand. It details how the father of Communism was a Satan worshipper. It sounds intriguing. There was no letter or explanation enclosed. I am almost positive that someone at VOM read my blog post about Tortured for Christ, and they liked my blog post, and sent me a free book.
This doesn't quite match when Millard Fuller, founder of Habitat, sent me a letter and a book, but I think this is awesome anyway!
.JPG)
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Different worship experience
We went to a Black church with Mom and Dad on Sunday. The church belongs to my former coworker, Rachel, and her father is the preacher. I always told her I would visit her church, but never did, so I finally arranged to go.
First, I want to write about the term "Black church". You know, it's not really a fair statement to categorize a church by race, but I feel that is the most concise way to express my message. A more accurate term would be "a church founded by and mostly attended by African-Americans". I believe that the term "Black church" is only offensive in the sense that "White church" is. It boils down a spiritual institution to a race, rather than a belief.
I know it's not for me to decide, but I think the term "African-American" gets really wordy. I would guess that the term "Black" is acceptable when talking among friends. It just feels odd to me, especially during a private conversation, as if being PC is necessary in private. In public, the term African-American should be used, because someone might have strong feelings about it. Maybe we should ask the person we are talking to how they feel, before choosing a term. (How, blog reader, do YOU feel about it?)
The denomination was Church of Christ, so there were no musical instruments. The vocalist had a huge voice. There was powerpoint as well as song books. The songs were easy to pick up on, so we didn't need to open the song books. It was nice to hear the four part harmonies, including some call and response tunes.
The preacher was really energetic, and obviously knew the Word quite well. He was bold, and I don't think anyone could have gone through it without being woken up spiritually. I got a lot out of the sermon, and it had a symmetrical outline, so it was easy to remember. A few members of the congregation urged the pastor on. The lay people had a large part in the service and knew Scripture well and prayed beautiful prayers. Prayers are also a time where the congregation can say an "Amen" or a "that's true!" You know, I really like that, but in most White churches we don't do it.
There was an invitation, and one little girl made a decision for Christ, and was baptized a few minutes afterward in the baptismal font, which was above and behind the podium. There was a time for the greeting of visitors, where they said our names, and we stood up, and everyone clapped.
It seemed that everyone wanted to meet us and know our first AND last names, and wanted us to know theirs. And they urged us to come back. I would like to go back sometime.
First, I want to write about the term "Black church". You know, it's not really a fair statement to categorize a church by race, but I feel that is the most concise way to express my message. A more accurate term would be "a church founded by and mostly attended by African-Americans". I believe that the term "Black church" is only offensive in the sense that "White church" is. It boils down a spiritual institution to a race, rather than a belief.
I know it's not for me to decide, but I think the term "African-American" gets really wordy. I would guess that the term "Black" is acceptable when talking among friends. It just feels odd to me, especially during a private conversation, as if being PC is necessary in private. In public, the term African-American should be used, because someone might have strong feelings about it. Maybe we should ask the person we are talking to how they feel, before choosing a term. (How, blog reader, do YOU feel about it?)
The denomination was Church of Christ, so there were no musical instruments. The vocalist had a huge voice. There was powerpoint as well as song books. The songs were easy to pick up on, so we didn't need to open the song books. It was nice to hear the four part harmonies, including some call and response tunes.
The preacher was really energetic, and obviously knew the Word quite well. He was bold, and I don't think anyone could have gone through it without being woken up spiritually. I got a lot out of the sermon, and it had a symmetrical outline, so it was easy to remember. A few members of the congregation urged the pastor on. The lay people had a large part in the service and knew Scripture well and prayed beautiful prayers. Prayers are also a time where the congregation can say an "Amen" or a "that's true!" You know, I really like that, but in most White churches we don't do it.
There was an invitation, and one little girl made a decision for Christ, and was baptized a few minutes afterward in the baptismal font, which was above and behind the podium. There was a time for the greeting of visitors, where they said our names, and we stood up, and everyone clapped.
It seemed that everyone wanted to meet us and know our first AND last names, and wanted us to know theirs. And they urged us to come back. I would like to go back sometime.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Book Review: Tortured for Christ, by Richard Wurmbrand
Believe it or not, "tortured for Christ" is kind of a genre of book, and I've read three such books.
Here is my review in 2007 of Heavenly Man, the story of a man tortured in Communist China.
This book is written by Pastor Richard Wurmbrand, a Romanian who was imprisoned for 14 years for sharing Christ with others. After 7 years, he was released, and he eventually resumed his activities, and was put into prison again.
There are a few descriptions of tortures, but the author says that there are some that he is not even able to write, because he wouldn't be able to sleep if he told anyone.
I am able to read about torture, and I don't have nightmares or anything. But I do get into kind of a depressed mood, because I feel bad about my imprisoned brothers and sisters. Currently, this kind of thing still happens in North Korea and China especially. And no, I don't think China deserved to host Olympics . I think it just fed the ego of the Communist government.
Pastor Wurmbrand had a remarkable attitude. He claims he never had bitterness against his torturers, only against Communism. This is because Communism brainwashed the people. When asked why not believe in Christ, they would sometimes say "the collective hasn't told me to." He and his fellow prisoners prayed for their torturers. He wrote, "it was a win-win situation....we liked preaching, and they liked beating ,so we preached, and they beat"
By the way, I forgot to mention that Richard Wurmbrand founded Voice of the Martyrs, one of my favorite charities. VOM provides aid to those in "closed" countries, and supports the families of martyrs, and provides medical care to people who have been attacked for their faith.
In closing, Richard Wurmbrand preached against the Communist system. He was criticized by some Christians for going into a political message as well as a spiritual one, but since the Communists were holding so many people in captivity, including the people in charge, why not preach against Communism?
Here is my review in 2007 of Heavenly Man, the story of a man tortured in Communist China.
This book is written by Pastor Richard Wurmbrand, a Romanian who was imprisoned for 14 years for sharing Christ with others. After 7 years, he was released, and he eventually resumed his activities, and was put into prison again.
There are a few descriptions of tortures, but the author says that there are some that he is not even able to write, because he wouldn't be able to sleep if he told anyone.
I am able to read about torture, and I don't have nightmares or anything. But I do get into kind of a depressed mood, because I feel bad about my imprisoned brothers and sisters. Currently, this kind of thing still happens in North Korea and China especially. And no, I don't think China deserved to host Olympics . I think it just fed the ego of the Communist government.
Pastor Wurmbrand had a remarkable attitude. He claims he never had bitterness against his torturers, only against Communism. This is because Communism brainwashed the people. When asked why not believe in Christ, they would sometimes say "the collective hasn't told me to." He and his fellow prisoners prayed for their torturers. He wrote, "it was a win-win situation....we liked preaching, and they liked beating ,so we preached, and they beat"
By the way, I forgot to mention that Richard Wurmbrand founded Voice of the Martyrs, one of my favorite charities. VOM provides aid to those in "closed" countries, and supports the families of martyrs, and provides medical care to people who have been attacked for their faith.
In closing, Richard Wurmbrand preached against the Communist system. He was criticized by some Christians for going into a political message as well as a spiritual one, but since the Communists were holding so many people in captivity, including the people in charge, why not preach against Communism?
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Best of the month: July 2009
Pic of the month: Zoomed in from far away on David Crowder and his keytarBest Movie That I Saw for the First Time: Bullit
Guy doing a bunch of flips and stuff
Best Book I Read: already listed count of monte cristo last month
Best online video I watched for the First time: I didn't watch too manyGuy doing a bunch of flips and stuff
Sunday, August 02, 2009
Movie Review: The Count of Monte Cristo (2002)
UPDATE
Having gotten over how the movie is not the book, I still think that it is poorly written. There are some good parts, but so many holes in character development. It's fast moving, it tries to be flashy, and doesn't matter if it makes sense or not. I think it's insulting that they call the movie Alexandre Dumas' Count of Monte Cristo, since it is clearly not so. Ok, so I guess I haven't gotten over it.
But after watching the special features, the movie does have good merit in the area of set design, sound design, and stunts.
---------------------------
This movie was one of the worst adaptations of a book ever . Almost none of the details in the movie actually exist in the book!
Mid-way through, Courtney said she wanted to read the book, so I had to shut up about how everything was wrong about it. But I will say that in the movie, the revenge seems to happen immediately, and in the book it happens over a long period of time, like it is supposed to. So I don't really understand the point of making a movie that is so loosely based on a book, I guess it was just to make some money. But still it would have made more money if it was closer to the book, because it would have been better.
The actors did not look 20 years older from the beginning of the movie to the end, but they actually looked the same. I wondered how the movie would handle that, and it didn't really. The accents were about as I expected....old English of course, but without a British twang. Danglars, of the rivals responsible for Dantes' imprisonment, was left out of the movie almost completely, and had a different profession. The manner of revenge on everyone is completely different.
There was a completely made up thing at the beginning where Dantes talked to Napoleon, and Napoleon gave him a letter to deliver. It was completely bad judgement to add that, because now Dantes actually does have some guilt, of being stupid at the least. And there is an emphasis on sword fighting in the movie, to make it more action-entertaining, but in the book there is not any sword fighting.
Having gotten over how the movie is not the book, I still think that it is poorly written. There are some good parts, but so many holes in character development. It's fast moving, it tries to be flashy, and doesn't matter if it makes sense or not. I think it's insulting that they call the movie Alexandre Dumas' Count of Monte Cristo, since it is clearly not so. Ok, so I guess I haven't gotten over it.
But after watching the special features, the movie does have good merit in the area of set design, sound design, and stunts.
---------------------------
This movie was one of the worst adaptations of a book ever . Almost none of the details in the movie actually exist in the book!
Mid-way through, Courtney said she wanted to read the book, so I had to shut up about how everything was wrong about it. But I will say that in the movie, the revenge seems to happen immediately, and in the book it happens over a long period of time, like it is supposed to. So I don't really understand the point of making a movie that is so loosely based on a book, I guess it was just to make some money. But still it would have made more money if it was closer to the book, because it would have been better.
The actors did not look 20 years older from the beginning of the movie to the end, but they actually looked the same. I wondered how the movie would handle that, and it didn't really. The accents were about as I expected....old English of course, but without a British twang. Danglars, of the rivals responsible for Dantes' imprisonment, was left out of the movie almost completely, and had a different profession. The manner of revenge on everyone is completely different.
There was a completely made up thing at the beginning where Dantes talked to Napoleon, and Napoleon gave him a letter to deliver. It was completely bad judgement to add that, because now Dantes actually does have some guilt, of being stupid at the least. And there is an emphasis on sword fighting in the movie, to make it more action-entertaining, but in the book there is not any sword fighting.
Saturday, August 01, 2009
Book Review: 2 contents, 2 realities, by Francis Schaeffer
This book was written in 1973, and was once again given to me from my Dad's old collection. The going price for these on Amazon is $177.00. And it was originally sold for $0.95. So I got a collector's item. Wish me luck as I try to sell. I'm guessing there is not much demand, and no one would pay that much, but I'll try to put it out there.
The two contents are:
The two contents are:
- Sound Doctrine - don't let liberal theology, such as the "Bible isn't absolute truth", creep in to your thinking.
- Honest Answers to Honest Questions - We should try to answer honest intellectual questions - faith decisions should not be the result of emotion or manipulation - but there should be real answers to questions.
- True Spirituality - even though intellectual belief is important, having a deep spiritual life is important
- The Beauty of Relationships - Christian love is what should will the good news. Unfortunately, in Dr. Schaeffer's day, the church wasn't a good model for it, especially looking poor in race relations. The first century church was great because there were people of all different religious, racial and economic backgrounds worshiping together. The love exhibited by the followers went down into the material possessions, as they shared them. Dr. Schaeffer was quick to point out that this wasn't communism, but volunteered donations.
Movie Review: Ordinary People (1980)
This won the Academy Award for Best Picture 1980. Based on the cover I thought I wouldn't like it, but I was excited to see Donald Sutherland and Mary Tyler Moore.
But I guess don't judge a movie by it's cover, because this one was really really good. It is the directorial debut of Robert Redford, and he deserved the Academy Award that he won for that too.
The son, Conrad, is depressed, and decides to see a counselor. As the movie unfolds, we learn it is because he tried to commit suicide recently, because his brother died in a boating accident. The whole family, which consists of the dad and mom, are all dealing with the issue in different ways. The counselor actually helps Conrad quite a bit, and the father is helped too. The mother seems to be only concerned about keeping the status quo in their circle of friends, in other words "nothing's wrong". And she shows no love to Conrad. And their state of denial is totally torn apart as they deal with their stuff in the movie.
But anyway, it's good. It really competes for being one of the best. I'm surprised because it's not flashy or anything - I actually had never heard of it before.
But I guess don't judge a movie by it's cover, because this one was really really good. It is the directorial debut of Robert Redford, and he deserved the Academy Award that he won for that too.
The son, Conrad, is depressed, and decides to see a counselor. As the movie unfolds, we learn it is because he tried to commit suicide recently, because his brother died in a boating accident. The whole family, which consists of the dad and mom, are all dealing with the issue in different ways. The counselor actually helps Conrad quite a bit, and the father is helped too. The mother seems to be only concerned about keeping the status quo in their circle of friends, in other words "nothing's wrong". And she shows no love to Conrad. And their state of denial is totally torn apart as they deal with their stuff in the movie.
But anyway, it's good. It really competes for being one of the best. I'm surprised because it's not flashy or anything - I actually had never heard of it before.
Movie Review: Help!
Kenny Bade recommended this movie, and it is the Beatles 2nd movie. The Beatles go around in a slapstick comedy. If you want a plot, go here.
They were a little difficult to understand, so we turned on subtitles. In the special features, we learned that the Beatles were smoking marijuana the whole time, and they remember it as a happy time in their lives.
The movie itself was funny in a slapstick kind of way, and featured a few full band performances. But don't watch it unless you are interested in the Beatles. Since we are fans, it was fun to see the footage of them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)