Culture

The Secret of the Kells

While most of my readers know that the Book of Kells is a gorgeously illuminated book of the Gospels, you know, those stories about JC and the Boyz, apparently the people who made the movie The Secret of the Kells felt all that was irrelevant. You may have already seen this movie and if you haven’t and are any fan of animation at all, see it now! The style of animation is almost story board-like with beautiful colors and movement. It evokes the style of Kells without mocking or mimicking. It is truly a stunning visual event.

But the movie has nothing to do with the Book of Kells. The Book of Kells was made by monks who were faithful followers of Jesus who produced this gorgeous manuscript out of love and devotion, yet this movie seems oblivious to that fact. At no point in the movie is reference ever made to what the book is actually about and aside from a handful of crosses and references to monastic titles, someone without prior knowledge of this amazing artifact would have no clue about its true nature. That is disappointing. Although I have seen the Book myself I know little of its true history and a little more of that and perhaps less of the fairy or even the Northmen would have been nice.

Still, I highly recommend the movie. B+

Tea is to coffee…

Sep 23rd, 2010

by Christian Brady.

3 comments

Steeping

As smoking a pipe is to cigarettes.

One is a pleasant diversion, the other a horrible addiction.

Connecting to younger generations

Sep 5th, 2010

by Christian Brady.

1 comment

Andy Capp by Reg Smythe

It is tough to admit it but I am no longer the “younger generation.” Sure I use twitter, facebook, and often have the gadgets. Folks are saying that twitter and facebook are really for the old folks anyway so maybe that isn’t a sign of my hipness. But when it comes to education and preaching I think that we are very often in danger of altering the message rather than the means of delivery. When Paul said he became all things to all people (1 Cor. 9:22) he was not saying that he would alter the Gospel to meet a different audience’s perspective (if they didn’t like the idea of Christ’s death as an atoning sacrifice, for example, he did not say that it was merely an example of love). Rather he was saying that he would meet people where they were in the condition that they were in. The Bible must be translated into every languages and only some of them are verbal.

This is true for education as well. I certainly believe that we need to understand the nature and character of our students today and we should explore modes of delivery that will work best for our/their current context (which is not the same for everyone, we have commuters, adult learners, military, etc.). But our goals and the content should not necessarily change. The obvious exception to the content is, of course, where new knowledge is being developed; we need to stay up-to-date in our fields and incorporate new discoveries and theories into our courses. As much as I am glad to see folks using the iPad, for example, in English classes, I worry sometimes that in some people’s rush to incorporate the latest gadget they are not only potentially leaving some behind they are also running the risk of making the course about the tools rather than the subject.

In short, whatever modes and methods we use we need to keep our eyes on the “course objectives and learning outcomes,” even in the church.

So very wrong: Jesus & Jacko

Jul 25th, 2010

by Christian Brady.

2 comments

I stumbled across this today. I have no idea of its origins, clearly dating to the time of Michael Jackson’s death; it is wrong on so many levels. But friends, tell me this, what will future art historians, scholars of religion, and archaeologists make of this in 1,000 years?

(And it is not just the glove, did we need to see a Jesus with that much chest hair?)

I Write Like lots of folks (and reflections on biblical authorship)

Jul 18th, 2010

by Christian Brady.

6 comments

I am late to the party here but I thought I would try and experiment. Do I always write like the same person?

First I put in the opening paragraphs from my paper on Boaz from MAR-SBL. The result? I write like Kurt Vonnegut.
Next I pasted in a portion from a sermon for 6 Easter 2009. The result? I write like James Joyce.
Finally, I used a portion from this blog, specifically where I was discussing the iPad. The result? I write like David Foster Wallace.

This puts me in mind of the essay by C. S. Lewis (was it Fern-Seed and Elephants and Other Essays on Christianity? I can’t remember) where he discusses the debates about Pauline authorship. As I recall he points out that the arguments from writing style do not hold up since if one were to analyze his various works, Narnia, academic essays, apologetics, etc., one would think there were at least 4 different authors at work. Without getting into the debate about Pauline authorship or J, for that matter, I think this serves as a reasonable caution. Who among us does always write in the same style? And none of my examples include any dialogue with characters expressing distinct voices or views.

All in all, these are not bad folks to be in company with (although I haven’t read any Wallace). The site never claimed to be accurate, Margaret Atwood apparently doesn’t write like herself, but it is a bit fun and perhaps I nice reminder that our own literary critical abilities are probably not much better.