From time to time Fuller Seminary's Irvine campus holds what they call "Conversations on Culture" in which they bring in a speaker and work through the integration of Christianity and the culture around us. It is a significant commitment to make it down to orange county in the middle of the day, but I couldn't resist today's topic: Monk Habits for Everyday People.
This session was hosted by Dennis Okholm, a professor at Asuza Pacific University who serves as adjunct faculty at Fuller's Irvine campus. Dennis has written a book by the same title as today's topic. Dennis opened the session by telling his story about how he first got connected with the monastic life in North America. His first experience was with a monastery named "Blue Cloud Abbey" in South Dakota where he spent three days there in order to take a break from life. He loved it, and his second visit was a ten day visit with six students for a class entitled "the habits of monks". Since then he has become connected with the abbey on a regular basis. Blue Cloud Abbey is a Benedictine monastery located in South Dakota. Although Dennis has relocated to Southern California, he continues to remain connected with Blue Cloud Abbey as an oblate (a friend of the monastery that shares a spiritual journey with them).
Dennis talked some about the specific activities at Blue Cloud, such as reading through the entire psalter every month. The traditional Benedictine rule has a tighter schedule, with the entire psalter read every week. The monastery also has a mission they founded in Guatemala that serves the people and provides a source of fabric that the monastery in South Dakota uses to make vestments and such. The money from the sale of those vestments directly benefits the people in Guatemala. It's an great arrangement that provides not only spiritual instruction for the people of Guatemala, but also employment.
A lecture on the rule of St. Benedict would have been interesting, but not really engaging. Thankfully, this is not what today was about. Dennis began by introducing us to Brother Jean, Brother Rene, and other monks that are special to him. He also shared some of the customs and activities of the monastery, specifically mentioning how the monks have banquets together after mass. One thought stuck in my mind as I listened: COMMUNITY. This wasn't about rules and regulations and tips for deep spirituality, it was about community. Each of the monks that Dennis has come to know at Blue Cloud have become special to him. The story of those men was what he really wanted to share.
One even that really stuck out to him was how after mass at the end of a weekend at the abbey, one of the monks offered him coffee for his drive home. The simple question "Do you have a thermos?" showed how attuned the monks were to the needs of others. They were thinking about what he would need for his long drive home.
Dennis shared quite a bit about the interaction of his students with the monastery as well. On the first student visit, he had a young southern baptist who was scared and got physically ill due to the tension of being around the monastery. By the end of the weekend she couldn't wait to return. I am constantly amazed at how much we focus on our disagreements, to the point that someone could become physically ill due to being nervous about being around fellow Christians.
One statement that really struck me was from one of the monks, who at the end of one of the visits stood up and thanked the students for coming, because it reminds the monks to question whether they are really living up to their vows. How often do we get so wrapped up in the specks in other people's eyes that we forget that Jesus calls us to examine ourselves.
One of Dennis' points was that Benedict did not expect spiritual gold medalists to be monks. He viewed the monastery as a school for the Lord's service, trying to emulate what we read in Acts 2 & 4. The rule of St. Benedict was first written down for the Monte Casino Monastery. Benedict's goal was to establish a community where we learn to serve others and serve the Lord. The goal of the monks is to create by grace the likeness of Christ, forming themselves and each other in a shared life.
This is, in a nutshell, the entire point of Okholm's talk today and his book on everyday habits. There is nothing in that paragraph that requires a monastic life. As churches we should strive to do exactly what is outlined in the rule of St. Benedict. We should be a community that seeks to form ourselves and each other into the likeness of Christ through a shared life together.
One of the original subheadings for the book was "A book for protestants who are not in a hurry" which I found fascinating. Our society does not value the contemplative or the slow. We have become consumers of religion instead of cultivators of our spirit.
While we have kids stories like the tortoise and the hare, have you ever met anyone who wants to be the tortoise? We have microwave ovens because a regular oven takes too long. We have single cup coffee pots because who wants to wait for a whole pot to brew. We have fast food restaurants because spending an entire hour sitting down at a restaurant to eat is too much. We have powerbars because who has time to eat fast food anymore? Heck, why not just create a home IV kit and avoid food altogether?
Knowing God is not something we can hurry, it's about daily progress. Every day we need to seek God. You can't truly seek God by spending five minutes reading the bible and giving a quick shout out to God before dinner. Seeking God takes time. Lots of it. We can't be in a hurry.
Dennis then moved on to some of the objections to the monastic movement (please note: he isn't advocating that we all become monks, rather he is advocating that we learn from the monks and apply that learning to our daily lives). One objection is that the monastery is a contrived environment, it is not the "real world" so to speak. The answer to that is that wherever there is a fellowship of Christians trying to be what Christ called us to be is the real world.
Another common objection is that monastic spirituality is habitual. Dennis' response to that is that spiritual habits can keep us spiritually healthy. He made a point in his own life how every morning now when he wakes up the first words out of his mouth are "Open my lips, oh Lord, and my mouth shall declare your praise." Yes it's a habit, but it sets a tone for the day as the very first thing every morning. Just because it's habitual does not make it bad. The danger lies in relying only on the habitual, and never taking time to allow God to work in your life.
Some discussion was had about silence. Okholm made an interesting statement: In our activist piety we have tended to prophetic pronouncements rather than quiet listening. The silence of the monastic reveals the sound of the world. Perhaps we fill our lives with noise because we are really afraid to face ourselves. We hardly ever live from within outwards, instead we react to the world and accept as our life what is fed in from the outside.
A great question was given, asking how Okholm's life has changed since he began to try to apply monastic principles to his life. His answers: Morning prayer has become a priority. The psalter becomes indispensible on a daily basis. Balance of life. Being a little more aware of the presence of God in daily life. We just skim on the surface of life, and miss the depth that lies beneath. Being part of the fellowship of monks.
In closing, the key principles of the monastic life were summarized as follows:
Work. Study. Pray.
I have not yet read the book, but I purchased a copy and plan on devouring it soon. Before I review the book, I wanted to share with you what Okholm shared today. It was a blessing to be able to attend.
Joel
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Thursday, January 10, 2008
My own response
I spent a quite a bit of mental energy the last couple of days dissecting what Driscoll said, and revisiting the books that he critiqued etc. to be sure I was right. Last night as I was reflecting, I felt compelled to change the tone completely.
So I spent a good amount of time praying for Mark, his ministry, his family, mars hill church, his integrity, and his impact for the kingdom of God. It was a blessing, and I challenge you to do the same. It's easy to forget the fact that we are all on the same team, trying to reach the world for Christ.
Joel
So I spent a good amount of time praying for Mark, his ministry, his family, mars hill church, his integrity, and his impact for the kingdom of God. It was a blessing, and I challenge you to do the same. It's easy to forget the fact that we are all on the same team, trying to reach the world for Christ.
Joel
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
A little thing called context
Yesterday a couple of friends of mine were talking, and one of them was relating Mark Driscoll's comments about Rob Bell to the other. I got involved in the conversation, and the long and the short of it is that I ended up listening to Driscoll's entire lecture. This address was delivered at the convergent conference at southeastern baptist theological seminary in September. Mark admitted that he put the entire thing together in a few hours, which is unfortunate, because words have impact in this internet age, and his arguments about Bell are way off base.
Mark criticizes Bell for three specific things: (1) Using rabbinical writings and other non-Christian books to understand scripture (2) A passage in Velvet Elvis and (3) Having Brian McLaren fill his pulpit. I will address each one.
Mark's argument is that the rabbis did not know Jesus, and therefore their writings are of no value because Jesus claims that all of scripture is about him. There is a profound logical mistake in this thinking. Rob Bell and others do not look to the rabbinical writings as the final authority, but as a way of understanding the context in which the scriptures were written, and how they might have been understood by those who read them. If we throw out these writings as spurious because of their non-Christian nature, we must then throw out all of the understanding of Greek and Hebrew that we gain from non-biblical sources. After all, those sources are used for the same purpose: understanding the real meaning and use of the words in scripture. Either non-Christian works can help us understand the word of God, or they don't. If they don't, we are in a heap of trouble because every single version of the bible we have relies on these sources for their translations, and without them translation would be impossible.
I have not read one of the books Mark rails against (A Brief History of Everything), but having listened to sermons by Rob Bell and having read his books, I am certain he (Rob) doesn't interpret the book or use it in the way Mark understands it and assumes it is being used. I have, however, read Velvet Elvis, and so I will address that point next.
Mark's second argument is about a passage in Velvet Elvis. Mark states that Rob argues against he virgin birth (he doesn't), and then proceeds to tear apart an argument that Rob did not make. Let me explain:
In the chapter entitled "Jump" Rob discusses our understanding of God, and what we base our beliefs on. Just prior to the discussion that freaks out Driscoll (did he read the whole book, or did someone just ask him about those pages?) Rob writes: "The truth about God is why study and discussion and doctrines are so necessary. They help us put words to realities beyond words. They give us insight and understanding into the experience of God we're having...If they ever become the point, something has gone seriously wrong. Doctrine is a wonderful servant and a horrible master."
Rob continues later "Each of the core doctrines for him is like a individual brick that stacks on top of the otehrs. If you pull one out, the whole wall starts to crumble... Like he said, no six-day creation equals no cross." Then what Rob does is, to me, brilliant, and to Driscoll, horrifying. He changes the focus so that this doesn't become a debate about the length of creation, because that isn't what this is about. It's about how we form and understand our view of God. So rather than make it a debate about a single issue, he switches to a straw man issue to make a point. Mark misses this entirely. To Mark, Rob is now arguing something very bad, which Rob is not. Let's read on:
"What if tomorrow someone digs up definitive proof that Jesus had a real, earthly, biological father named Larry..."
I'm going to stop here. Obviously he is being absurd. He isn't claiming that Joseph was Jesus' real biological father because that might engage an argument he doesn't want to engage. He is only making a point, hence "Larry" is really his father. But he continues:
"But what if as you study the origin of the word virgin, you discover that the word virgin in the gospel of Matthew actually comes from the book of Isaiah, and then you find out that in the Hebrew language at that time, the word virgin could mean several things"
I (Joel) will add that, in fact, a completely appropriate translation is "young woman" and a few bible translations use that.
Rob's point here is that it's not just that someone dug up Larry, but that you also discover that this could be supported in scritpure. Maybe the interpretation you always thought was true was not true, and there were others that would allow you to hold to the authority of scripture and still be a follower of God while losing something that you hold so dear.
Again, Driscoll completely misses the point. Rob is VERY clear here that this is not a discussion about the virgin birth, and yet Mark jumps in to the fray to DEFEND the virgin birth against Rob's heretical teaching. Rob closes by asking "Could a person still love God? Could you still be a Christian?"
That's what this is about. It has nothing to do with the virgin birth. Just in case you missed it, Rob affirms the virgin birth on the very next page. Mark mentions this, but adds "but we just don't need it" which is not in the text of the book.
What concerns me here are two things: First is that Mark would take on Rob without truly taking the time to understand the book or even talk to Rob (or others) to see if he is off base. The second point requires a little digression. In an earlier discussion on Brian McLaren he goes off on a book called "Recovering the Scandal of the Cross" which I think is a terrible book. So on that, we agree. The problem is that Mark also completely missed the point of that book as well, and his comments are unfair and distort what the book is trying to say rather badly. Now, to reiterate, I thought the book was terrible. I am not trying to defend Joel Green and Mark Baker, but if Mark is this far off base on his comments regarding the two books I have read, what does that say about his other comments?
So my second point is that his poor treatment of Rob's book and of Recovering the Scandal of the Cross leads me to believe that he has probably missed something in the other books he critiques as well. So should I care about his comments regarding Brian McLaren and Doug Pagitt? Well, I certainly don't agree with them like I did before I heard the section on Rob Bell. But then, I haven't read any of Doug or Brian's work, only what they said in Listening to the Beliefs of the Emerging Church. Thus, after Mark's rant on Rob, I have to retract my initial agreement that I don't think McLaren should cover Rob's pulpit. I don't really know enough about what Brian really believes to have an opinion on that. All I know is what Mark said and what little Brian wrote in the aforementioned book.
And that's the real problem. Things like this weaken the impact of your teaching of the bible. I like Mark. I loved Radical Reformission. I loved his chapter in Listening to the Beliefs. I have enjoyed his sermons. But to someone who is not firmly a Christian, does his clear misunderstanding of the writings of Bell and others make him less authoritative of a preacher? Does it call in to question everything he teaches? To me it does.
And that is the tragedy of this whole incident. I believe that Mark has done damage to his reputation and his authority as a preacher through this chapel message, and that truly saddens me not only for Mark, but because it harms the message of the Gospel as well. Mark is a gifted preacher, clearly. He has done great things in Seattle and God has blessed his ministry. I am still a Mark Driscoll fan and I want him to be successful and proclaim the word of God for all of his days, I just pray that he will be more careful about what he says about other teachers and writings, and that he will recognize how it affects the message that matters, the message of the cross.
Joel
Mark criticizes Bell for three specific things: (1) Using rabbinical writings and other non-Christian books to understand scripture (2) A passage in Velvet Elvis and (3) Having Brian McLaren fill his pulpit. I will address each one.
Mark's argument is that the rabbis did not know Jesus, and therefore their writings are of no value because Jesus claims that all of scripture is about him. There is a profound logical mistake in this thinking. Rob Bell and others do not look to the rabbinical writings as the final authority, but as a way of understanding the context in which the scriptures were written, and how they might have been understood by those who read them. If we throw out these writings as spurious because of their non-Christian nature, we must then throw out all of the understanding of Greek and Hebrew that we gain from non-biblical sources. After all, those sources are used for the same purpose: understanding the real meaning and use of the words in scripture. Either non-Christian works can help us understand the word of God, or they don't. If they don't, we are in a heap of trouble because every single version of the bible we have relies on these sources for their translations, and without them translation would be impossible.
I have not read one of the books Mark rails against (A Brief History of Everything), but having listened to sermons by Rob Bell and having read his books, I am certain he (Rob) doesn't interpret the book or use it in the way Mark understands it and assumes it is being used. I have, however, read Velvet Elvis, and so I will address that point next.
Mark's second argument is about a passage in Velvet Elvis. Mark states that Rob argues against he virgin birth (he doesn't), and then proceeds to tear apart an argument that Rob did not make. Let me explain:
In the chapter entitled "Jump" Rob discusses our understanding of God, and what we base our beliefs on. Just prior to the discussion that freaks out Driscoll (did he read the whole book, or did someone just ask him about those pages?) Rob writes: "The truth about God is why study and discussion and doctrines are so necessary. They help us put words to realities beyond words. They give us insight and understanding into the experience of God we're having...If they ever become the point, something has gone seriously wrong. Doctrine is a wonderful servant and a horrible master."
Rob continues later "Each of the core doctrines for him is like a individual brick that stacks on top of the otehrs. If you pull one out, the whole wall starts to crumble... Like he said, no six-day creation equals no cross." Then what Rob does is, to me, brilliant, and to Driscoll, horrifying. He changes the focus so that this doesn't become a debate about the length of creation, because that isn't what this is about. It's about how we form and understand our view of God. So rather than make it a debate about a single issue, he switches to a straw man issue to make a point. Mark misses this entirely. To Mark, Rob is now arguing something very bad, which Rob is not. Let's read on:
"What if tomorrow someone digs up definitive proof that Jesus had a real, earthly, biological father named Larry..."
I'm going to stop here. Obviously he is being absurd. He isn't claiming that Joseph was Jesus' real biological father because that might engage an argument he doesn't want to engage. He is only making a point, hence "Larry" is really his father. But he continues:
"But what if as you study the origin of the word virgin, you discover that the word virgin in the gospel of Matthew actually comes from the book of Isaiah, and then you find out that in the Hebrew language at that time, the word virgin could mean several things"
I (Joel) will add that, in fact, a completely appropriate translation is "young woman" and a few bible translations use that.
Rob's point here is that it's not just that someone dug up Larry, but that you also discover that this could be supported in scritpure. Maybe the interpretation you always thought was true was not true, and there were others that would allow you to hold to the authority of scripture and still be a follower of God while losing something that you hold so dear.
Again, Driscoll completely misses the point. Rob is VERY clear here that this is not a discussion about the virgin birth, and yet Mark jumps in to the fray to DEFEND the virgin birth against Rob's heretical teaching. Rob closes by asking "Could a person still love God? Could you still be a Christian?"
That's what this is about. It has nothing to do with the virgin birth. Just in case you missed it, Rob affirms the virgin birth on the very next page. Mark mentions this, but adds "but we just don't need it" which is not in the text of the book.
What concerns me here are two things: First is that Mark would take on Rob without truly taking the time to understand the book or even talk to Rob (or others) to see if he is off base. The second point requires a little digression. In an earlier discussion on Brian McLaren he goes off on a book called "Recovering the Scandal of the Cross" which I think is a terrible book. So on that, we agree. The problem is that Mark also completely missed the point of that book as well, and his comments are unfair and distort what the book is trying to say rather badly. Now, to reiterate, I thought the book was terrible. I am not trying to defend Joel Green and Mark Baker, but if Mark is this far off base on his comments regarding the two books I have read, what does that say about his other comments?
So my second point is that his poor treatment of Rob's book and of Recovering the Scandal of the Cross leads me to believe that he has probably missed something in the other books he critiques as well. So should I care about his comments regarding Brian McLaren and Doug Pagitt? Well, I certainly don't agree with them like I did before I heard the section on Rob Bell. But then, I haven't read any of Doug or Brian's work, only what they said in Listening to the Beliefs of the Emerging Church. Thus, after Mark's rant on Rob, I have to retract my initial agreement that I don't think McLaren should cover Rob's pulpit. I don't really know enough about what Brian really believes to have an opinion on that. All I know is what Mark said and what little Brian wrote in the aforementioned book.
And that's the real problem. Things like this weaken the impact of your teaching of the bible. I like Mark. I loved Radical Reformission. I loved his chapter in Listening to the Beliefs. I have enjoyed his sermons. But to someone who is not firmly a Christian, does his clear misunderstanding of the writings of Bell and others make him less authoritative of a preacher? Does it call in to question everything he teaches? To me it does.
And that is the tragedy of this whole incident. I believe that Mark has done damage to his reputation and his authority as a preacher through this chapel message, and that truly saddens me not only for Mark, but because it harms the message of the Gospel as well. Mark is a gifted preacher, clearly. He has done great things in Seattle and God has blessed his ministry. I am still a Mark Driscoll fan and I want him to be successful and proclaim the word of God for all of his days, I just pray that he will be more careful about what he says about other teachers and writings, and that he will recognize how it affects the message that matters, the message of the cross.
Joel
Monday, December 31, 2007
Entry 42
This is my last entry for 2007, and it's my 42nd blog entry.
Although not much for numerology, 42 is the ultimate answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything... If you are still confused, see "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" by Douglas Adams.
But I digress.
One of the things that really struck my on our vacation this summer was how much the people make all the difference no matter where you are. We loved Guam, mostly because of Fred & Helen. We loved Yap, and it wouldn't have been even remotely the same without Cy and Susan, as well as Cara who lived upstairs. The location was spectacular, but the people made the experience great.
So it's new years eve, and we are in Tracy visiting with family. Three of my cousins and their wives are here, along with my aunt & uncle. It's a Lingenfelter year end party, and there is no where else I'd rather be.
God has made us relational. He made us in His image, which is relational as well. God has all the relationship He ever needs within the trinity, and yet created other creatures like us in order to have even more relationships. We are created to connect with one another and share in fellowship.
So here we are, the end of a long day, sitting down to a great New Years Eve! It sure beats sitting around at home watching Dick Clark for the eight thousandth time...
Joel
Although not much for numerology, 42 is the ultimate answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything... If you are still confused, see "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" by Douglas Adams.
But I digress.
One of the things that really struck my on our vacation this summer was how much the people make all the difference no matter where you are. We loved Guam, mostly because of Fred & Helen. We loved Yap, and it wouldn't have been even remotely the same without Cy and Susan, as well as Cara who lived upstairs. The location was spectacular, but the people made the experience great.
So it's new years eve, and we are in Tracy visiting with family. Three of my cousins and their wives are here, along with my aunt & uncle. It's a Lingenfelter year end party, and there is no where else I'd rather be.
God has made us relational. He made us in His image, which is relational as well. God has all the relationship He ever needs within the trinity, and yet created other creatures like us in order to have even more relationships. We are created to connect with one another and share in fellowship.
So here we are, the end of a long day, sitting down to a great New Years Eve! It sure beats sitting around at home watching Dick Clark for the eight thousandth time...
Joel
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
The short, sad decline of film
As a kid I learned to take pictures with my dad's 35mm Nikomat camera. In those days, all of the photos were taken on Kodachrome 64, a slide film that holds its color for a very long time. Later I found a little 126 camera and started buying film for it. Although it had almost no features and was a very odd format (26mm by 26mm officially, although the film was actually 28mm square), I learned the concepts of taking good pictures by trial and error. I remember that my favorite picture was one I took of a dog while I was running along side it. I liked the photo because the dog was in focus and the background was blurred.
In 2001 we bought a Nikon N80 film camera to take with us to the olympics. I spent quite a bit of time trying to figure out which films to use. It was amazing the variety! There were tons of films, but as I recall I bought a lot of Agfa Optima Pro II 400 and Konica 200. I also shot a lot of Kodak Supra 100 and loved the fact that Kodak Supra 800 could be pushed to 3200, making it perfect for things like hockey!
None of those films exist anymore.
First Konica went out of business. Then Agfa. Then Kodak started discontinuing films left and right. Recently they discontinued HIE, the infra-red film that I shot in Chicago and Colorado last year. I was very dismayed by this loss, as there is nothing else quite like it on the market.
2001 was probably the high point for film. At that time the best digital camera on the market, the Nikon D1x was 5.1 Megapixels. There were higher pixel counts, but that (well, the original D1) was the first truly high end pro DSLR from a major manufacturer. Previously Kodak would take Nikon bodies and adapt them for digital, but Nikon, Canon, Minolta and Olympus were not making DSLR's until the release of the Nikon D1.
Digital was beginning to take hold, but film still was the dominant player. The competing film companies were producing better and better emulsions and competing for business. In the five years that followed 2001, film sales would evaporate as pro DSLR's came into their own. The drop in professional sales ended film research, and began the steady decline of film as a medium. On the consumer end, digital point and shoots completely destroyed the low end camera market. APS was the first casualty, followed quickly by the advanced 35mm point and shoot.
And then came the death blow. In 2003 Canon produced the digital rebel for less than $1000. With that, the consumer SLR market crashed. By early 2006 Nikon had discontinued all of their film cameras except for the mighty F6 (the best film camera ever made) and the FM10, a model aimed at beginning photography students. People stopped buying film bodies and began to buy DSLR's. Without the prosumer purchases, film companies began dropping left and right.
For color print film, Kodak and Fuji are essentially all that remains. It seems that every few months Kodak announces the discontinuation of more films. What is left is a small collection of print films, and a slightly larger collection of slide films. Even black and white seems to have taken a beating. The workflow of digital photography is simply too appealing. It takes a lot less time to import photos than it does to scan the negatives or the slides.
I am one of the holdouts. I still use the N80 that we purchased in 2001. We have added a 10MP Point & Shoot to our equipment, but the best pictures we take still come from the N80. But our options are dwindling. There is now only one place worldwide to get Kodachrome developed. How long will that last? I used to process slides at my local costco. That services has been discontinued. I have to drive nearly 60 miles to find a place that will process my true black and white film. Color print film remains easy to process, primarily because of the popularity of disposable cameras, and the fact that the same equipment creates prints from negatives and digital files.
I miss the variety of films. Each of them brought something different to the table. Each of them affected the photographs in various ways, and those films are lost, gone forever. Digital cameras now contain modes to emulate the effects of those various films (most commonly Velvia), but it isn't quite the same.
Film will never totally go away, but the attrition is far from over. Rumors are now swirling that Kodak might stop selling film altogether or sell the business. When this all shakes out there will be very few options for film photographers, and possibly only one company.
I like Fuji Slide films. I shoot Provia 100F almost exclusively. I don't care for their print films. Superia X-TRA 400 doesn't scan well, and doesn't look as good as the shots I take with Kodak 400UC. I don't generally shoot 100 print film, I use slide film for those occasions. I no longer have any film that I can push to 3200 like I used to. This is a real loss. Kodak's discontinuing of HIE is a huge loss. I expect that eventually they will discontinue 125PX, if they haven't already. Fewer and fewer options will make shooting with film less attractive.
Such is life I guess, but it's a bummer.
You can file this as a lament :-)
Joel
In 2001 we bought a Nikon N80 film camera to take with us to the olympics. I spent quite a bit of time trying to figure out which films to use. It was amazing the variety! There were tons of films, but as I recall I bought a lot of Agfa Optima Pro II 400 and Konica 200. I also shot a lot of Kodak Supra 100 and loved the fact that Kodak Supra 800 could be pushed to 3200, making it perfect for things like hockey!
None of those films exist anymore.
First Konica went out of business. Then Agfa. Then Kodak started discontinuing films left and right. Recently they discontinued HIE, the infra-red film that I shot in Chicago and Colorado last year. I was very dismayed by this loss, as there is nothing else quite like it on the market.
2001 was probably the high point for film. At that time the best digital camera on the market, the Nikon D1x was 5.1 Megapixels. There were higher pixel counts, but that (well, the original D1) was the first truly high end pro DSLR from a major manufacturer. Previously Kodak would take Nikon bodies and adapt them for digital, but Nikon, Canon, Minolta and Olympus were not making DSLR's until the release of the Nikon D1.
Digital was beginning to take hold, but film still was the dominant player. The competing film companies were producing better and better emulsions and competing for business. In the five years that followed 2001, film sales would evaporate as pro DSLR's came into their own. The drop in professional sales ended film research, and began the steady decline of film as a medium. On the consumer end, digital point and shoots completely destroyed the low end camera market. APS was the first casualty, followed quickly by the advanced 35mm point and shoot.
And then came the death blow. In 2003 Canon produced the digital rebel for less than $1000. With that, the consumer SLR market crashed. By early 2006 Nikon had discontinued all of their film cameras except for the mighty F6 (the best film camera ever made) and the FM10, a model aimed at beginning photography students. People stopped buying film bodies and began to buy DSLR's. Without the prosumer purchases, film companies began dropping left and right.
For color print film, Kodak and Fuji are essentially all that remains. It seems that every few months Kodak announces the discontinuation of more films. What is left is a small collection of print films, and a slightly larger collection of slide films. Even black and white seems to have taken a beating. The workflow of digital photography is simply too appealing. It takes a lot less time to import photos than it does to scan the negatives or the slides.
I am one of the holdouts. I still use the N80 that we purchased in 2001. We have added a 10MP Point & Shoot to our equipment, but the best pictures we take still come from the N80. But our options are dwindling. There is now only one place worldwide to get Kodachrome developed. How long will that last? I used to process slides at my local costco. That services has been discontinued. I have to drive nearly 60 miles to find a place that will process my true black and white film. Color print film remains easy to process, primarily because of the popularity of disposable cameras, and the fact that the same equipment creates prints from negatives and digital files.
I miss the variety of films. Each of them brought something different to the table. Each of them affected the photographs in various ways, and those films are lost, gone forever. Digital cameras now contain modes to emulate the effects of those various films (most commonly Velvia), but it isn't quite the same.
Film will never totally go away, but the attrition is far from over. Rumors are now swirling that Kodak might stop selling film altogether or sell the business. When this all shakes out there will be very few options for film photographers, and possibly only one company.
I like Fuji Slide films. I shoot Provia 100F almost exclusively. I don't care for their print films. Superia X-TRA 400 doesn't scan well, and doesn't look as good as the shots I take with Kodak 400UC. I don't generally shoot 100 print film, I use slide film for those occasions. I no longer have any film that I can push to 3200 like I used to. This is a real loss. Kodak's discontinuing of HIE is a huge loss. I expect that eventually they will discontinue 125PX, if they haven't already. Fewer and fewer options will make shooting with film less attractive.
Such is life I guess, but it's a bummer.
You can file this as a lament :-)
Joel
Friday, December 21, 2007
Sex God
Rob Bell makes me cry. There, I've said it. But really, he does. The way he writes, he brings together the truth of God's scripture and the reality of God's love with such clarity that it brings tears to my eyes.
I love reading, but some books are easier to read than others. I've been working my way through some very good books that are heavy reading, and since this was sitting in my stack I decided to give it a shot. It didn't take long for me to finish it. Rob writes like he preaches. Lots of pauses, short phrases for impact, and he leads you through a narrative like a good story teller would.
Sex God is Rob's latest book. The subhead is "Exploring the Endless Connections Between Sexuality and Spirituality" which sounds kinda weird, but it's really not. It's also a book about a lot more than sex. This book is about the value of human life. About dignity. About marriage. About relationships.
One of Rob's chapters is entitled "God Wears Lipstick" and in it he discusses the concentration camps during world war II, and the horrors that the British soldiers found when they liberated those camps. Each of these people that had been brutalized, violated and stripped of all their dignity were bearers of the divine image of God. He relates the treatment of these people with how men treat women when they turn them from divine image bearers to mere objects of lust. Rob writes "The problem is that 'that' is actually a 'she.' A person...It's degrading. It's violating. It does something to a person's soul"
The entire chapter is very powerful, but it's the story at the end that made me cry: "It was shortly after the British Red Cross arrived...that a very large quantity of lipstick arrived...I believe nothing did more for these internees than the lipstick. Women lay in bed with no sheets and no nightie but with scarlet red lips...At last someone had done something to make them individuals again, they were someone, no longer merely the number tattooed on the arm. At last they could take an interest in their appearance. That lipstick started to give them back their humanity."
I have removed a lot to keep this entry short and given you a very brief summary of the chapter (very brief), but the essence is that humans are special, and God has an interest in seeing us retain our humanity and this affects how we treat one another. This theme carries through the entire book, as Rob drives home the point that every person is worth dying for. Every person.
The latter sections of the book deal more specifically with sex, as Rob moves into a discussion of how the union of a man and a woman is designed to provide a glimpse of who God is. What was revolutionary to me was the discussion on heaven, and how our relationships on earth provide small glimpses of what God will provide for everyone in heaven. It suddenly became very clear why there will be no marriage in heaven, we won't need what marriage provides because we will have the full glory of God.
Sex God isn't as critically acclaimed, or as controversial as Velvet Elvis, but it's a great book nonetheless. I have to admit, I wasn't excited about the book when I read the title. I dragged my feet on purchasing it because I wasn't sure if I would like it. But having read it, I am very grateful for the gifts that God has given Rob, and that Rob is obedient to use those gifts for the kingdom.
If you haven't read Velvet Elvis, read that first. But if you have, pick up Sex God. Highly Recommended.
Joel
Friday, December 14, 2007
Movies - Christmas 2007
We don't get out to movies much, because it's very expensive. By the time we drive to the theater, buy two tickets, and pay a sitter, we could have bought three or four full priced DVD's. But for one reason or another, I've seen three movies in the last month.
First up was Beowulf in 3D. This effects laden retelling of an old english poem was entertaining, but I don't think it is what anyone would call a great movie. I also don't think I would have enjoyed it as much in 2D, and that's a very real problem. When a film virtually requires a gimmick, that is not a good thing.
The whole movie is animated using a technique similar to what was done for the Polar Express, only it doesn't look as creepy. While neat, I think I would have enjoyed it more as live action. In the end I was entertained, which is the point I guess, but it's not a movie I can see owning and certainly not a "must see" film by any stretch. If I was rating it, I'd give it a C, or perhaps a B- if you see it in 3D.
The second movie I saw was Noelle. I really liked this film, and would have enjoyed it even if I didn't know David. Unfortunately, this movie will be gone from most theaters by the time you read this because of a poor first weekend showing. The movie business is very unforgiving, and if the first weekend isn't a resounding success, the movie will be gone very quickly.
Noelle is a story about a catholic priest who is sent to shut down a small cape cod church that is no longer viable. That is the story on the surface, but there is a much larger undercurrent of faith and forgiveness. The movie has a nice blend of humor and drama, and generally produces tears by the end in all but the most hardened person.
This is one of the few movies we have gone to see as a couple, and both Patty and I enjoyed it. I wish this movie had been promoted better. I have only talked to one person who had heard of it before I mentioned it, and they might have read about it here in my earlier entry, because I know they had read my blog... I'm very disappointed at how this whole thing has gone. I would like to have seen Noelle do a lot better, and I think better promotion could have made a big difference here. Overall this movie was probably a B to me. Not perfect, but well worth seeing.
Last night I went to see I am Legend. This movie stars Will Smith as a (not exactly) the last man alive on earth. To be honest, I really like the premise here. Will Smith is utterly alone in New York City. He is the only "normal" living citizen. The rest of the planet has been wiped out by a virus that was originally produced to cure cancer (which it did). Unfortunately, the virus mutated and went from curing cancer to effectively giving the entire human race something like rabies that makes their hair fall out and turns them into gollum like ultra violent creatures that cannot be exposed to sunlight.
The movie was a mix of suspense, action, and save the world heroics. Will Smith plays the role well, as he tries to survive in Manhattan, avoiding the creatures that come out at night. This is by far my favorite of these three films. While I really liked Noelle, I am Legend is more the type of movie I enjoy seeing. It makes me want to see The Omega Man, a 1970's movie based on the same book, simply to see how cheesy it can be :-)
There is an interesting subplot of faith in I am Legend as well. I don't want to go into it too much because I don't want to spoil the movie for anyone. I am Legend is well worth seeing. It's not perfect, but I give it an A-...
Joel
First up was Beowulf in 3D. This effects laden retelling of an old english poem was entertaining, but I don't think it is what anyone would call a great movie. I also don't think I would have enjoyed it as much in 2D, and that's a very real problem. When a film virtually requires a gimmick, that is not a good thing.
The whole movie is animated using a technique similar to what was done for the Polar Express, only it doesn't look as creepy. While neat, I think I would have enjoyed it more as live action. In the end I was entertained, which is the point I guess, but it's not a movie I can see owning and certainly not a "must see" film by any stretch. If I was rating it, I'd give it a C, or perhaps a B- if you see it in 3D.
The second movie I saw was Noelle. I really liked this film, and would have enjoyed it even if I didn't know David. Unfortunately, this movie will be gone from most theaters by the time you read this because of a poor first weekend showing. The movie business is very unforgiving, and if the first weekend isn't a resounding success, the movie will be gone very quickly.
Noelle is a story about a catholic priest who is sent to shut down a small cape cod church that is no longer viable. That is the story on the surface, but there is a much larger undercurrent of faith and forgiveness. The movie has a nice blend of humor and drama, and generally produces tears by the end in all but the most hardened person.
This is one of the few movies we have gone to see as a couple, and both Patty and I enjoyed it. I wish this movie had been promoted better. I have only talked to one person who had heard of it before I mentioned it, and they might have read about it here in my earlier entry, because I know they had read my blog... I'm very disappointed at how this whole thing has gone. I would like to have seen Noelle do a lot better, and I think better promotion could have made a big difference here. Overall this movie was probably a B to me. Not perfect, but well worth seeing.
Last night I went to see I am Legend. This movie stars Will Smith as a (not exactly) the last man alive on earth. To be honest, I really like the premise here. Will Smith is utterly alone in New York City. He is the only "normal" living citizen. The rest of the planet has been wiped out by a virus that was originally produced to cure cancer (which it did). Unfortunately, the virus mutated and went from curing cancer to effectively giving the entire human race something like rabies that makes their hair fall out and turns them into gollum like ultra violent creatures that cannot be exposed to sunlight.
The movie was a mix of suspense, action, and save the world heroics. Will Smith plays the role well, as he tries to survive in Manhattan, avoiding the creatures that come out at night. This is by far my favorite of these three films. While I really liked Noelle, I am Legend is more the type of movie I enjoy seeing. It makes me want to see The Omega Man, a 1970's movie based on the same book, simply to see how cheesy it can be :-)
There is an interesting subplot of faith in I am Legend as well. I don't want to go into it too much because I don't want to spoil the movie for anyone. I am Legend is well worth seeing. It's not perfect, but I give it an A-...
Joel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)