Eric Petrossian - KINGDOM COME: THE LIFE OF CHRIST

Besed on the Gospels in the NIV, this is a one man show with a difference. Eric is the Narrator, Jesus, John the Baptist, Peter, Pilot, ..., even Mary, even Satan. This is exactly what it purports to be: The life of Jesus on Earth. Two 40 minute performances, starting at the very beginning, with a few words from Genesis and a genealogy, and finishing with the post resurrection encounters.

I have seen many presentations of the gospel in my time. Our very own version in 1989 is still clear in my memory. This is different because it is just one man. I recently watched a biography of Patrick Stewart - who is renowned for his one man show, so I had a little idea of what to expect. Eric does a good job of changing characters, and there was never any confusion about who he was supposed to be. The conversations were very skillfully handled. Some of his accents may have been difficult to place - I remember thinking one was a cross between Derek Jacobi's Claudius and Sean Connery. Most of the time the portrayal of the story meant that, there really wasn't too much time to come up with such ridiculous comparisons. Even though I knew the ending the dramatic portrayal brings out long lost understandings and probably a few new ones too.

Take a look at the Christ Church page, and you will see that I am not alone in thinking that this is a brilliant performance. Many people have recommended him, and rightly so.

Christ Church was laid out with tables at the back and cheese and wine was served at the interval. My only concern was that so many people missed the opportunity to see him. The church should have been creaking at the seams with people trying to get in. They may never know what they missed.

If you get a chnace to see Eric somewhere else go out of your way to make sure that you do.

Hutton & Shenfield Choral Society at Chelmsford Cathedral – Handel's Messiah (Saturday 3 March 2007)

George Frideric Handel on Wikipedia

Hutton & Shenfield Choral Society has about 120 singers, tonight there were 4 soloists. Chelmsford cathedral (once known as St. Mary's Chelmsford) I was told has wonderful acoustics. The church was turned so that we were faced away from the cross, and the choir were seated on a stepped platform underneath the organ. There was a small orchestra at ground level. The cathedral is a lovely building to be in at any time. We had tickets waiting for us, and had parked around the back of the cathedral. A friend had invited us – many thanks to him, for a brilliant evening. We took our seats towards the back, to get the best possible view around the church's pillars. By then the church was almost full. Sitting among the 600+ audience (my estimate) we waited patiently for the evening to start.

I am not a musician, and this is not the sort of music I regularly enjoy listening to. We read in the programme what the course of the evening would be. The Wiki article has a brief description. We were requested NOT to stand during the Hallelujah chorus, as apparently has become a tradition. There are two pieces in this programme that are well know, the other is 'Unto us a son is given'.

The choir processed in , lead by the soloists. The music proceeded, and was very easy listening (for me at least). Words of scripture set to music. That's all it really is. The thing to note here, is that there is no amplification. Not a microphone in sight. What you hear is what they are singing – no more and no less. The acoustics lived up to their reputation. The soloists were all very good. In the packed cathedral the audience was silent – completely silent. When the singing or music stopped there was a total absence of sound. The choir was also very good, at one stage making the trumpets difficult to hear.

Only one person stood during the Hallelujah chorus – having now heard it live, sung by a highly competent choir, I can understand why you might feel like standing! A modern day work would stop here, but Handel goes on and completes the story of the Messiah.

Live music, even amplified live music, is so mush more entertaining, and engrossing, than recorded music. The live music that we experienced tonight - without amplification – is just another step ahead. From the soloists I could hear perfectly at the other end of the building, to a choir that filled the space, and almost drowned out the orchestra.

I'd have to say “Go and see it”, but you can't, it was a one off.

Soloists

Rachel Nicholls - Soprano
Alexandra Sherman - Contralto
Jeffrey Lloyd-Roberts - Tenor
Christopher Dixon - Bass

Why men hate going to church

Why Men Hate Going to Church

David Murrow
Nelson Books
ISBN 0-7852-6038-2

Almost any church you walk into, any Sunday service, any church committee, you will notice the gender gap. There are more women than men. Is this just the way of things? Are women just naturally more religious than men? If you think that's unlikely, but don't understand why and want to know more, then this is the book for you. David starts by looking at Masculinity, and then at some more detailed categories of people who are not attending church. Did you know that the church is also lacking young women? Then he uses lots of statistics to prove the point. All of these are American, but look at the numbers and think of the churches you know. It begins to make sense. Now you're hooked. You have to read on to find out what can be done about this situation. Having explained his background, he moves on to make some suggestions as to what might need to change. If you can remember back before the feminist movement, and see how things are different now, you'll get the idea, or part of it at least. If not you'll have to read the book and see how the church 'thermostat' as he calls it can be set in a more comfortable way for men.

I read this book while preparing for a training course I will be running shortly on reaching men. These ideas are not so much about reaching, as about keeping. There's no point in reaching men, having them commit their lives to Christ, only to leave the church in six months. So I will cover both – to some extent anyway.

Flushed Away

On IMDB.
A google preview.
Have a look at the preview and see if its your sort of file. By the makers of Wallace and Grommit, I was probably going to enjoy this film. I was not disappointed. A reasonable plot, some decent characters, and more jokes at other films expense than I can poke a stick at. It scores only 3.5/5 on the google page overall. I thought that was slightly disappointing, but I suppose across that many reviewers its not bad.
Our pet rat - Rodney is left alone, the house to himself. A sewer rat is left in the house by a freak event in the sewer and flushes Rodney down the toilet. He finds himself in Rat London, and meets Rita, and her enormous family. He's helpless, clueless and a danger to himself and others as Rita battles the baddies for a fake gem. Then there's the quest to get home, and some interesting chase scenes, but this part of the film if any lacked cartoon invention, if not cartoon jokes (they are there a plenty). Finally rat London is saved from the frog baddies, some of whom are french - definitely an intended pun I think.

As the animation gets more realistic, and the animation is VERY realistic, so the whole feel of the product moves away from the cartoon genre that it came from. That's a pity. I think back to Roger Rabbit and the handcuffs. Those type of jokes are completely absent here. This type of animation has the potential to switch between the two, and make something truly unique.

My recommendation, if your a Wallace & Grommit fan, don't miss it.

Luke 1:1-25 - The lot fell on Zechariah - first assessed sermon.

It was just another day at work for Zechariah. He's probably about 60, and very familiar with preparing for his day. His division were on duty today, so the preparations and prayers are more meticulous than other days. Perhaps he's wondered what will happen. More likely he had got used to the idea that someone would be chosen, they would go into the presence of God, and say their prayers, He was probably expecting a normal day. There are so many priests that they don't all get the chance, and when they do its their one and only chance. They will never be chosen again. When the lots were cast it was HIS turn. His mouth was dry – he was nervous and excited at the same time. I expect he checked to make sure that he knew the prayer – the prayer for the redemption of Israel. You couldn't go into God's presence and bother Him with little things – inconsequential things like wanting a son, and anyway Elizabeth was far too old for that now. So in he goes to perform his duties. And His world changes completely. We've heard the story, his prayers are answered – both his prayer for the redemption of Israel, and his private prayer – the one he'd just about given up on. Now an angel appearing is quite unusual today – when was the last time you saw one? It was even more unlikely then, but asking for proof – for a sign, was not the best possible response. So the sign he got was one that was obvious to everyone.

I am going to look more closely at the event that started it all. The lot fell on Zechariah. Was that just chance? Zechariah and his fellow priests would have believed that the lot was cast as a way of letting God have a say in the matter. We do not know the mechanism that was used - what exactly they did, but they did it because they believed that it was God who should choose, not one of the human beings. Today we would probably say that casting lots for something was a fair way of allocating a scares resource, or a rare opportunity. We would put the result down to 'chance' to a 'random' event. The Israelites did not see it like that. In the same way that some Christians don't believe in coincidences, but in God-incidences, the Israelites believed that God was there, involved in His world, in the tiniest detail, such as the casting of lots.

I should make a distinction here between the casting of lots to make a decision, and the casting of lots when each share of the lot is contributed by those who take part. That is called gambling, or gaming in the modern politically correct speech. Is it right for us to pay our pound, in the hope of winning millions back? Somebody will win it eventually, but by buying a share and hoping to get millions back we are chasing after money, not after God. Our purpose should always be to seek after God – to get nearer to Him. Riches will not do that, they are more likely to take your attention away from God.

Taking part in the lottery may not be such a good idea, but is there ever a time when a Christian would consider casting lots, in the same way as the Jews did? There appears to be only one occurrence in the new Testament where lots are cast. As the disciples re-grouped after the resurrection, and the enormity of what had happened began to sink in, they were concerned to replace Judas so that there would continue to be 12 apostles. Two people were suggested, and being unable to decide for themselves between the two, they prayed and cast lots. That is reported in Acts chapter 1, immediately following this in Acts chapter 2 they receive the promised Holy Spirit, and there is never another report of lots being used to understand Gods will. It is not required any more.

When Zechariah went into the presence of God, in the inner sanctum of the temple, he was closer to God there than he had ever been in his life. He went there to deliver the prayers of Israel to God. He went into the presence of the King. Now God has another temple in which to live – His people.

Do you remember the adverts for the National Lottery. The ones with a big hand coming out of the heavens and a voice saying “It could be you”, as the index finger pointed at someone? They want you to believe that a benevolent god will make you rich. What happens in reality is that when you become a Christian, God gathers you up in His hand, and says “It IS you”. You remain in God's hands for the rest of eternity. God brings you closer to Himself than Zechariah ever got in the temple. Your prayers are heard directly by God. Your big formal prayers that Jesus would return and finalise the establishment of His kingdom and bring an end to pain and suffering. Your small prayers for the well being of your friends and family, for those around you. You don't have to go to a particular place where God is – you have become the particular place where God is. God through His Holy Spirit is with you all the time where ever you are.

If God is with you all the time he will expect you to be doing His work as well. We have seen God at work through the tiniest things in His creation. When the lot fell for Zechariah, a whole stream of events was started that ultimately lead to the arrival of Jesus, to His death and resurrection, and to you and I being able to live with God.

As an Israelite priest Zechariah was committed to working for God. When his big chance arrived he didn't realise what was going to happen. He wasn't expecting to meet heavenly beings, or that His prayers would be answered in such a dramatic fashion. We too as committed Christians are intent on working for God. How do we respond to the little chances that come our way to do His work? Each of us will have been given specific tasks by God. I know what mine are. While I'm in training it's easy for me to understand, later it may not be so straight forward. I'm assuming you know what yours are too, but how do you respond to the small chances that you have?

We all remember Billy Graham, I expect. Possibly the 20^th century's greatest evangelist. There's a long chain of conversions that leads to Billy Graham:

• Sunday School teacher Edward Kimball helped lead Dwight L. Moody to Christ;

• J. Wilbur Chapman was converted at a Dwight L. Moody evangelistic meeting;

• Billy Sunday was converted at a Chapman meeting;

• Mordecai Ham was converted at Billy Sunday meeting;

• and Billy Graham was converted at a Ham meeting.

The first person in the list was Edward Kimball. I know nothing else about him, but I want to ask the question, not “who lead him to Christ?”, but who encouraged him to become a Sunday school teacher? What about the others, who invited them to their first Christian meeting, or the meeting they were converted at, or the meeting where they decided to become an evangelist?

Its in these tiny decisions that God ultimately makes a difference in his world.

Many years ago we had a mission in Billericay, a large tent was erected on the green, and posters put up around town. I prayed for an opportunity to speak with one of my neighbours about it, and the chance was given. Normally I rarely got the chance to speak to him, but that week I spoke to him three times. Was that just chance? He didn't want to go to one of the meetings, but he was interested in what was happening and why. A seed was planted – I hope it will eventually grow. But the point of the story is that for once I grasped the opportunity that was staring me in the face, checked with God that is was the right thing to do and followed up. It would have been easy for me at any time to ignore the situation, and miss the chance.

It doesn't have to be an evangelistic opportunity, it could be a chance to encourage a friend, or just enquire how they are and offer to pray for them. Zechariah, prepared carefully, I'm sure, for his day in the temple, but he didn't respond particularly well to his chance, that's probably because he didn't really expect God to do anything, but Zechariah didn't have the Holy Spirit 'whispering in his ear'. We do!

What do you expect of God this Christmas ? More than Zechariah? Something immediate and incredible? Like a visit from an angel? Or would you prefer a chance to be involved in his work, and a chance to set off a chain of events that leads to something even more incredible?

Amen

WINTERSMITH

Wintersmith
Terry Pratchett

Doubleday
ISBN 978-0-385-60984-5

Tiffany Aching is almost thirteen, she lives on Disc World, and is a trainee witch. Tiffany has voices in her head that help her, and us, see what is really going on. She is also frequently surrounded by very small blue men, they are called the Nac Mac Feegles. They have a duty of care over Tiffany, although they would not necessarily express it like that, so when ever she's in trouble they are watching over her and do their best to help. The Nac Mac Feegles have no fear, except of women, especially angry women, and of course witches. Otherwise, they are always up for a fight. They provide the lighter moments in the book, and prevent us from taking the story too seriously. Tiffany is the typical precocious child, and will not do as she's told. She's not bad, quite the reverse, but her sense of independence gets her into trouble. She's looked after by an older witch, who is supposed to be training her. She's taken to see the dance where summer and winter swap as the dominant elemental for the new season. The dance is the Black Morris. -She joins in – always a bad idea, and gets mistaken for the Summer Lady. That's when the trouble starts, the wintersmith falls in love with her, and all sorts of dangerous things begin to happen.

It's Mistress Weatherwax (the hag 'o' hags as the Nac Mac Feegles call her) who's really looking after Tiffany and training her and testing her. She is one of the original characters in Disc World, and appears in many of the books. Here we see a softer side of her, but only just.

Using elements from various mythological stories, new ideas and twists, and of course the setting of disc world itself, we have another brilliant story from Terry Pratchett. If you've read any of the Disc World stories, you'll already know what a good storyteller Pratchett is. The characters are developed nicely from the previous book in the series, and you have a feeling there is more to come. Which we certainly hope there is.

Casino Royale

So does Daniel Craig make a good Bond? Forget the film this seems to be THE question. There was a mixed reaction from the assembled passengers in the car on the way back from the Cinema. His Bond is certainly harder and somewhat more realistic than the Brosnan version, closer to Timothy Dalton (my personal favourite). There is blood that needs to be washed off, but no bruises, and recovering from 'flat lining' to full health inside an hour is just a step too far. Still that IS Bond, so I shan't be too critical, it is part of why the entertainment works.
So to some of the truly impressive things about the film. The 'free-running' chase was remarkable, the best chase I've seen in a long time. Its' sheer energy, effort, and surprises, and the looks of exhaustion on the actors faces made it a real high light. The contrast between action and physiological tension - in and out of the poker game - was also a good mix, and something of a rarity in Bond terms. A nice addition, and other piece of reality that makes the fantasy more believable. Then there are the stunning special effects, the record achieved of turning a car over seven times, and driving through a moving bendy bus. Both these have been on so many spoilers, and were even in adverts at the start of the show, that they are de-valued before they are seen.
Some things are missing from the usual formula. No outrageous gadgets - Bond survives using his wits, intelligence, and fighting skills. That makes for a better story, although I did miss the banter with Q. Which brings me to quips, there aren't really any of those either - Bond is a much more serious, reflective character, hard nosed, less flippant. This is probably closer to the books. Womanising is largely missing, too - and where it does occur it is so obviously used as a means to an end, not as a character trait.
The big new addition to this Bond is a real woman. Not the 'Oh James' types of the seventies and eighties, nor the ones who can clearly look after themselves, and think they can do the job better. This one (Eva Green) is intelligent, and involved in the plot, she's also affected by the mayhem around Bond (and therefore her) in a realistic way. She is a proper love interest for Bond, not just a woman on the side. This was the only part of the film I really didn't enjoy. I'll call it the Travel Brochure Scenes. Just too long, half the length would be more than enough. We get the picture, and we know it isn't going to last, so just get on with the story.
Yes, the story. Partly about Bond, and partly about his mission. Some of the strategy seems a little strange - we're going to bankrupt this man so that his associates will kill him, and then when they threaten to do just that they are eliminated. Or did I miss something?
Key elements of the genre are retained. Bond does not kill any innocents. Bond is not corruptable, he has a job to do and is true to it. People are important, property is not. This film provides a way to develop the newly promotes double-o in other ways, to keep the interest of a new generation, and three older generations judging by the audience.

Was it a good film - Yes. It was not too long, just about right. Should you go and see it? If you're a Bond fan or enjoy action films - yes.