It's official! After five agonizing weeks of waiting for news, it has been announced that Fox will co-finance The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader with Walden Media! According to Variety, “the two sides are still working out budget and script issues, but the hope is to shoot the film at the end of summer for a holiday 2010 release through the Fox Walden label.” Walden still controls the movie rights to the books.

It is also revealed that “Richard LaGravanese penned the most recent draft that both Walden and Fox were happy with, but there's a question about his availability because he has been adapting Sara Gruen's bestseller 'Water for Elephants' for Fox 2000.”

Michael Apted will still direct and Ben Barnes, Skandar Keynes, and Georgie Henley will reprise their roles. Will Poulter is also still set to play Eustace.

Interesting Fact: Fox is owned by News Corp, which also owns HarperCollins (Narnia publisher).

Fox 2000 will spearhead development and production matters from the Fox front. Topper Elizabeth Gabler had pursued the “Narnia” franchise but was beaten out by Walden. The Century City studio seems to be an ideal fit for the “Narnia” books given that it's been looking for a family-friendly, lit-based franchise for years — Fox 2000's “Eragon” failed to catch on with audiences and died after one installment.

[. . .]

“Caspian,” which is considered the least commercially appealing of the seven C.S. Lewis “Narnia” novels, ranked No. 10 in global box office performance last year. “Dawn Treader” is considered to be a more family film-friendly book, and the goal is to get back to the magical aspects present in the first “Narnia” pic but mostly absent from “Prince Caspian.”

Fox has lowered the sights for the project though, according to Variety, reducing the budget for the new film to $140m (£98m), considerably less than the $215m spent on previous effort Prince Caspian. Caspian's worldwide receipts of $419m was a long way down on the $745m taken by The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe in 2005 and it was considered a box-office disappointment last year. Yet, the figure was still enough to make it one of the 10 most successful films at the international box office in 2008, which may have helped Fox to come to its decision.

Scripture: silent beyond ‘children, obey your parents’

I’d like to know what you think a biblical family should look like? What do you think the father/daughter relationship in particular should look like? [. . .] And what is the Biblical background/back-up for your belief?

Consider that “God is love,” as it says in 1 John 4:8, and that God is God, as it says in Isaiah 46:9: “I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me.” The truth that God is God implies that God is who he is in all his glorious attributes and self-sufficiency. But that truth that God is love implies that all of this glory is moving our way for our everlasting enjoyment.

Now, those two truths unleash very different impulses through the Bible. And we will see that a balance is introduced here lest we make of Christianity an elitist affair, which it definitely is not.

That God is love unleashes the impulse of simplicity, and that God is God unleashes the impulse of complexity.

That God is love unleashes the impulse of accessibility, and that God is God unleashes the impulse of profundity.

That God is love unleashes the impulse of encourages a focus on the basics, and that God is God encourages a focus on comprehensiveness. One says, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31). The other says, “I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27, RSV).

That God is love impels us to be sure that the truth gets to all people, and that God is God impels us to be sure that what gets to all people is the truth.

That God is love unleashes the impulse toward fellowship, and that God is God unleashes the impulse toward scholarship.

That God is love tends to create extroverts and evangelists, and that God is God tends to create introverts and mystics.

That God is love helps foster a folk ethos, and that God is God helps foster a fine ethos.

[. . .]

If any of you is saying to yourself, “I don't like this separation between God is love and God is God, between folk and fine, evangelists and mystics, fellowship and scholarship, accessibility and profundity, simplicity and complexity”--GOOD! Because, in my mind, every one of these things is precious, and both sides of all pairs are indispensable in the ministry and mission of Christ in the world. So my prayer is this. For believers, I pray that, seeing these different impulses in Christianity, you will embrace both of them. If you lean toward one side (as we all do), that you will be respectful and affirming to those on the other side. And that you will cherish the fuller manifestation of God in his church and in the world. And for those who may be reading this without love to Christ in your heart, my prayer is that what you have seen will help remove some caricatures or stereotypes of Christ in the Bible--and open the way for you to see all that God is for you in Christ, so that you freely believe on him.

-- Taste and See: Savoring the Supremacy of God in All of Life, John Piper (Multnomah, 2005)

WASHINGTON — President Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill today that they need to quit listening to radio king Rush Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration.

“You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done,” he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.

One White House official confirmed the comment but said he was simply trying to make a larger point about bipartisan efforts.

“There are big things that unify Republicans and Democrats,” the official said. “We shouldn't let partisan politics derail what are very important things that need to get done.”

That wasn't Obama's only jab at Republicans today.

While discussing the stimulus package with top lawmakers in the White House's Roosevelt Room, President Obama shot down a critic with a simple message.

“I won,” he said, according to aides who were briefed on the meeting. “I will trump you on that.”

The commercial begins with an ultrasound image of a baby moving in his mother's womb.

“This child's future is a broken home,” it says.

“He will be abandoned by his father.”

“His single mother will struggle to raise him.”

“Despite the hardships, he will endure,” the ad states. “This child will become the first African American president.”

It features a photo of President Obama and concludes, “Life. Imagine the potential.”

President Obama's agenda regarding “reproductive choice” has been posted on the White House website.

It states, Obama “has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority in his Adminstration.” [sic]

[If Obama] does not eliminate the Bush tax cuts, I would call that success. So yeah, I would hope he would succeed if he acts like Reagan. But if he's going to do FDR — if he's going to do The New New Deal all over, which we will call here The Raw Deal — why would I want him to succeed?

Look it. He's my president. The fact that he is historic is irrelevant to me now. It matters not at all. If he is going to implement a far-left agenda --

Look it. I think it's already decided: over $2 trillion in stimulus. The growth of government? I think the intent here is to create as many dependent Americans as possible, looking to government for their hope and salvation. If he gets nationalized health care — I mean, it's over, Sean. We're never going to roll that back. That's the end of America as we have known it, because that's then going to set the stage for everything being government owned, operated, or provided.

Why would I want that to succeed? I don't believe in that. I know that's not how this country is going to be great in the future; it's not what made this country great. So I shamelessly say, “No! I want him to fail.” If his agenda is a far-left collectivism — some people say socialism — as a conservative heartfelt, deeply, why would I want socialism to succeed?

I've been accused of sheltering my children from the real world by not allowing them to watch movies like this [. . .]

Fuller Theological Seminary announced today that a course in tap dancing will be added to the curriculum of their Master of Divinity program this spring. Don Ohlson, a spokesperson for Fuller, explained the reason behind the new addition: “We believe that in this postmodern climate of tolerance and political civility it is important to train our future pastors to be able to dance around biblical issues when necessary.”

According to Ohlson, Fuller officials saw a need for the tap dance course after one of their most prominent alumni, Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Community Church, lost some of his rhythm over the gay marriage issue in California. “Over the years, Rick has displayed some instinctive dance moves that have made his Christian message light and breezy,” said Ohlson, “but when he openly opposed gay marriage his footwork got a little too heavy and he had to do some serious back-shuffles [. . .]"

Ohlson was quick to point out that Warren, despite his recent stumbles, still managed to make some impressive ballroom moves that swept Barack Obama off his feet and led to his invitation to offer the opening prayer at the Presidential Inauguration. “Even without formal dance training, Rick’s Fuller education undoubtedly provided him with the basic tools to become the theological hoofer that he is today,” said Ohlson. “By offering this new class on tap dance, we believe the next ‘Rick Warren’ that Fuller produces will be even more prepared to make the Gospel as entertaining and non-threatening as possible.”

... And again, the complete column is available here, on Speculative Faith.

In the Vision Forum universe, God is little more than your Authority, with little intermediary human “authorities” in between Him and us. (This, by the way, is just recycled Bill Gothard-ism, the same kind of “chain of human spiritual authority” view that the Reformers fought to abolish centuries ago.) Thus, families behave the same way, especially between husbands and wives, fathers and daughters.

Quite literally, fathers own daughters in the Vision Forum universe[. . . .] This is not a reactionary exaggeration. Read their websites. See the cheerful proclamations their young women make about having their hearts “belong” to their fathers until a potential husband comes along for the arranged property transfers. Note the hegemonic, attack-of-the-clones dress codes in the above-posted video and elsewhere on the internet.

All of this twisted theology results from a low view of God, an exalted view of man and man’s righteousness, and terrible eisegesis and skewed reading of Scripture. Like Gothard and other legalists, they equate practices that are described in the Bible, such as arranged marriage, and ascribe these as having just as much value as direct commandments from God.

It’s bad enough that daughters and families are suffering the loss of freedom and Grace because of this false teaching. Far worse is the fact that God Himself is not glorified, and Grace merely is thrown into the grinding machine of Moralism.

I thought I said that, no, every single sourtship does not need to look like that. [. . .] I do not look at courship with reverant eyes, courtship and the Bible are at totally different totally totally different levels in my mind.

And I fully agree that “courtship is more the mindset then the actual action.” This leads, though, to some rather interesting realizations: what is tempting or hurtful to one person may not be the same to others. What will best serve the other person and glorify God to him or her, even in the manner of physical affections? It’s the same case with holiday celebration, or eating or drinking preferences, about which Paul was clear that Christians can have different standards because some struggle in some areas more than others do.

Most of your description two pages ago I have indeed heard before. The only thing new to me is your seeming recognition that Christians aren’t required in Scripture to follow this kind of model. That is unfortunately a view foreign to many other advocates of such courtship concepts.

However, I would take issue with the ideas that this is the “perfect situation,” Daughters. For example, a friend of mine just got married on Dec. 20, after what I thought was an unusual method of speed-courtship with his church’s help. For him, a few months of dating and friends-and-fellowship time was quicklyfollowedbyengagementandthenmarriage within two months!

Other friends, including NarniaWebbers, have adopted rock-solid Biblical “courtship” principles, including accountability and direction-drivenness, while not having a “chaperone” accompany them anytime they’re together. I myself am praising God for where He’s brought me in my own mostly-long-distance relationship with a certain young lady — a NarniaWebber! Who’s to say their/our method of mate-seeking isn’t “perfect” or God’s will, too?

What I would like to see more of in the stronger “courtship” advocates is a recognition that Christians are not all the same types of people — that is, homeschoolers, with Christian parents, living relatively close together, and with plenty of accountability available from Godly fathers and/or church leaders or mentors. To think otherwise is not just unrealistic or impractical, but bypassing the diversity of backgrounds in God’s people.

Even Josh Harris (often perceived as the “Love Doctor,” as he now sarcastically refers to himself!) had to get past some of his initial expectations: he married a non-homeschooled new Christian with a history of bad relationships and an absentee father, while more than a thousand miles from his own parents and any accountability to them!

Unfortunately, there’s a lot of bad doctrine being taught in these movements. It is very often based on the desires to correct other bad doctrines — such as anti-marriage-roles feminism, anti-family attitudes, secular dating-just-for-fun-and-profit, or “lazy Christianity.” Those goals, then, can become the goal of many teachings, particularly if — as I’ve already pointed out — you’re operating from a wrong view of God’s Grace and the need to make Him our center.

In fact, I would recommend backing up and restarting this whole debate from there — the flawed presuppositions of patriarchalism, leading to the result of flawed courtship concepts.

Meanwhile, though, let me repeat and supplements everyone’s arguments again Arranged-marriage-esque (how about we call it AME?) type courtship in a more-organized way. However, I must give credit to Don Veinot, who similarly organized his book’s rebuttal to the Gothard-esque courtship concepts (at least, as they are purported to be The Scriptural Way of Doing It). My first point will be the longest.

Yes, boys and girls, it's that time again. And if you're grossed out by this kind of thing, you may want to adjust your browser settings now and navigate away. I myself am completely put out by such Mushy discussion. So I'm only starting this topic under enormous political pressure and the graciousness of my little moderator cyber-heart.

If you're not familiar with the incidental Spare Oom Mush Series, it's been going on since the first topic, I Kissed Dating Goodbye (crushes cont'd.), started by miss shortlegs on Jan. 16, 2006.

(Has it been that long? Wow.)

So NarniaWeb's relationship with the topic has been ongoing for almost three years. However, it's been an on-and-off relationship. The first topic lasted a little more than four months, then ended after 100 pages (by the old forum's count). NarniaWeb and Mush broke up and both went home crying.

Later, the handsome and dashing stardf29 asked the topic out again, and so began the whirlwind romance of Boy Meets Girl, which lasted from mid-May to mid-August of 2006. However, the hundred-page limit was again reached, and the relationship couldn't last. The Mush Series wept bitterly into its pillow for several evenings whilst stardf29, apparently not able to reconcile desires for companionship with dreams of academic achievement, went off to study the philosophies behind higher derivative calculus or something.

In September 2006, I was the shoulder for the Mush Series to cry on, and so began the third in the series, Wuv, Twue Wuv — and Mawwiage! Thus the romance began again, with all manner of discussions about dating, courtship, male/female and husband/wife roles, selfishness and unselfishness in relationships, appropriate behavior, and all kinds of topics that had likely been discussed before, but are always interesting anyway.

But the infatuation could only last so long, and I broke the subject's heart in March 2007.

Then came the handsome and dashing and spiritually swashbuckling The Black Glove, wooing and schmoozing, in late June 2007. “Wuv, Twue Wuv, and Mawwiage:” Episode IV lasted until March of last year, when the discussion had run its course after 100 pages.

Alas, The Black Glove, ever the cold-hearted Calvinist, forsook his love in favor of trivial things like college, real-life friends, and perhaps preparing to find some other love interest someday. Meanwhile, the Mush series, its poor heart breaking for what could have been, remained locked in its room for weeks, eating chocolates and swearing never to love again.

And now, here come I, the third suitor, with plenty of wooing words to court the conversation once more. Ah, but this is to be a relationship that involves friends and loved ones, those who care about us and want to help and participate. Want to come along?



“Mawwiage! Mawwiage is what bwings us togethahh today. Mawwiage! That bwessed awwangement, that dweam wifin a dweam ...

”And wuv, twue wuv, will fowwow you fowevahh ... So tweashah youw wuv ...

“Have you the wing?”