Posts
A Review of "Bruno"
By Jeff Webb
With “Bruno,” star Sacha Baron Cohen crosses every line of taste, and, while such boldness succeeded in “Borat,” it just can’t help feeling recycled and tired in the latest effort. It is a funny movie, yes, and, at times, it achieves moments of comedic greatness, but, by the end of the film, one has learned nothing. It is almost all comedy of shock value and no comedy of intelligence.
Chiefly, “Bruno” fails where “Borat” succeeded in that Cohen, in a way, holds back. No, he doesn’t hold back in terms of gags and graphic content, but he holds back in terms of the challenges he makes to his audience. “Borat” was a wonderful satire, exposing in both over-the-top and subtle ways the prejudices of American society. With “Bruno,” all the subtlety is gone, and, at that, all the satire is gone. Of course someone is going to act angrily when a naked man comes to his tent in the middle of the night. It is funny, yes, but it is cheap, and it lacks the intelligence of Cohen’s previous effort.
In addition, the story is practically a rehashed story of “Borat,” making the film feel rather stale. The story arcs are the same: a foreigner comes to America, causes some trouble with Middle America, loses his partner-in-crime about halfway through the film, sinks into a depressed slump, and, at the end, is reunited with his partner and all is alright. That was the plot of “Borat,” and that is the plot of “Bruno,” only in “Bruno,” it’s nothing new.
Cohen, for all his effort, is an amazing acting talent, becoming so completely the characters he plays. It would truly be interesting to see him in a more serious role, something akin to his brief performance in 2007’s “Sweeney Todd.”
Director Larry Charles, who directed “Borat” and is noted as a prime creative force behind TV’s “Seinfeld” and “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” is also genius at dissecting the idiocy of American society, but, once again, with “Bruno,” all the honesty and patience feels lost.
Perhaps more than anything else, though, the film feels rehearsed. There are many more staged scenes in “Bruno” as compared to “Borat,” and, while that might work if the story were truly compelling, it can’t help but make the film feel more false. Because the film is not real, because Cohen goes more for the insane than the subtle, one never really feels challenged. The satire is lost, and the film is nothing more than unintelligible comedy garbage.
But, strangest thing of all, it is one of the funniest things you will ever see in your life.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Saturday, July 04, 2009
Happy birthday, America!
'Tis July 4th, America's Independence Day, or, at least, the day we celebrate our independence as the true date of our Independence Day is kind of up to discussion. That said, spend the day with friends and family, but remember what the day is about. Be rebellious, because our forefathers were rebellious. You know, read a banned book or curse loudly or something bold like that. To put you in such a patriotic spirit, see video below:
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
I Admire Your Pictures Very Much
A Review of "Public Enemies"
By Jeff Webb
“Public Enemies” is not new or original. The story of John Dillinger has, many times, been brought to life through literature and film, and the basic plot of “Public Enemies” follows along the same lines as many other classic—and superior—crime films, such as “The Untouchables” and “Heat.” However, perhaps never has such a story about Depression-era crime been told with such grit and honesty as “Public Enemies,” acclaimed director Michael Mann applying modern sensibilities to an old story. The end result is brutal, tense fun.
Mann, the director of the aforementioned “Heat” as well as “Collateral” and “Manhunter,” has always had a knack for depicting crime on film, and “Public Enemies” is very much a Michael Mann film. Yes, the people are pretty, the settings are nostalgic, but the camera work—while slow and clear at some points—can quickly become rapid and grainy, and that is pure Mann. Viewers aren’t used to seeing this type of old-style gangster movie filmed like a police procedural about two cops in South Central, but the lack of sentimentality makes the film unique. Even the legendary “Bonnie & Clyde,” which was groundbreaking in its portrayal of violence onscreen, digressed into comedy and melodrama at times.
Evidence of the power of this filmmaking objectivism is clearly evident in the climatic shoot-out with George “Babyface” Nelson. There is minimal music, minimal lighting. We just hear the punches, the gunshots, and we see the resulting corpses. In a way, it’s savage, but it’s so very real.
However, “Public Enemies” falls short of other classic crime dramas, though, mainly due to character development. John Dillinger robs banks, and Melvin Purvis is the FBI agent charged with tracking him down. That’s about all we know about the two main characters, and, while this fits with the film’s terse tone, it’s not quite as effective. What makes the film unique is the way it tells an old story in a new way. What makes it fail is that, while the technique is new, the story is still old.
At the end of the film, audiences might be left asking, “Why did we really care if Dillinger got away or not?”
That is a question that is never really resolved.
However, working with what they had, all the actors do an exceptional job. Johnny Depp delivers as John Dillinger, though, with the exception of one or two scenes, he isn’t necessarily electric. Christian Bale as Dillinger’s chief antagonist is quite wonderful, ever-stoic and tough, but it is Dillinger’s story, and Bale never really gets an opportunity to come alive, but that is a problem with the script and not a fault of the actor’s.
Marion Cotillard as Dillinger’s girlfriend, though, is the film’s real stand-out, perhaps because she is the best developed character, or perhaps just based on Cotillard’s sheer talent. Either way, she gives her character life and takes her through a whole range of emotions.
It should be interesting come next winter to see whether “Public Enemies” benefits from the expansion of the Academy’s Best Picture field from five to ten. It’s not winner-worthy, but, depending upon further releases this year, it might be good enough to warrant a nomination. At the very least, though, “Public Enemies” is certainly the best of the summer, thus far, one of those rare gems that comes along in the middle of the season that melds both blockbuster and arthouse flick into one enjoyable experience.
By Jeff Webb
“Public Enemies” is not new or original. The story of John Dillinger has, many times, been brought to life through literature and film, and the basic plot of “Public Enemies” follows along the same lines as many other classic—and superior—crime films, such as “The Untouchables” and “Heat.” However, perhaps never has such a story about Depression-era crime been told with such grit and honesty as “Public Enemies,” acclaimed director Michael Mann applying modern sensibilities to an old story. The end result is brutal, tense fun.
Mann, the director of the aforementioned “Heat” as well as “Collateral” and “Manhunter,” has always had a knack for depicting crime on film, and “Public Enemies” is very much a Michael Mann film. Yes, the people are pretty, the settings are nostalgic, but the camera work—while slow and clear at some points—can quickly become rapid and grainy, and that is pure Mann. Viewers aren’t used to seeing this type of old-style gangster movie filmed like a police procedural about two cops in South Central, but the lack of sentimentality makes the film unique. Even the legendary “Bonnie & Clyde,” which was groundbreaking in its portrayal of violence onscreen, digressed into comedy and melodrama at times.
Evidence of the power of this filmmaking objectivism is clearly evident in the climatic shoot-out with George “Babyface” Nelson. There is minimal music, minimal lighting. We just hear the punches, the gunshots, and we see the resulting corpses. In a way, it’s savage, but it’s so very real.
However, “Public Enemies” falls short of other classic crime dramas, though, mainly due to character development. John Dillinger robs banks, and Melvin Purvis is the FBI agent charged with tracking him down. That’s about all we know about the two main characters, and, while this fits with the film’s terse tone, it’s not quite as effective. What makes the film unique is the way it tells an old story in a new way. What makes it fail is that, while the technique is new, the story is still old.
At the end of the film, audiences might be left asking, “Why did we really care if Dillinger got away or not?”
That is a question that is never really resolved.
However, working with what they had, all the actors do an exceptional job. Johnny Depp delivers as John Dillinger, though, with the exception of one or two scenes, he isn’t necessarily electric. Christian Bale as Dillinger’s chief antagonist is quite wonderful, ever-stoic and tough, but it is Dillinger’s story, and Bale never really gets an opportunity to come alive, but that is a problem with the script and not a fault of the actor’s.
Marion Cotillard as Dillinger’s girlfriend, though, is the film’s real stand-out, perhaps because she is the best developed character, or perhaps just based on Cotillard’s sheer talent. Either way, she gives her character life and takes her through a whole range of emotions.
It should be interesting come next winter to see whether “Public Enemies” benefits from the expansion of the Academy’s Best Picture field from five to ten. It’s not winner-worthy, but, depending upon further releases this year, it might be good enough to warrant a nomination. At the very least, though, “Public Enemies” is certainly the best of the summer, thus far, one of those rare gems that comes along in the middle of the season that melds both blockbuster and arthouse flick into one enjoyable experience.
Monday, June 29, 2009
I Admire Your Pictures Very Much
A Review of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
By Jeff Webb
Nobody walks into the theater to see Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen with the expectations of seeing a serious film about such things as technology and war. No, people go to see the new Transformers film to escape, to live vicariously through the characters and be caught up in the action. They want to be entertained rather than stimulated in thought.
The question then becomes not whether Revenge of the Fallen is a good film, but is it an entertaining film? The answer to that is yes.
The story picks up where the first Transformers left off, with Optimus Prime and his band of Autobots protecting the world from the evil Decepticons. An audience member really needs to know nothing else to grasp the action of the story, though, and that is unfortunate. The first film’s biggest flaw was its script, and the same goes for the sequel. It lacks complexity, and it lacks detail. Why do the Decepticons despise the Autobots so much? Why is the Matrix of Leadership so powerful? No answers are given, and character motivations are not only hidden but practically non-existent. Yes, the film calls for a suspension of disbelief, but—as this summer’s Star Trek or last summer’s Dark Knight evidence—suspension of disbelief does not necessarily mean that a film still cannot be grounded in some reality.
Mostly, though, the shallow script does not allow the audience to connect with the characters. Yes, we know Sam Witwicky and the noble Optimus Prime, but, other than that, characters are two-dimensional. Even the most unbelievable of films must connect the audience with the characters, must allow the audience to relate to the film in that way, for, if the film fails in that regard, the audience will never be truly enthralled.
Still, with the lack of story depth, the film is entertaining, reliant primarily upon its visual effects. The action scenes look spectacular, even though some of them—including the climatic battle in the desert—are too frantic and, in the words of my father, “busy.” It’s easy to lose track of the characters, especially when many of the transformer robots bear such striking resemblance. However, there is truly one wonderful scene—perhaps the best of the summer—and that is the action scene in the forest about halfway through the film. Interestingly enough, it is the one scene where Michael Bay’s camera and editing are at their most deliberate and calm.
Say what you want about Michael Bay and his films, but the man has his own style, and that is a lot more than many directors can say. Yes, he specializes in cheesy, over-the-top action films, but it’s not generic action. It is Bay’s vision, no matter how ridiculous it may seem, and anybody that has a vision and can commit that vision to film should be applauded at least just a little bit.
It is worth mentioning, too, that Shia LaBeouf is another victim of unwarranted criticism. His acting in this film, while safe and typical, is not bad. Anybody that truly believes Mr. LaBeouf is a bad actor need only to watch A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints.
In conclusion, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen will probably be the highest-grossing movie of 2009’s summer movie season, and with its beautiful cast and stunning action, it’s easy to see why. However, it does lack a story, and, while such things can be expected or forgiven, one can only wonder how good a film it might really have been if it had been written just a bit better. If one can see the film, though, and truly suspend all disbelief and just be entertained, one should not be disappointed, for the film, with all of its flaws, is still a step above most other mindless Hollywood action flicks.
Just one step above, but a step, nonetheless.
By Jeff Webb
Nobody walks into the theater to see Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen with the expectations of seeing a serious film about such things as technology and war. No, people go to see the new Transformers film to escape, to live vicariously through the characters and be caught up in the action. They want to be entertained rather than stimulated in thought.
The question then becomes not whether Revenge of the Fallen is a good film, but is it an entertaining film? The answer to that is yes.
The story picks up where the first Transformers left off, with Optimus Prime and his band of Autobots protecting the world from the evil Decepticons. An audience member really needs to know nothing else to grasp the action of the story, though, and that is unfortunate. The first film’s biggest flaw was its script, and the same goes for the sequel. It lacks complexity, and it lacks detail. Why do the Decepticons despise the Autobots so much? Why is the Matrix of Leadership so powerful? No answers are given, and character motivations are not only hidden but practically non-existent. Yes, the film calls for a suspension of disbelief, but—as this summer’s Star Trek or last summer’s Dark Knight evidence—suspension of disbelief does not necessarily mean that a film still cannot be grounded in some reality.
Mostly, though, the shallow script does not allow the audience to connect with the characters. Yes, we know Sam Witwicky and the noble Optimus Prime, but, other than that, characters are two-dimensional. Even the most unbelievable of films must connect the audience with the characters, must allow the audience to relate to the film in that way, for, if the film fails in that regard, the audience will never be truly enthralled.
Still, with the lack of story depth, the film is entertaining, reliant primarily upon its visual effects. The action scenes look spectacular, even though some of them—including the climatic battle in the desert—are too frantic and, in the words of my father, “busy.” It’s easy to lose track of the characters, especially when many of the transformer robots bear such striking resemblance. However, there is truly one wonderful scene—perhaps the best of the summer—and that is the action scene in the forest about halfway through the film. Interestingly enough, it is the one scene where Michael Bay’s camera and editing are at their most deliberate and calm.
Say what you want about Michael Bay and his films, but the man has his own style, and that is a lot more than many directors can say. Yes, he specializes in cheesy, over-the-top action films, but it’s not generic action. It is Bay’s vision, no matter how ridiculous it may seem, and anybody that has a vision and can commit that vision to film should be applauded at least just a little bit.
It is worth mentioning, too, that Shia LaBeouf is another victim of unwarranted criticism. His acting in this film, while safe and typical, is not bad. Anybody that truly believes Mr. LaBeouf is a bad actor need only to watch A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints.
In conclusion, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen will probably be the highest-grossing movie of 2009’s summer movie season, and with its beautiful cast and stunning action, it’s easy to see why. However, it does lack a story, and, while such things can be expected or forgiven, one can only wonder how good a film it might really have been if it had been written just a bit better. If one can see the film, though, and truly suspend all disbelief and just be entertained, one should not be disappointed, for the film, with all of its flaws, is still a step above most other mindless Hollywood action flicks.
Just one step above, but a step, nonetheless.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Remembering Farrah Fawcett and the King of Pop, Among Others
By Jeff Webb
Actress Farrah Fawcett, 62, and Michael Jackson, 50, both passed away yesterday. Their deaths follow the recent passings of David Carradine and Ed McMahon, all four of these recently deceased not only being renowned entertainers but also pop culture icons who played a large part in defining their respective generations.
Of course, news coverage of these stars' deaths can get excessive. The mourning people express can become obnoxious and pointless. Famous though they were, at the end of the day, Ms. Fawcett and Mr. Jackson--along with Mr. Carradine and Mr. McMahon--were just people, full of life but also full of flaws. Yes, they were imperfect, like all the rest of us.
So, we really can't spend too long mourning these persons, because they were, after all, persons, but they were persons that most of us knew only through a television screen.
However, by the very job description of "entertainer," they were persons who were ever focused on an audience, and that is where we, the fans, are hit hardest. We didn't know them, but we were affected by them, by their movies, their comedy, their music. Escapist entertainment most of it was, yes, but in a world that can get so depressing, escapist entertainment comes in handy sometimes.
Perhaps, then, it's with a sense of nostalgia that we mourn the deaths of these persons. Not so much are we mourning the absence of them, but more so are we mourning the absence of their characters, and, better yet, the emotional responses those characters evoked in us. That sense of loss is truly a testament to these individuals' skill in their respective art form.
They were gifted performers, the whole lot of them.
Actress Farrah Fawcett, 62, and Michael Jackson, 50, both passed away yesterday. Their deaths follow the recent passings of David Carradine and Ed McMahon, all four of these recently deceased not only being renowned entertainers but also pop culture icons who played a large part in defining their respective generations.
Of course, news coverage of these stars' deaths can get excessive. The mourning people express can become obnoxious and pointless. Famous though they were, at the end of the day, Ms. Fawcett and Mr. Jackson--along with Mr. Carradine and Mr. McMahon--were just people, full of life but also full of flaws. Yes, they were imperfect, like all the rest of us.
So, we really can't spend too long mourning these persons, because they were, after all, persons, but they were persons that most of us knew only through a television screen.
However, by the very job description of "entertainer," they were persons who were ever focused on an audience, and that is where we, the fans, are hit hardest. We didn't know them, but we were affected by them, by their movies, their comedy, their music. Escapist entertainment most of it was, yes, but in a world that can get so depressing, escapist entertainment comes in handy sometimes.
Perhaps, then, it's with a sense of nostalgia that we mourn the deaths of these persons. Not so much are we mourning the absence of them, but more so are we mourning the absence of their characters, and, better yet, the emotional responses those characters evoked in us. That sense of loss is truly a testament to these individuals' skill in their respective art form.
They were gifted performers, the whole lot of them.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Ed McMahon, 1923-2009
Ed McMahon, best known as Johnny Carson's sidekick on The Tonight Show and as the host of Star Search, died today, June 23rd, 2009, at UCLA Medical Center. He was 86 years old. The Pharos would like to extend its thoughts and prayers to all affected by Mr. McMahon's death.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Coppola Interview
Francis Ford Coppola is, quite possibly, America's greatest filmmaker, having directed such classic films as The Godfather trilogy, Apocalypse Now, and The Conversation. Below is an interview from KQED Radio with the man himself.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Better Pay for West Virginia Teachers
The following blog entry is a response to a prompt from aBetterWestVirginia.com, which asked bloggers in the state to "identify an obstacle that hinders West Virginia and discuss its solution." This opportunity was offered by aBetterWestVirginia.com as a way to celebrate West Virginia Day, which is a day remembering the birth of West Virginia's statehood: June 20th, 1863.
By Jeff Webb
West Virginia needs good teachers. With many young teachers opting to leave the state for better paying jobs and many experienced teachers approaching retirement age, the West Virginia educational system has positions to fill, and the state needs to offer some incentive—some enticement—to get educators to stay in the state.
Perhaps the solution is offering higher salaries for teachers. Over the past several years, with an average salary somewhere around $43,000, West Virginia has consistently ranked low in national rankings of teacher pay, while bordering states of Virginia and Ohio have consistently been ranked near or in the top ten highest-paying states for teachers. It is little surprise, then, that young teachers, fresh out of college and looking to start a life, migrate to these nearby states for more lucrative job opportunities.
There are some problems, though, when it comes to raising teacher salaries in West Virginia, namely that the state isn’t a very rich state to begin with, and the current economic recession in the United States can’t help matters, either. According to one recent survey from the U.S. Census Bureau, the median family income in West Virginia is somewhere around $44,000, and, in this respect, the average teacher pay is not far off from what most other West Virginians are earning.
However, using this excuse—that teachers do not need more money because they are right at the average income for the state—is frivolous, as the basic problem still exists: other states offer better pay, and, as a result, West Virginia is losing teachers.
The state’s two largest teacher unions, AFT and WVEA, have each offered their own ideas for pay raises, but there are flaws in their ideas. Namely, in the pay raise plans of both unions, not only do teachers receive a raise, but so, too, do superintendents. With the average salary for superintendents around $90,000—and the salary being even higher in some counties, such as Kanawha—there doesn’t seem much use in the superintendents receiving raises. Rather, it would be much more beneficial to the state and its educational system if the raise were only given to the people that need it: teachers.
Currently, the West Virginia legislature sets the minimum pay for teachers, and then individual counties, based on population and taxable income, can pay more than the minimum. Perhaps, then, what the legislature needs to do is raise the minimum salary by a couple thousand dollars in order to bring West Virginia up to par with other states. If financing for this is hard to come by, perhaps some superintendents and other government officials might consider a pay cut.
Humility. That is the simple answer to this problem. Nobody becomes a teacher for the money. A person becomes a teacher to help others, and that person will do the job no matter what the pay. It’s just that, in the current society, money is necessary to living, and wanting to receive more money for a job whenever possible is not a difficult motive to grasp.
However, it will take humility for West Virginia teachers to accept what they need, not what they want. Likewise, it will take the humility of government leaders to cut back on excess, to give more money to those that need it and not, perhaps, to those that don’t.
Receiving a proper education is one of, if not the most, important things in a person’s life. Paying West Virginia teachers a better salary makes the profession both more respectable and appealing, and that, right now, is exactly what the state’s educational system needs.
By Jeff Webb
West Virginia needs good teachers. With many young teachers opting to leave the state for better paying jobs and many experienced teachers approaching retirement age, the West Virginia educational system has positions to fill, and the state needs to offer some incentive—some enticement—to get educators to stay in the state.
Perhaps the solution is offering higher salaries for teachers. Over the past several years, with an average salary somewhere around $43,000, West Virginia has consistently ranked low in national rankings of teacher pay, while bordering states of Virginia and Ohio have consistently been ranked near or in the top ten highest-paying states for teachers. It is little surprise, then, that young teachers, fresh out of college and looking to start a life, migrate to these nearby states for more lucrative job opportunities.
There are some problems, though, when it comes to raising teacher salaries in West Virginia, namely that the state isn’t a very rich state to begin with, and the current economic recession in the United States can’t help matters, either. According to one recent survey from the U.S. Census Bureau, the median family income in West Virginia is somewhere around $44,000, and, in this respect, the average teacher pay is not far off from what most other West Virginians are earning.
However, using this excuse—that teachers do not need more money because they are right at the average income for the state—is frivolous, as the basic problem still exists: other states offer better pay, and, as a result, West Virginia is losing teachers.
The state’s two largest teacher unions, AFT and WVEA, have each offered their own ideas for pay raises, but there are flaws in their ideas. Namely, in the pay raise plans of both unions, not only do teachers receive a raise, but so, too, do superintendents. With the average salary for superintendents around $90,000—and the salary being even higher in some counties, such as Kanawha—there doesn’t seem much use in the superintendents receiving raises. Rather, it would be much more beneficial to the state and its educational system if the raise were only given to the people that need it: teachers.
Currently, the West Virginia legislature sets the minimum pay for teachers, and then individual counties, based on population and taxable income, can pay more than the minimum. Perhaps, then, what the legislature needs to do is raise the minimum salary by a couple thousand dollars in order to bring West Virginia up to par with other states. If financing for this is hard to come by, perhaps some superintendents and other government officials might consider a pay cut.
Humility. That is the simple answer to this problem. Nobody becomes a teacher for the money. A person becomes a teacher to help others, and that person will do the job no matter what the pay. It’s just that, in the current society, money is necessary to living, and wanting to receive more money for a job whenever possible is not a difficult motive to grasp.
However, it will take humility for West Virginia teachers to accept what they need, not what they want. Likewise, it will take the humility of government leaders to cut back on excess, to give more money to those that need it and not, perhaps, to those that don’t.
Receiving a proper education is one of, if not the most, important things in a person’s life. Paying West Virginia teachers a better salary makes the profession both more respectable and appealing, and that, right now, is exactly what the state’s educational system needs.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Annual Conference Update
By Jeff Webb
Day Four: Nice Hand
Well, today was my last day at the 2009 West Virginia Annual Conference. I actually woke up at 4:20AM today and crawled out of bed at 5. For some reason, I have been sleeping terribly at Conference, perhaps because of the lack of air circulation in my dorm room, even though I do have a huge fan blowing in from the open window.
I went jogging around the track again this morning, though, in all honesty, it was quite pitiful compared to my previous work-outs. No need to go into details.
I went to breakfast again, and had a lovely conversation with WVWC's Grandma. The fake eggs Aladdin served weren't very lovely, though.
Ms. Harriet Olsen led the morning Bible study again, focusing on the character of God. She told the congregation "it's your turn" to take God into the world.
Bishop Lyght elaborated on this, saying, "This is the acceptable time. You are in mission. Go, therefore."
Business got started at 10AM. Bishop Lyght began the session by saying, "As we do our business, we will remain kind to one another, we will love one another, and we will be respectful to one another."
Perhaps the biggest issue of the day was the voting for the constitutional amendments. Amendment #1 drew the most discussion.
If accepted, the amendment would clarify that the United Methodist Church is in ministry to all persons.
Some people read this as indirectly including homosexuals in the church, though, funny enough, the word "homosexuality" was never uttered, and "gay" was only mentioned once.
It was all like one big elephant in the room.
One gay man stood up during debate on the amendments and said that he is a gay man, that his church knows this and they show God's love to him.
This man said, "I would hate to see anyone not accepted into membership for something other than the love of Jesus."
Reverend Monty Brown added that the United Methodist Church has always been, and should always be, open to all people. The Discipline already proclaims that "all persons shall be eligible to attend...worship services, participate in its program, receive the sacraments, and upon baptism be admitted as baptized members."
Of course, another person countered that the Church needs to guard against permissiveness. Such permissiveness, according to this person, might bring about divisiveness in our church membership.
The final vote was 281 for the amendment, and 411 against. These totals will be added to totals from other Annual Conferences to reach the final vote tally and to decide whether the amendment is adopted.
On another note, Conference Director of Communications Laura Allen presented the campaign to "Rethink Church," asking, "Will we tell our story anew, through our actions?"
Allen said the Church should "speak the language of love."
After going over topics of finance, Bishop Lyght said, "A basic stream is flowing, a stream of spirituality. When the stream of spirituality is flowing, congregations don't sit around talking about money issues. They talk about ministry and mission."
It was announced that David Jasper, who has served in the cabinet for eight years, will be returning to the local church. He will be serving at Morris Memorial in Kanawha City.
Ellis Conley will replace Jasper as superintendent of the Mon Valley District.
Bishop Lyght said that there wasn't a clergy member in the room who hadn't secretly imagined being a superintendent one day. The Bishop added, "Superintending is the toughest job in the United Methodist Church. It's the frontline. It's frustrating, but with joy comes frustration, and with frustration comes joy."
I departed Buckhannon after the 3PM worship service, which ended with Bishop Lyght lifting up a prayer for those embarking on and considering ministry.
I left Jenkins Hall for what should be my last time ever staying in the place, but who really knows? As I said, it somehow just keeps pulling me back in. I would not be surprised if Camden collapses before the beginning of next school year and I get transferred back to the third floor of Jenkins, which, you know, might not be that bad. I've grown quite accustomed to the insanity of the place.
Next year's Annual Conference, in June 2010, will be June 10th-13th. The guest speaker will be Bishop Gregory Palmer.
So, in closing, I leave with this thought:
God abides. The Dude abides.
Shalom.
Day Four: Nice Hand
Well, today was my last day at the 2009 West Virginia Annual Conference. I actually woke up at 4:20AM today and crawled out of bed at 5. For some reason, I have been sleeping terribly at Conference, perhaps because of the lack of air circulation in my dorm room, even though I do have a huge fan blowing in from the open window.
I went jogging around the track again this morning, though, in all honesty, it was quite pitiful compared to my previous work-outs. No need to go into details.
I went to breakfast again, and had a lovely conversation with WVWC's Grandma. The fake eggs Aladdin served weren't very lovely, though.
Ms. Harriet Olsen led the morning Bible study again, focusing on the character of God. She told the congregation "it's your turn" to take God into the world.
Bishop Lyght elaborated on this, saying, "This is the acceptable time. You are in mission. Go, therefore."
Business got started at 10AM. Bishop Lyght began the session by saying, "As we do our business, we will remain kind to one another, we will love one another, and we will be respectful to one another."
Perhaps the biggest issue of the day was the voting for the constitutional amendments. Amendment #1 drew the most discussion.
If accepted, the amendment would clarify that the United Methodist Church is in ministry to all persons.
Some people read this as indirectly including homosexuals in the church, though, funny enough, the word "homosexuality" was never uttered, and "gay" was only mentioned once.
It was all like one big elephant in the room.
One gay man stood up during debate on the amendments and said that he is a gay man, that his church knows this and they show God's love to him.
This man said, "I would hate to see anyone not accepted into membership for something other than the love of Jesus."
Reverend Monty Brown added that the United Methodist Church has always been, and should always be, open to all people. The Discipline already proclaims that "all persons shall be eligible to attend...worship services, participate in its program, receive the sacraments, and upon baptism be admitted as baptized members."
Of course, another person countered that the Church needs to guard against permissiveness. Such permissiveness, according to this person, might bring about divisiveness in our church membership.
The final vote was 281 for the amendment, and 411 against. These totals will be added to totals from other Annual Conferences to reach the final vote tally and to decide whether the amendment is adopted.
On another note, Conference Director of Communications Laura Allen presented the campaign to "Rethink Church," asking, "Will we tell our story anew, through our actions?"
Allen said the Church should "speak the language of love."
After going over topics of finance, Bishop Lyght said, "A basic stream is flowing, a stream of spirituality. When the stream of spirituality is flowing, congregations don't sit around talking about money issues. They talk about ministry and mission."
It was announced that David Jasper, who has served in the cabinet for eight years, will be returning to the local church. He will be serving at Morris Memorial in Kanawha City.
Ellis Conley will replace Jasper as superintendent of the Mon Valley District.
Bishop Lyght said that there wasn't a clergy member in the room who hadn't secretly imagined being a superintendent one day. The Bishop added, "Superintending is the toughest job in the United Methodist Church. It's the frontline. It's frustrating, but with joy comes frustration, and with frustration comes joy."
I departed Buckhannon after the 3PM worship service, which ended with Bishop Lyght lifting up a prayer for those embarking on and considering ministry.
I left Jenkins Hall for what should be my last time ever staying in the place, but who really knows? As I said, it somehow just keeps pulling me back in. I would not be surprised if Camden collapses before the beginning of next school year and I get transferred back to the third floor of Jenkins, which, you know, might not be that bad. I've grown quite accustomed to the insanity of the place.
Next year's Annual Conference, in June 2010, will be June 10th-13th. The guest speaker will be Bishop Gregory Palmer.
So, in closing, I leave with this thought:
God abides. The Dude abides.
Shalom.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Annual Conference Update
By Jeff Webb
Day Three: I See Your Raise
I've come to the conclusion that this year's Annual Conference is a slow burning one. The business sessions and worship services, while good, are not quite as energetic or passionate as they seemed in years past, but that's okay. After tonight's worship service, with an awesome message delivered by Bishop Nhiwatiwa and powerful music performed by the praise band, things really do seem to be heating up.
Like yesterday, I started today with an early morning jog around the track. Then, I headed over to the dining hall for breakfast, where I also checked my mailbox and--surprise, surprise--I had an envelope from none other than Dr. McNamara herself. I opened it to find two graded Irish literature exams and my paper on Samuel Beckett. Good stuff.
I went to the morning Bible study at 8:30AM in the Chapel. It was led by Ms. Harriet Olsen, who spoke about Acts 1 and asked the people in attendance, "If you could serve as an eyewitness for Christ, what would you report on?"
The business session began at 10AM. After a laity address delivered by 16-year-old Mark Evans, who shared his experiences about volunteering in the Dominican Republic and at Spring Heights church camp, the Conference moved on to vote for our first set of resolutions.
One particular resolution, "Support of Comprehensive Immigration Reform," should have caused some debate, but it did not. Surprisingly, the resolution was adopted with little opposition. Who would have thought Christians could actually agree on something from time to time?
At the evening worship service, Bishop Nhiwatiwa challenged the congregation, asking, "Are you the Church?" and instructing us to "go and tell in Jesus' name."
Near the conclusion of the service, Bishop Lyght offered up a prayer for the unchurched before dismissing the congregation by saying, "Our service has ended, but our service begins."
Bishop Lyght also invited people to stop and have ice cream on their way out of the Chapel, as tonight was the annual ice cream social sponsored by the Conference Youth.
Tomorrow, which is the last day for business, proves to be very interesting. We will be voting on a set of constitutional amendments that will probably be cause for some discourse, so that should be fun.
Once again, morning prayer and Bible study is in the Chapel beginning at 8:30AM. Business starts at 10AM.
Shalom.
Day Three: I See Your Raise
I've come to the conclusion that this year's Annual Conference is a slow burning one. The business sessions and worship services, while good, are not quite as energetic or passionate as they seemed in years past, but that's okay. After tonight's worship service, with an awesome message delivered by Bishop Nhiwatiwa and powerful music performed by the praise band, things really do seem to be heating up.
Like yesterday, I started today with an early morning jog around the track. Then, I headed over to the dining hall for breakfast, where I also checked my mailbox and--surprise, surprise--I had an envelope from none other than Dr. McNamara herself. I opened it to find two graded Irish literature exams and my paper on Samuel Beckett. Good stuff.
I went to the morning Bible study at 8:30AM in the Chapel. It was led by Ms. Harriet Olsen, who spoke about Acts 1 and asked the people in attendance, "If you could serve as an eyewitness for Christ, what would you report on?"
The business session began at 10AM. After a laity address delivered by 16-year-old Mark Evans, who shared his experiences about volunteering in the Dominican Republic and at Spring Heights church camp, the Conference moved on to vote for our first set of resolutions.
One particular resolution, "Support of Comprehensive Immigration Reform," should have caused some debate, but it did not. Surprisingly, the resolution was adopted with little opposition. Who would have thought Christians could actually agree on something from time to time?
At the evening worship service, Bishop Nhiwatiwa challenged the congregation, asking, "Are you the Church?" and instructing us to "go and tell in Jesus' name."
Near the conclusion of the service, Bishop Lyght offered up a prayer for the unchurched before dismissing the congregation by saying, "Our service has ended, but our service begins."
Bishop Lyght also invited people to stop and have ice cream on their way out of the Chapel, as tonight was the annual ice cream social sponsored by the Conference Youth.
Tomorrow, which is the last day for business, proves to be very interesting. We will be voting on a set of constitutional amendments that will probably be cause for some discourse, so that should be fun.
Once again, morning prayer and Bible study is in the Chapel beginning at 8:30AM. Business starts at 10AM.
Shalom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)