Not to be outdone by the Swiss ban on minarets, the government of Malaysia has asserted itself as a key player in curbing religious expression. According to a story reported by Robert Pigott of the BBC:

The Malaysian government has refused to release 10,000 Bibles which it seized because they contained the word Allah to refer to God.

The government, which is dominated by Muslim Malays, claims that the word Allah is Islamic and that its use in Bibles could upset Muslims.

The Roman Catholic Church is challenging the ban in court….

Church officials say that although the word Allah originated in Arabic, Malays have used it for centuries to refer generally to God, and Arabic-speaking Christians used it before Islam was founded.

This all stems from a government decree two years ago that forbade all non-Muslim religions using the name “Allah” to refer to God in their texts or publications. I was under the impression that Allah is the Arabic word for God, and is used by all Arabic-speaking adherents of the Abrahamic faiths. It is not tied to one specific religion as far as I can tell. For example, I’ve heard of Arabic-speaking Christians in the Middle East who pray to and speak about Allah, when referring to the God of the Hebrew Scriptures and New Testament. Malaysia does not speak Arabic officially, but given the large Muslim population there and the fact that the only official text of the Qur’an is in the Arabic language, it would make sense that Allah would become the generic name for God in that country. It especially makes sense that Allah would be the name for the divine being among the monotheistic religions there.

How one religion could have a monopoly on a generic term or name is beyond me. I find it an incredibly dangerous move for a nation whose constitution supposedly grants religious freedom. To snatch away the term that many Christians—who are primarily affected by the government’s ban—have historically used to refer to God, undercuts their ability to worship and communicate their beliefs freely. It is also a common and healthy practice of people of different faiths to discuss and debate the tenets of their traditions. I would argue that such discussion and debate is necessary to maintain peace in pluralistic societies. The Malaysian ban curbs that important aspect of life together and limits the possibility for real understanding and friendship. Of course, I am also greatly upset at the unjust challenge this presents Christians in engaging in evangelism, that vital and central expression of their faith.

I am no scholar of Islam, so I make the next argument with some hesitation. It would appear that the ban on other religions using the term Allah goes against the Qur’an for the Islamic holy book makes room for other religions—specifically the two other Abrahamic faiths—to use the name Allah:

And do not dispute with the followers of the Book except by what is best, except those of them who act unjustly, and say: We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you, and our Allah and your Allah is One, and to Him do we submit. ” (29.46)

You can listen to a BBC Newshour radio broadcast reporting on the Roman Catholic challenge of the ban on the use of Allah here. Follow the link and look for the section titled, “Minorities in Malaysia.” According to some Christian leaders in Malaysia interviewed in the story, Christians face great difficulty expressing their faith in public from publishing newspapers to constructing houses of worship.

The Associated Press recently named Tiger Woods the athlete of the decade, which got me thinking of who would make my Top-5 list. Here it goes. This is counting down to number one.

Usain Bolt—The fastest man on the planet. He went into the 2008 Beijing Olympics holding the world record in the 100m dash at 9.72 seconds. At Beijing Bolt set world records in the 100m (9.69 s) and 200m (19.30 s) dashes and demoralized his competition, making it look easy. It is all the more impressive when one considers he had only been running 100m for a few months before the games. Then at the 2009 Berlin World Championships he destroyed his world records again, running the 100m in 9.58 s and the 200m in 19.11 s. Oh, and the Jamaican relay team on which he runs a leg of the 4×100 won the gold in Beijing and set another world record.
Michael Phelps—Eight gold medals at the Beijing Olympics, besting Mark Spitz’s previous record of seven in one Olympiad. Add the six other gold and two bronze medals he won at the Athens games, and that brings his total to sixteen medals altogether. Easily the most dominant swimmer of the decade. At Beijing, he set or helped set world records in seven of the eight events he won. At Beijing he blew people away as well as won the 100m butterfly by his fingertips.
Tiger Woods—The best golfer of his generation. His 2000 U.S. Open win at Pebble Beach is the most dominant golfing performance and ranks high on the most dominant sports performances I have seen. Woods was the only player to finish the tournament under par. U.S. Open championships are notoriously difficult, so it is not unheard of for the winner to be the only player under par—Payne Stewart won the previous U.S. Open as the only player under par when he finished -1. In 2000, the next closest person to Woods was three strokes over par. Woods finished the tournament -12, beating the field by fifteen strokes.
Lance Armstrong—Six Tour de France victories in the decade. When we include his first victory in 1999, that brings him to seven in a row. The next best in the sport is Miguel Indurain who holds five Tour de France wins in a row. My favorite moment from Armstrong’s streak comes from the 2001 Tour during the Alpe D’Huez stage. Check out this video for Armstrong’s glare back at his main rival Jan Ullrich (at the 1:40 mark) and then his acceleration to finish the stage. For a race that takes a couple of weeks and leads are won and lost incrementally, “The Look”encapsulated Armstrong’s dominance over his competitors. Oh, yeah, and Armstrong is a cancer survivor.
Roger Federer—Fifteen Grand Slam tennis championships, won on every surface. Three Australian Open titles, one French Open, six Wimbeldon (including five in a row), five US Open (all consecutively). He holds the record for most consecutive Grand Slam finals reached with ten—the next closest is Rod Laver with six. Perhaps even more amazing is that he has reached the semifinals in twenty-two consecutive Grand Slam tournaments—the next closest is Ivan Lendl with ten. Federer beat Pete Sampras’ previous record of fourteen Grand Slam titles and Sampras, as great as he was, never caught a whiff of winning the French Open. Federer spent a record 237 weeks ranked number one in the world. Even though Federer has only won the French Open once, he has made it to the finals every year since 2006. If it were not for Raphael Nadal’s brilliance, we might be talking about Federer as the greatest clay court player ever as well.



It seems that Federer does not receive as much attention as the other athletes on this list. I think that has to do more with his personal style and effortless play. Federer dominates without making it look like he is dominating. He plays smoothly and fluidly, but he tries and makes shots that baffle champions like Bjorn Borg and Sampras. His forehand is the best I’ve ever seen. His running forehand seems to be even better. Federer serves extremely well, but because he is so proficient at nearly every part of his game, he is not known as a great server. He is the best I have seen at both setting up shots three or four strokes ahead and at disguising his shots. Here are some highlights of Federer’s play.

Federer gets the top for a couple of reasons even though I think all these athletes have legitimate arguments. First, he holds the outright record for most major victories in his sport. Woods still does not have the most major victories for golf, though I think he will within the next few years. Second, Federer is truly an athlete of the 2000’s. Both Woods and Armstrong began winning major championships in the 1990’s, whereas Federer, Phelps, and Bolt have had all of their major success in this decade. Third, Federer has dominated for nearly the entire decade, once he began winning major tournaments in 2003. Bolt has come on late and Armstrong retired by the middle of the decade.

Honorable mentions go to Tim Duncan, Kobe Bryant, Albert Pujols, Tom Brady, Zinedine Zidane, Ronaldinho.

I’m glad to see that the Advent Conspiracy is gaining traction, as seen in this article in Time. Carey and I were very influenced by their materials and arguments last year so that we have changed our Christmas practices, especially in our gift-giving. I love their emphasis on freeing ourselves from consumerist obligations we put on ourselves so that we can freely worship the incarnate God, Jesus, and love others with presence as well as give money to help others in need. I am thankful for their creativity, simple message, and reminder that this season is about worship. They have convinced us to adopt new traditions.

Here is this year’s video from Advent Conspiracy:

Here is last year’s video that helped convict and convince us:

I read the text from President Obama’s acceptance speech for his Nobel Peace Prize. When he talks about Reinhold Niebuhr being a major influence on his thought, he isn’t kidding. Obama’s speech was full of a Niebuhrian sense of irony. Take for example, this excerpt:

I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King said in this same ceremony years ago – “Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones.” As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King’s life’s work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there is nothing weak – nothing passive – nothing naïve – in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince Al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism – it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

What are peoples’ thoughts about Obama’s speech and his Niebuhrian description of working toward peace all the while maintaining the necessity to use force as a means to achieve that peace? I’m still sorting everything out, but I was especially grateful for his referring to Just War theory. How I hope that theory regains traction in today’s world, if we are to engage in violence. For a couple of good introductions to Reinhold Niebuhr’s thought, check out these programs from Speaking of Faith: “Moral Man and Immoral Society: The Public Theology of Reinhold Niebuhr,” and “Obama’s Theologian.”

This past decade I realized how much I love post-apocalyptic and dystopian stories, which surprised me. I did not grow up on Mad Max movies, nor did my parents read 1984 to me as a child, which is a good thing. In some Christian circles, these genres are extremely popular, but I have never held the eschatological views that led to the Left Behind novels. I have not really explored why I love these kinds of stories, yet I find myself drawn to them. Perhaps it is the cautionary aspect of these tales or that they play on my more bleak and cynical views of humanity and remind me that hope is often a hard-won battle. Whatever the reason, I spent a good portion of the decade catching up on some of the classics of the genres like A Canticle for Leibowitz, 12 Monkeys, Brazil, Fahrenheit 451, The City of Lost Children, etc. It may seem like a cheat to include both genres, but they often bleed into one another. Sometimes dystopias emerge after an apocalyptic event, such as the case in Children of Men, or dystopian societies precede the apocalyptic event like in Fahrenheit 451.

1. The Road by Cormac McCarthy—By far the most harrowing post-apocalyptic story I have ever encountered. It is especially frightening because it feels like it could happen, even though we do not find out with certainty what caused the world to be cold and covered in ash. I had not previously considered how many of the stories in this genre play it safe. McCarthy, in his usual fashion, does not flinch from the totality of violence. Danger lurks everywhere from people not finding food to eat to hiding from other people so that they will not be eaten. And yet, at the heart of this novel is a love story between a father and son. I recently reread the novel and was again blown away by its power and yes, its beauty.


2. WALL-E directed by Andrew Stanton—I never thought that the apocalypse could be heartwarming, but this film reminds us of the gift of wonder even in the midst of devastation. It also reminds us to turn off the machines once in a while, go outside, and enjoy the trees, the grass, and the pizza plants.


3. Children of Men directed by Alfonso Cuarón—What would drive people to despair? How about no hope for a future. What would a future devoid of a future look like? One without children. Cuarón’s film adapted from the novel—which I have not read—shows humanity struggling to hang on in the midst of a global infertility epidemic. In the midst of panic, an authoritarian dystopia emerges on the isle of Britain that is afraid of all foreigners. A powerful critique of fear, nihilism, and xenophobia using some of the most subtle and technically proficient special effects used in contemporary cinema.


4. Hot Fuzz directed by Edgar Wright—Dystopias can be funny. Really funny. Wright’s genre-bending homage and parody of cop, buddy, and detective films shows us that dystopias can look clean and ordered—it is all about an authoritarian power afraid of outside influence. There may not be billboards telling us that Big Brother is watching, but we know that we had better keep our lawns mowed.


5. District 9 directed by Neill Blomkamp—Another xenophobic dystopia wrapped in an original science-fiction drama. A really well-crafted film especially when one considers the budgetary restraints on it.

This one is for Timbo, as per his request for a Top-5 list of Coldplay songs from this decade. (I suppose this list could just be called, “Top-5 Coldplay Songs, Period,” since their first album debuted in 2000.) These are actually ordered according to my tastes.

1. “Viva la Vida” from Viva la Vida or Death and All His Friends—I could imagine the conversation around this song in the studio. The band comes in with a four chord progression piano piece with full accompaniment and producer Brian Eno says, “Nope, we’re throwing out the piano and cutting away most of the band. It’s just strings, bells, and one big drum, lads.” Incredible sound from their best album.


2. “Clocks” from A Rush of Blood to the Head—The first song to really feature the descending piano arpeggios, which became the distinctive Coldplay sound and one they milked too much (e.g., “Speed of Sound”).


3. “Lovers in Japan” from Viva la Vida or Death and All His Friends—Love the driving beat, which makes for a good song during commutes.


4. “Shiver” from Parachutes—Coldplay came out during a time when I hated nearly everything on mainstream radio and I took pride in that hatred. Chris Martin’s smooth transitions into his falsetto in the energetic chorus was one of the reasons I had to begrudgingly admit I actually liked Coldplay’s music despite the fact they were all over radio stations in 2000.


5. “Fix You” from X&Y—I’m a sucker for simple guitar lines over a crescendo. Check out this cover from the documentary Young@Heart.

I don’t know if people have been following this story, but Swiss voters recently approved a constitutional amendment that would ban the construction of further minarets in their nation. The whole measure and campaign seems rooted in fear. Not reasonable concern, but out and out xenophobia. According to an Associated Press story, “Backers said the growing Muslim population was straining the country ‘because Muslims don’t just practice religion.’” Yet, those backers seem to have neglected the facts. “Muslims comprise about 6 percent of Switzerland’s 7.5 million people. Many are refugees from the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s and about 1 in 10 actively practices their religion, the government says.” Based on the campaign and the legislation, one would think there is a spate of minaret construction in Switzerland. How many minarets currently exist in that Alpine nation? Four. And they don’t even sound out the calls to prayer.

Just take a look at the campaign poster, which it should be noted, has more minarets than Switzerland currently does.

The expert propagandists of the early 20th century would be proud to make a poster so full of insinuation, fear, and hate.

I am disturbed by these events. Thankfully there has been much international condemnation. I think this is bigotry and utterly discriminatory. It also says a lot on what people think religion should be. Religion should be toothless. It should have no real affect on our lives except that we give some money away and go an hour or so a week to a worship service. Religion should never change the way we live. The practice of religion is purely ceremonial. If Switzerland is so concerned with radical Islam infiltrating its way into the overall society—a dubious claim given the size of the Muslim population there—I would argue that marginalization is a backwards strategy at best. My sympathies go out to the Swiss Muslims, many of whom, as the story reported, are refugees from the Yugoslav wars. They were already forced out of their homeland only to be ostracized, feared, and hated in another nation.

I wonder, if Christians start practicing their religion outside the church walls, is Switzerland going to next outlaw church steeples and bell-towers?

Something returned to films in this decade that had been missing for a while: the villain as a purely evil character. The 1990’s had maybe one or two memorable movie villains—Hannibal Lector comes to mind—but that decade was marked more by the ironic anti-hero. Films such as Pulp Fiction and The Usual Suspects presented criminals in such a way that we as audiences were almost cheering for them, hoping they would be successful in their often illegal endeavors. Those characters were cool. The 2000’s on the other hand, brought back villains who, while being captivating, were truly terrifying and who did nothing to garner our sympathies. We didn’t want to see them escape or succeed, we wanted to see them stopped and caught. Perhaps this resurgence of villains has to do with the fact that after September 11, many around the world, and Americans especially, were once again awake to terror and evil and the films of the decade reflected that awareness.

Top-5 Movie Villains, in no particular order:

Gollum, The Lord of the Rings—A portrait of a life decimated by sin and idolatry, willing to kill for what he wants, ruled by his addiction. His lusts are so powerful that he loses his name to them. All the more frightening because we see how others could easily become like him.
Anton Chigur, No Country For Old Men—The unstoppable force of death hunting down people no matter their good intentions or ignorance. He actually gave me nightmares.
Daniel Plainview, There Will Be Blood—Unfettered greed wrapped in a deep-seated misanthropy. The one villain whose views and actions strike such a chord in me that I am drawn to reflection and prayer.
The Joker, The Dark Knight—A villain with no back story, but who is utterly developed. An absolute. He is the embodiment of anarchy and chaos. The scary thing is that all the killing he does is not as frightening as his menace, his understanding that we rely on rules, but those rules rely on fallible people to keep them.
Li’l Ze, City of God—The kid who loves violence and power from an early age. Take the animalistic rage and urges of Tommy DeVito (Joe Pesci) from Goodfellas, make him ten years old, and you start to get a picture of Li’l Ze.

Did I miss one of your favorites?

With the close of the decade, best-of-the-decade lists have been popping up everywhere. I know you readers are chomping at the bit to hear what I think was the best the decade had to offer, and I’ll be coming out with Top-5 lists. But I wanted to turn to you for suggestions of what topics my lists should cover. The standard, best movies or best novels will likely be addressed, but is there something more specific or quirky which we should list? Like, what about Top-5 Baseball Players Not Found to Be Taking Steroids (So Far)? Or Top-5 Movie Villains? What else?

I find that people generally think they have above-average skills in three areas:

1. Driving
2. Communicating
3. Being a good judge of character

That is all for today.