Tuesday, July 21, 2026

Batman vs. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

The Foot Clan is in Gotham, stealing experimental tech. Shredder is with them . . and he has a partner. If they have their way, the city will fall and evil will last forever. Batman is on the case, but he'll need help. Maybe some teenagers with ninja skills. Turtle mutants.

I expect any 'cross-IP' offering to be a money grab and thus had low expectations for this 2019 movie. I was wrong; I loved it. The plot is predictable ("the worlds of Batman and TMNT collide; chaos ensues"), the message minimal (but solid), but where this film shines is the humor—it was hilarious. We laughed out loud through the whole film. There are a few instances of language or scary images, but this is a winner, best enjoyed by those familiar with both franchises.

Rating: A

Sunday, July 19, 2026

Reflecting on the 2026 World Cup

That's a wrap! Spain just won the 2026 World Cup.

Soccer has a special place in my heart. It is the first (and primary) sport I played on an organized team. It is the only sport I have ever refereed (I've officiated games in two countries and two spurts—in the late '90s and late '00s). I love it . . . and there are parts I can't stand about it. All the emotions come to the fore every four years during the World Cup. 

The 2026 World Cup is now in the books; 48 teams played 104 games in 16 host cities, most of which were in the USA. I watched more of this Cup than any other . . . and I have some opinions. But first, the group stage and knockout brackets.

The Group Stage
The groups; image from here
The 48 teams (expanded this year from the normal 32) in this World Cup were organized into 12 four-team groups (see above image). Each team played against all others in their respective group. Draws were fine. By points, the top two teams from each group (and the third-place team in eight of them) advanced to the knockout stage.

The Knockout Stage
The knockout stage; image from here
In prior years, the knockout stage featured the top 16 teams, but since this year's tournament expanded the field to 48 teams, the first round of knockouts was the round of 32. 

On to my likes/dislikes.

Likes
  • The kit. All national teams change their kit every couple years (2 or 4, I don't remember and I think it depends anyway). It's always fun seeing what a given country is wearing, from the expected (like Argentine stripes or Croatian checkers), to bold new designs, to homages to classic jerseys of decades past. Eight examples below . . . note the subtle details some feature. Norway's was a particular favorite this year. This ESPN article shows and ranks all the kit.



  • The team names. National team nicknames can be basic, straightforward . . . or hilarious. You can see a complete list here; my favorites are the Socceroos (Australia), The Selection (Argentina), The Team (Germany), The Three Lions (England), Orange (Netherlands), The Tartan Army (Scotland), The Canal Men (Panama), The Pharoahs (Egypt), and The Chivalrous Ones (Jordan).
  • The camaraderie. Soccer is the world's sport. Fans come together for love of country and/or love of the game. It's fun to watch that play out. This year, to list a few examples, the Scottish fans drank Boston out of beer, the Norwegian fans had a viking 'row' routine, and the Japanese cleaned up stadiums
  • The skills. There is no denying the technical skill of players on the pitch. My favorite are one-touch passing sequences, sometimes involving no-look passes or step-overs. But the strength and accuracy of the passes/shots, the goalie acrobatics, the timing to avoid offsides . . . it is all impressive.
  • The tension. Is soccer the only sport whose game end is up to the referee? There are two 45-minute halves, but each has stoppage time, a discretionary number that ranges from 1 to 9 minutes of added play to account for the fake injuries (see below) and other delays. But even that number (made public at the start of stoppage time) in only a guide, and stoppage time can have its own delays that adds more time, meaning they play until the ref decides to stop. It makes for nail-biting uncertainty in close games.
  • Cape Verde. This year's sweetheart was Cape Verde; the island nation drew with Spain, made it to the knockout round and took Argentina into extra time. Incredible performance from such a small nation. You can view their highlights vs. Argentina here.
  • Select players. Erling Haaland (Norway), Jude Bellingham (England), Lionel Messi (Argentina), Vozinha (Cape Verde), Folarin Balogun (America), and Marc Cucurella (Spain) are a few of the players who stood out to me this World Cup. This is a team game, but individual talent shines through.
Dislikes
  • The low scores. Let's be honest . . . in any sport, we like scoring. In soccer, goals are scarce . . . and it can be a yawn-fest (unless both teams are pressing and just failing to finish). England vs. France in the consolation game (a 6-4 thriller) shows how much more exciting this game can be when both teams commit to the attack. Consider:
    • In this WC, there were 308 goals in 104 games, about 3 scores per game.
      • 120 goals came in 21 of the games, meaning 188 came in the remaining 83 contests; just over 2 goals per contest. 
    • By comparison, other popular sports score more often. The NHL (6 goals per game), MLB (9 runs per game), and football (45 points per game, divided by 7 = 6.4 scores per game) blow soccer out of the water in this category.
  • Turtling. Some teams 'turtle' (hunker down and play defense) from the start or if they go up. This is effectively giving up goal-scoring opportunities and hoping that playing your entire team on defense will deny goals to your opponent. It doesn't always work (see England or Egypt vs. Argentina this year), and it is annoying to watch.
  • Flopping. Soccer is a unique sport in that theatrics pay off. When a player is brushed, lightly touched, or looked at, the average soccer player falls over, rolls around wildly and grabs a body part (generally, the ankle or head) writhing in pain. Everyone else on the field throws up their hands and looks at the official, clearly expecting a foul will be called on the other team. If it is, 'great.' If it isn't, the nearly-dead player just hops up and starts playing again. Or they keep rolling around if they want to really sell it (and/or just give everyone on the field a break as the ref whistles in an ambulance or whatever). Then they hop up later. To top it off, announcers buy into it completely. They analyze the play, see a player fall over for basically no reason, and fawn over them, bemoaning the 'injury.' Sheeeeeeesh.
  • Games ending in penalty kicks. What a terrible way to end any game. But in the knockout stages, this is the way draws are resolved (after an extra period of play). Penalties decided four games in this Cup. One of them went against Germany. Not that I'm bitter.*
    • Draws. In this World Cup, 25 games ended in draws. I'm indifferent to those. I guess.
  • Certain fouls. Maybe the rules have changed since I was refereeing**, but I was shocked at some of the fouls that got red cards in this tournament. Players both going for the ball . . . a foot comes down in the wrong spot and the player is sent off. Ridiculous in my mind. Related: I don't know how many goals were disallowed due to questionable fouls, but it felt like the refs looked for reasons to keep the scoring down.
  • Delays in calling fouls. When I was refereeing, the only time you didn't call a foul upon recognition is when the fouled team had the ball and advantage (in which case you allowed them to play on). In this tournament, apparently, you can call fouls when:
    • it happened a half-minute earlier (offsides calls were notorious for this)
    • it happened on the other side of the pitch, minutes earlier
    • it happened on the other side of the world, days earlier
  • Team USA (vs. Belgium). For whatever reason, the USA just cannot master men's soccer.
  • The common hairstyle. AI tells me that this "textured crop with a mid-fade is one of the most popular men's hairstyles, combining short, choppy layers on top with clean, faded sides." Alex Baena (below) showcases the look. Many other players did in this Cup. I wasn't a fan; echoes of mullet.
Alex Baena (Spain)
Jury's Still Out
  • The expanded format. Increasing the teams by 50%? More teams can be thrilling (see Cape Verde above); it can also mean more 'chaff' can get in, diluting the talent level and making for embarrassing blowouts.
  • VAR. This year they used a team of Video Assistant Referees (VAR). In certain cases, the on-field ref could appeal to VAR (and review the footage himself) to determine if any calls needed to be adjusted. I'm of mixed mind here . . . on the one hand, every ref wants to get it right, and if video can aid that, why not? On the other, several VAR episodes this WC caused only drama (going from 'no foul' to 'red card' is a bit much to me). I think this is best used for offsides or offenses that happened away from a referee's vision vs. things he sees and calls on the field.
Final Thoughts
The fact that I watched so much indicates where my heart lies—I love this game. It was delightful to see it on U.S. soil (and thus at reasonable times), I'm glad the games were largely broadcast over the air so I could enjoy them, and the likes listed above outweighed my dislikes. It was fun to see the world come together and celebrate. Until next time, world. See you in four years.

*I am. But I concede that the Germans didn't deserve to win.
**They didn't. I checked. Okay, they did, but not in ways relevant to my point.

Friday, July 10, 2026

Fear is Not a Sin (Edward T. Welch)

In Fear is Not a Sin, psychologist and counselor Edward T. Welch seeks to help those wrestling with fear and anxiety by pointing them to Jesus. He argues that fear is not a sin but a call to action, looking at both in turn. Highlights follow.
--------
We are prone to fear. "Scripture assumes that we live with fear and anxieties. We are weak people who can control very little." Many times Jesus says things like "don't be afraid" or "do not weep;" Welch argues that in each case, though in the imperative form, Jesus's words "are not a command, but an expression of care and compassion." "Fear and anxiety are not sinful. Left unattended, however, they can be dangerous. If you don't bring them to Jesus, you are left trusting in yoruself, which is sin, and that will chock your soul (Mark 4:19)." So what are we do to with our fear?
  • First, we recognize that desires the underpin our fears and anxieties. "Fears identify what we want, what is important to us, and what we desire." "Fear is a desire that is threatened; grief is a desire taken away." 
    • What do you desire? Is it an acceptable desire or excessive (and thus an idol that needs to be confessed and repented of)?
  • Second, we learn to turn to God, who does not promise a specific outcome but routinely says "I am with you . . . I will not leave you." (Genesis 28:15) He remembers that we are dust (Psalm 103:14) and tells us to fear not because of who God is and what God will do (Luke 12:32). He wants us to tell Him about our fears (see the Psalms, which are filled with such things). Our task, even as those with little faith, "is to rest in Jesus and grow."
As we turn to God with our fears and rest in Him, our faith, courage, and confidence in Jesus will grow. We see this in the Psalms, as many of them "begin with fear, move toward the faithfulness of the Lord, and end with confidence and hope." Turning to God through Scripture and prayer will teach us to say/believe "yes [Jesus], I believe you care." And that will go a long way toward calming our fears.

This change won't happen overnight. After a fearful episode, learn to ask yourself "Did I turn toward the Lord or not?" "Your growth is measured not by the intensity of your fears and anxieties, but in how you turn to Jesus."
--------
This little booklet is succinct and helpful. Its argument and approach is Biblical and powerful. It is just 70 pages, some of which are blank for journaling and reflection. Recommended.

Rating: A

Monday, July 6, 2026

Daredevil: Born Again (Season 2)

Shortly after last time . . .

Wilson Fisk tightens his grip on New York City from the Mayor's office, using the Anti-Vigilante Task Force, personal henchmen, and allies inside the courts. Daredevil and Karen Page debate their dwindling options in a city rampant with corruption. How can one be just in the face of such injustice? What hope do they have? They cannot do it alone . . . and friends old and new will help in various ways. But ultimately, if they want to win, they will put it all on the line . . . and may lose everything.

This 8-episode season was much in keeping with those prior: well-done and extremely suspenseful, with intriguing themes and plot twists. The story moves along nicely, and the characters have depth. The ending was thought-provoking. Let the viewer beware, there is some bad language and it can be gruesomely violent. But overall I give this high marks; Matt and others realize the way out involves help, grace, forgiveness, and self-sacrifice. Powerful indeed. It was nice to see the show reach a degree of closure, even as I hear that season 3 is in development and the door is open for some new focus areas. Overall, recommended.

Rating: A

Saturday, July 4, 2026

A Declaration Worthy of Reflection

The Bennington Flag. Image from here
Happy 250th Birthday, America!

On July 4th, 1776, the Second Continental Congress adopted the revised Declaration of Independence, making today our nation's birthday. (Side note: they voted for independence on July 2nd, but then spent two days revising wording of the Declaration, finally approving it on July 4th.)

You can (and should) read a transcript of the Declaration of Independence here. Here is my summary:

First paragraph: When a people need to dissolve political ties, they should explain why.

Second: I'll quote the first half as it is the most famous:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government . . .
Governments shouldn't be dissolved for just any reason, but the King of Great Britain is terrible and we need a change.

List: It then lists 27 reasons why the King is terrible.*

Third: We've presented our grievances repeatedly and humbly, but we get only more injury in return. A person who acts like this is a tyrant and unfit to rule.**

Fourth: We told the British people, too, but they also ignored us. We thus must separate and "hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends."

Fifth: We thus declare "That these United Colonies are . . . Free and Independent States . . ." 

Signatures: It is signed by 56 people from across the 13 colonies. Pennsylvania has the most representation (9) and is thus the best state.***
-----------
On our birthday, I'd like to point out a few things: 

1) "We hold these truths to be self-evident . . ."
Our nation, like everything in our lives, is built on faith. On something you cannot prove, but a set of underlying assumptions you operate out of. (Recent books reviewed here talk more about this—see this book by Glenn Sunshine and this one by James K.A. Smith for more.) What were our founding fathers' assumptions? What are ours today? How have they changed? Why does it matter? Worthy questions for reflection.

2) How can we best enjoy (and leverage) our liberty? What does the Bible say about freedom? How are Biblical notions of freedom the same or different? How then should we live? (1 Peter 2:13-17 and Galatians 5:1-15 are good starting points.)

3) Enjoy and reflect on the truth in the below picture (from Etsy).
-----------
*All related to governing America poorly; it doesn't get into personal factors like hygiene, though I suspect (given the realities of the age) that it would have been fair to include.
**Yes, we mean you, King.
***Go Birds



Wednesday, July 1, 2026

Supergirl

Kara Zor-El is an orphan, sent away as a child from the last city of Krypton to live on Earth like her cousin, Kal-El. She visits occasionally but spends more time on other worlds, trying to drown her pain in drink as she lives out a lonely existence in her spaceship with her dog, Krypto. One day, she encounters Ruthye, a girl bent on vengeance for her family, all of whom were murdered by the Brigands. Those same criminals will soon tranquilize Krypto, giving Kara just days to find them and the antidote. Kara and Ruthye both battle their inner demons as they wrestle with what it means to live in a broken world. Can Krypto be saved? What about their souls?

This film, the second entry in the DC Universe (DCU) after Superman, was darker than its predecessor (beware lots of violence and some language) but still wrestled with good questions and themes. Kara drowns her pain in addiction; Ruthye thirsts for vengeance. Both are wrong, both recognize that in the other, and both help each other find a better way. Ultimately, this film is about the reality of pain in our lives, helping each other through it, and doing good regardless of the pain done to you. Worthy themes indeed. I share more analysis (with spoilers) below.

Rating: B
----
Brief analysis (with spoilers)

Kara and Ruthye both have deep pain . . . and deep problems.
  • Kara doesn't really have a home . . . for her, home is wherever her dog Krypto is. Having left Krypton at a much older age than Superman, her heart is heavy. Her dying parents send her to Earth, where they know she will survive and have great power (drawn from any world with a yellow sun). Their message to her: "you must be good" and "protect the powerless." She does these things . . . sometimes. She carries her grief with her and would rather forget her cares in the bottom of a glass; when Ruthye asks her "When did you stop feeling angry?" Kara replies "any day now." She knows drinking won't solve it, but she keeps on.
  • Ruthye is consumed with anger and a desire for vengeance. Kara recognizes it immediately and tells her "revenge is overrated," reminding her several times that "revenge won't get you where you want to go" and "if you kill him [the one who murdered her family], it won't take your pain away." Ruthye retorts that drowning in drink isn't the right way, either.
As the two women travel together, they both learn to confront their own weaknesses through the rebukes of the other (which leads to a temporary falling out). They later recognize reality: "I wish it never happened . . . I wish it could go back to the way it was before . . ." but know they cannot. So how do they deal with things as they are? They walk with each other through the pain, and help each other see the light. 
  • Ruthye recognizes both the flaws and beauty in Kara, saying "you're not always perfect but you're good. Thank you for taking me with you." 
  • Kara helps Ruthye walk away from an opportunity for vengeance, arguing that "your family is with you. Your life will be your revenge." As Kara's parents encouraged earlier in the film to live and do good for the sake of her family, so now she exhorts Ruthye to do the same. 
Intriguingly, after Kara helps Ruthye walk away, she returns to the antagonist and stabs him twice. "This one is for my dog . . . and this one is for what you did to that girl's family." This seems to fly in the face of the 'don't take vengeance' message she just presented to Ruthye. Is that hypocrisy? Potentially; on the one hand, it sure seems like it. On the other, the bad guy makes it clear he is going to keep on doing terrible things, so Kara may be doing it as a form of justice. She could also be taking the vengeance on herself so Ruthye isn't burdened by it. It's an intriguing ending that makes you think.

At the end, Kara returns to Earth and meets her cousin. She decides it is time to stay on Earth for a while . . . she will no longer run from her pain.

Kara is an interesting character. Several times she has the opportunity to get the antidote, but saving others always comes first. She consistently displays both good and selfishness. Watching her wrestle with that is the focus (and highlight) of the film. 

Tuesday, June 30, 2026

Midterm Report

image from here
Reflecting is important (more on that here). We're halfway through 2026. Each year, I set and present my goals for the year in January. Today, I remind myself of the goals and look at how it's going.

Spiritual
- Meditate more.
- Love self-forgetfully.
- Be thankful.


I don't meditate nearly enough. Loving self-forgetfully varies by the day (or hour, honestly), but I am doing a better job keeping it in my mind. And same goes for thankfulness; better than it was, but not where it should be.

Nutritional/Fitness
- Keep weight under 180 lbs.
- Develop underused muscles.


Meh. I stand at 185 lbs this morning, the point around which I have been hovering all year. I have put some muscle back on (after last year's shoulder surgery), but I still believe 180 lbs is my ideal. Need to bear down and be more disciplined. For underused muscles, I am making some effort there but not enough.

Reading
- Read 40 books.

This one is going well; over halfway there and enjoying the hobby.

Household Management
- Minimize/declutter the home.

We've made some minor strides here, but much remains to be done. It is hard getting the kids on-board.

Overall
Things are going okay, but could be better. The trends are positive but work remains.

Grade: B-

Saturday, June 27, 2026

The Art of Asking Better Questions (J.R. Briggs)

"We live in a world that has conditioned us toward answers . . . asking good questions is a lost art." So begins J.R. Briggs in his book The Art of Asking Better Questions. An outline follows.

"Asking better questions is a mindset. It is a posture. A way of life." And when we ask more (and better) questions with genuine interest in, and love for, others, everyone wins. "Asking great questions has the power and potential to improve the quality of every single area of life—your relationships, your career, your faith, and your future." And so this book is "about questioning-asking, where we wseek to ask questions that emphasize honor, care, discovery, and growth."

Why do we ask questions? For clarity and engagement. To cultivate connection and intimacy. To "scrutinize our presuppositions and help to dismantle assumptions." The questions we ask reveal our values and shape our thoughts. Asking genuine questions means giving others attention, which is a gift and form of generosity; questions "make conversations go deeper and last longer."

The author's four essentials to asking great questions:
- Curiosity. "Curiosity shines a spotlight, brings awreness to our assumptions and blind spots, and opens doors."
- Wisdom. We must ask questions wisely. "The questions we ask, how we ask them, and why we ask them at all reveal a great deal about who we are at our very core."
- Humility. "Great question-askers are fully aware of and quite comfortable with their ignorance."
- Courage. We have "to be confident in our lack of knowing, to willfully admit we are ignorant about a particular topic."

And he provides the Four Levels of Good Questions:
- Level One: Questions for information (simple facts).
- Level Two: Questions for interaction (thoughts and emotions).
- Level Three: Questions for understanding (feelings and desires).
- Level Four: Questions for transformation (vulnerability and intimacy).

He then looks at various things, including:
- The questions we ask ourselves. What does that reveal? Do we assume others are asking the same questions?
- Why does God ask questions? What does that reveal about His heart? 
- Why does Jesus ask questions? Here, he looks at the centrality of questions in Jesus' life, the six reasons He asked lots of questions, the types of questions he asked, and more.
- What questions do we ask God? How does question-asking help spiritual formation?

He concludes with practical ways to ask better questions: nine ways to prepare, 20 practices you can do while asking questions, and how to look back and reflect.

He offers several resources in the back of the book, including a discussion guide, lists of questions to ask yourself, discussion questions for faith communities, and fascinating facts about the questions Jesus asked.
--------------
I liked a lot of things in this book. I need to ask better/higher-level questions, and this gave me the tools to help. It reminded me of the importance of good questions and how they cultivate connection and community. It was valuable to study how God asks questions. This is a good resource.

At the same time, the book got repetitive; he spends a lot of time across several chapters convincing us of the need for and benefit of questions. I was sold early, so that got old and muddled the distinctiveness of each chapter. This could have been shorter.

I did like that he offered lots of questions throughout the book; here are my three favorite:
How can I be helpful?
Do you want to be helped, hugged, or heard?
Why am I bothered right now? 

Rating: B

Tuesday, June 23, 2026

The Two Towers Deck-Building Game

Today's review is of the 2013 release, The Two Towers Deck-Building Game (hereafter, Towers DBG). For 2-5 players, it takes 30 minutes.

Overview
You are one of the heroes from The Two Towers movie; your goal is to have the most victory points. In this deck-building game, each player starts with a 10-card deck (one of which is based on your chosen hero) and draws 5 cards per turn. On your turn, you play the cards to gain power, with which you buy cards in the 'path' or defeat arch-villains; in either case, the chosen cards go into your discard pile, which is shuffled to make a new deck when you run out of cards. Over the course of the game, your hand will get increasingly powerful. Can you prevail?
The game contents; image from here
This game is a sister to The Fellowship of the Ring DBG and nearly identical; the only difference here is wall cards which provide an alternate way to end the game. 

Review
In the same game family as the DC Deck-building Game, this has all the pros and cons of that line. It is quick to learn, fun to play, and a little strange that you can buy villains from the path to incorporate into your deck (though thematically I can buy it if you look at it as 'gaining experience' from defeating them). The addition of wall cards was a helpful way to accelerate the game's end (sometimes these drag on). Overall, recommended for a light experience. 

Rating: A-

Saturday, June 20, 2026

Tournament at Avalon

Today's review is of the 2020 release, Tournament at Avalon. For 3-6 players, it takes 45 minutes.

Overview
You and your friends are invited to a tournament at Avalon, in the legendary time of King Arthur. Your goal is to have the highest health when the first person is eliminated (drops to zero health). Do you have the strength to prevail?

Tournament at Avalon is a trick-taking game . . . where you don't want to take tricks. You start with 400 health. Each player has a special protagonist and companion that grants them unique abilities (see below illustration). Companion abilities can be activated only after a player falls to or below the health level indicated on the companion card (and this varies by protagonist/companion). 
the protagonist/companion cards; image from here
Each round, players are dealt 12 weapon cards, passing three of their choice to their left (or right; it alternates). Then the player with the lowest health starts the first trick ('melee' in the game's parlance) by playing a card. In clockwise order, the other players follow suit (if they can) or play an alchemy card (wildcard) or special weapon card. If a player has no legal card to play, they are 'shamed,' discarding a card and taking 5 damage. The lowest number takes the trick, putting the card pile in front of them, then playing a card to start the next melee. Play continues in such fashion until one or more players have no cards left. Then each player tallies the damage from the cards they have taken (generally 5 points per card, but some do 10 or 25 points of damage), lowers their health total accordingly, and the godsend cards are dealt.

Godsend cards provide boons to players who are hurting, granting special abilities that can help them (or hurt others). These cards are dealt to players from lowest health on up; the number of players who get a card first depends on the total playing and the round. But then there is a second dealing of godsend cards if the current leader is 100 or more health points ahead of others, so it is possible for players to draw more than one godsend card per round.

The game ends whenever a person drops to zero health (probably after a round completes). Then the players with the highest health wins!

Review
This is a sister game to 2017's Tournament at Camelot, with largely the same rules and basic weapon cards, but with new character/companion pairs and godsend cards. The games (or cards in them) can be mixed and matched to suit your fancy, or combined to play with 7-8 players.

Overall, this one was okay. Thought I rated the sister game highly, this one felt too complex and chaotic/confusing when you added the godsend cards. (I looked at Camelot's godsend cards and found them a touch simpler.) It has its fun moments, but seems to drag on interminably (it took way longer than 45 minutes). It was fun to have new protagonist/companion abilities, so I'm tempted to just pull those out, put them in with the Camelot game . . . we'll see. This one is okay, but check out Camelot first if you like Arthurian lore and trick-taking games.

Rating: B-

Tuesday, June 16, 2026

A Field Guide on Gender and Sexuality (Ligonier Ministries)

This book, produced by Ligonier Ministries, "offers biblical answers to questions about gender, sexuality, and identity." It is separated into four categories with seven questions in each:
  • Being Human
  • Homosexuality and Transgenderism 
  • Events and Associations
  • The Gospel and Love
Topics include (but are not limited to) what it means to be made in God's image, the purpose of sex, thoughts on identity, sex, gender, and same-sex attraction, attending certain events, showing compassion, and more.

This work is a solid starting point for people seeking to learn what the Bible says on these hot-button topics. In general, it does a good job. Relevant Scriptures are presented well. In some places, the answers felt overly stark and perhaps not as nuanced as wisdom would require (I questioned an answer or two). And there is more to be said on these matters (but it is an introduction, so brevity is expected). Overall, recommended.

Rating: B+

Friday, June 12, 2026

Jack (Marilynne Robinson)

Jack is a love story. It is about John Boughton, a hopeless ne'er-do-well and preacher's son, and his relationship with Della Miles, a teacher and bishop's daughter. Set in post-WWII St. Louis, their interracial romance is illegal; Jack must navigate this tense situation while he deals with his own self-loathing and checkered past.

Jack is hopeless. "No one had done him any real harm, except himself." He clings to Robert Frost's verse as a life summary:
I have been one acquainted with the night.
I have walked out in rain—and back in rain.
After a stint in prison (ironically for a crime he did not commit), he lives in a sort of self-imposed exile, living off his brothers' generosity and spending time doing odd jobs, being a bum, engaging in petty theft, or alcoholism. He believes that "he had nothing to give anyone, that his life was an intricate tangle of futility . . ." and takes to keeping away from people, figuring that "keeping his distance was a favor, a courtesy, to all those strangers who might, probably would, emerge somehow poorer for proximity to him." Intensely lonely, he wonders "How do people live?" Then came Miss Della Miles.

Della has bright prospects, fraught though they be with the realities of being a colored woman in that era. She has been to college, has strong family support, and has her life ahead of her. Through a series of odd events, Jack and Della meet and, shockingly, enjoy each other's company. They fall in love. Jack realizes "that there is nothing more I want from life. If I could imagine an eternity of sitting here with you talking nonsense, there'd be nothing more I would want . . . " But their relationship is star-crossed from the start as Jack wrestles with his past and how/why good should come to him, and what it means to love and be loved.

Jack tries to push Della away. He warns her: "I'm ridiculous. It never changes. Every day is a new proof." "I'm ruining things. I do that. I try to keep to myself, and it happens, anyway." He wrestles with her love and grace: "Flourishing seemed wrong in a man so disheartened as he was." He confesses to a pastor: "forgiveness scares me. It seems like a kind of antidote to regret, and there are things I haven't regretted sufficiently." He is confronted with the reality that "Shame was a very old habit with him. He had long considered it pentitential, payment extracted in the form of steady, tolerable misery, against a debt he would never settle."

As Jack wrestles, Della sticks by his side. His pastor reminds him that the good things he does are just as much a part of him as his failures. And that there is grace for the latter: "If the Lord thinks you need punishing, you can trust Him to see to it. He knows where to find you. If He's showing you a little grace in the meantime, He probably won't mind if you enjoy it." In this world where guilt and grace meet, what should be his focus?
----------
Set in the same world as her other novels (Gilead, Home, and Lila), it was a delight to find out more about the wayward son that was mentioned in them. As with the others, here Robinson writes powerfully and poetically on themes of brokenness and grace. She does that well. That said, I wish a few things were different:
- one scene dragged on interminably
- it was sometimes hard to follow the chronology of events; I couldn't tell the flashbacks from the current storyline in places. I couldn't tell if that was deliberate (an echo of Jack's internal confusion) or unintentional
- the racial theme wasn't covered nearly as much as Jack's internal wrestlings, making it seem mildly imbalanced
- you never see Jack and Della come home to Gilead; I had hoped for that (which was covered in Home) to be examined from his perspective

Overall, though, this remains an excellent and worthy read. I was engrossed and enchanted.

Rating: A-

Monday, June 8, 2026

Agricola

Today's review is of the 2007 release, Agricola. For 1-5 players, it takes 30-150 minutes.

Overview
You are a farming couple struggling to survive. Starting with a plot of land and wooden shack, your goal is to survive—no, thrive—by building the homestead through plowing and sowing, animal husbandry, home improvement/expansion, and maybe even a trade or two. If you have the most points at the end of the game (14 rounds), you win!

Agricola is a worker placement game. You start with two workers, a 3x5 homestead with two wooden shacks on it, and a common board with ten possible placement positions to start. On your turn, you place one worker on an available slot and collect the resource(s) or perform the action shown. Players proceed clockwise, placing workers until all are on the board. Then workers are removed, resources replenish (additively if none are taken in a given round), a new placement option comes out, and the next round begins (unless it's harvest time—see below). 

Placement options include (but are not limited to) collecting resources (wood, brick, reed, ore, wheat, food, etc.), obtaining animals (sheep, cattle, boar), building (fences, stables, additions to the home), growing the family, plowing fields, sowing crops, and more. You could also play occupation or minor improvement cards (which are dealt randomly at the start of the game), which can provide much-needed assistance. You could also buy a major improvement (like a stove that allows you to turn animals into food); the possibilities are many. You'll need resources of all kinds, so place wisely!
game in progress; image from here
After rounds 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, and 14, it is harvest time. Each player harvests their fields (if applicable), feeds their family (paying two food per member or taking begging card(s) if they cannot), and breeds their animals (if possible). 

At the end of round 14 there is a final harvest and then points are tallied. Highest total wins!

Review
I was excited to finally play this classic game; I wasn't disappointed. It is brutal (I couldn't feed my family one harvest and it cost me), and there is a lot going on, but there are always meaningful choices and interesting options. Replayability is high due to the 1) variability of placement cards and 2) occupation/minor improvement cards. As a new player, I felt like I was stabbing in the dark at a strategy, but I got the hang of things as the game progressed (and sense that your occupation/minor improvement cards go a long way towards dictating how you play a given game). There is a sense of urgency with only 14 rounds, making it play quickly.

A minor downside: the first player definitely has an advantage each round, and you need to spend a worker to take that mantle. Overall, though, this time-tested classic (which saw a revised version released in 2016, many expansions, and a deluxe version come out in the last year) is a winner.

Rating: A-

Friday, June 5, 2026

Masters of the Universe

Prince Adam's world is shattered as a child when Skeletor invades Eternia. Years later, Adam lives in exile on Earth, desperately seeking the sword of power that will enable him to return and fight back. When he makes his return, he is shocked at the state of his world. But he is just Adam—always weak, always the runt. Does he have the power?

I enjoyed this movie much more than I expected. It is nostalgic and the humor is good (but doesn't make sense unless you are familiar with the eighties television show). It is delightfully (and intentionally) corny in places—it doesn't hesitate to make fun of itself (and in so doing, the cartoon of old). It has a few spots of language and innuendo, which I found mystifying and out of place with the intent. But it also packs a surprisingly deep message. 

This film seems to both reflect and reject post-modern thinking. Adam learns that power is not necessarily brute force—that kindness and empathy are powerful in their own right—but at the same time, there is evil in the world that can't be cured with therapy or listening; there are Skeletors out there that need to be defeated with power. In this sense, the movie is a mix of stark eighties moralism (which featured heavily in the cartoon) and a more modern emphasis on compassion and understanding. And, surprisingly, I think they got the right mix.

Rating: B+

Wednesday, June 3, 2026

Daredevil: Lockdown

Continuing from last time . . .

Daredevil is still behind bars, and Elektra is still acting in his stead. But things are coming to a head in Hell's Kitchen . . . Bullseye is on the loose, seemingly everywhere and terrorizing the city. Mayor Wilson Fisk isn't happy with the new Kingpin and puts things in motion to handle the situation. And Daredevil uncovers a plot that may unleash yet another plague on the city . . .

This volume was in line with the others: solid. This is a mild ending of sorts, with Matt coming to grips with who he is and what he must do ("what's right"), even if that is a bit wishy-washy (as the standard is never defined). Still, I was intrigued by one of his conclusions: that maybe what his enemies need isn't punishment but grace and contentment. It's not fully the gospel, but it's on the path.

Rating: A-

Tuesday, June 2, 2026

Go Spurs Go

They did it . . . again. For the seventh time in the past 28 years, the San Antonio Spurs are headed to the NBA Finals. As a Spurs fan since the David Robinson era, I've long admired their [now retired but still influential] Coach Pop, the teamwork they embody, and attitude, even after their championship runs with Tim Duncan ended (in 2016) and they started missing the playoffs (from 2020-2025, after making them for 22 years prior). Now . . . they're back! This post celebrates a great team and season.
How were they built? Mostly through the draft (see here for more details). The depth chart above shows the roster. The players were acquired via:
  • draft: Stephon Castle, Devin Vassell, Victor Wembanyana, Dylan Harper, Keldon Johnson, Carter Bryant 
  • trade: De'Aaron Fox, Harrison Barnes, Jordan McLaughlin, Kelly Olynyk
  • free agency: Julian Champagnie, Luke Kornet, Bismack Biyombo, Mason Plumlee, Lindy Waters III
As they did with Tim Duncan in 2002, the Spurs 'lucked out' in draft lottery positioning, enabling them to get Wemby first overall in 2023, Castle fourth overall in 2024, and Harper second overall in 2025. The first two won Rookie of the Year in their respective campaigns. But it's not all about the draft . . . free agents and trades are often necessary to round things out. The Spurs have key contributors from both spheres, but none more important than De'Aaron Fox, who came over from Sacramento via trade last season.

Who are their stars? The Big Four are Wemby (the NBA's Defensive Player of the Year and MVP runner-up), Fox, Castle, and Harper. These four players give the Spurs a formidable center and deep backcourt (which also includes Keldon Johnson, the NBA's Sixth Man of the Year). Though not at the same level, the Spurs also have solid forwards in Vassell, Champagnie, Bryant, and Barnes.
Wemby and Fox (image from here)
Castle and Harper (image from here)
What does the future hold? Who knows, of course. Game One in this year's finals is on Wednesday, and the Knicks are formidable. (Sidenote: this is also a rematch of the 1998-99 Finals.) But beyond this year, the team is young and should be competitive for years to come. Do we have another Spurs dynasty on our hands? Far too early to say. But the future is bright in San Antonio . . . go Spurs go!

Sunday, May 31, 2026

Why You Think the Way You Do (Glenn Sunshine)

In Why You Think the Way You Do, Glenn Sunshine traces the history and evolution of western worldviews "from Rome to Home." His interest "is in the fundamental ideas that shaped the culture and how those ideas were lived out in Western society" and "with the impact Christianity had on worldviews and thus on culture." A summary follows.

"A worldview is the framework you use to interpret the world and your place in it." Worldviews operate "below the radar, behind the scenes, guiding our thoughts, words, and actions and only rarely being examined or analyzed." And "to understand a culture or civilization, you have to understand its wordview."

Ancient Rome
Rome had a variety of religions, most of which were pagan. Its pantheon was ever-growing as it would absorb the deities of those it conquered. Most of its gods were "feared, not loved." "Religious rituals were designed to appease deities, not please them." In this era, Plato and his teachings had a huge role. In Platonism, "ideas are the foundation for reality, [so] clear thinking and logic are the best approaches to understanding the world." It wasn't about observation but logic. He believed that "spirit was superior to matter" and had a hierarchy of being that started with the One ("a being of pure spirit"), from whom all other deities came. (Humans were down on the list, but above animals and plants.) Aristotle (also influential) would follow suit in his logic over observation approach.

Within the Empire, Jews had a different deity. "The God of Israel . . . is personal and created the world as a voluntary act." And "God created humanity in his image as his steward and regent in overseeing the rest of the created world." Eventually, a Jewish sect—Christianity—would arise that held the same beliefs (plus others, obviously, including holding Jesus as Lord and Savior). Christians claimed that their God was alone the only God—an exclusivity claim that didn't go over well in a pluralistic society. They would be persecuted for centuries . . . until Constantine.

The Roman Emperor Constantine issued the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, making Christianity a legal religion. He is said to have converted himself. And "the transition from being a persecuted minority religion to being the favored faith of the emperor inevitably forged ties between church and state that have been a driving force in Western political life ever since." And when the Western Roman Empire collapsed in 476, the church—often the only administrative unit left in a city—would fill the vacuum.

Medieval World
The church and state influenced each other after Constantine. After Rome fell, a "blending of Germanic and Roman cultures with Christianity . . . occurred across the board in all areas of life during these centuries. The different strands influenced each other and gradually blended together to form a new worldview . . " Little survives from that time (hence "Dark Ages"), though of course development continued in many spheres. Platonic humanism arose, and around this time, the works of Aristotle were (re)discovered, leading to scholasticism (a method of study). People viewed it as "safer and more reliable to build our understanding of the world on the base of ancient authorities." But this had its issues, too, and the Condemnations of 1277 "liberated thinking from its slavish dependence on Aristotle." Ultimately, 
The medieval mind assumed that the rational God created a rational universe and that human beings, made in the image of God, were rational as well and could undersatnd the universe. Although they believed that miracles could occur, they also believed that God idd not need to intervene actively for the world to function normally. God created it to operate in a certain way, and the rules that governed its behavior could be discovered by human investigation. Contrary to the assumptions of classical thinkers . . . the best method of learning about the world was not deductive reasoning but direct study and examination fo the world . . [which] laid the foundation for [science].
Christian thoughts influenced other spheres of worldview, too. Ideas that the physical world was real, it and work were inherently good, and property rights were important, all came from the Bible. Augustine, an important thinker of the period, developed ideas of the "City of God" (based on love of God and neighbor) and "City of Man" (based on love of self) which explained the good (and evil) in the world and how society could function with both being true. 

"Starting in the late 1400s, however, Europe was jolted by a series of movements and discoveries that threatened the underlying pillars of medieval thought. The Italian Renaissance, the Protestant Reformation, the European discovery of the Americas, and the rediscovery of an ancient form of skepticism set the stage for momentous changes in the European worldview."

Renaissance, Reformation, and the New World
Based in part on a calamitious fourteenth century (which included "economic decline, continent-wide crop failures, the Hundred Years War, . . . [and] the Black Death"), some "began to argue that Rome was the epitome of civilization, and when Rome fell, civilization ended." They were obsessed with classical civilization (Greece and Rome), but still drew a lot of their approach from medieval times. Like the era that preceded them, they believed "that truth existed and could be known with certainty. They also believed (obviously) that the best guide to truth was the past, and that a unified system of truth could be found by studying past authors, aiming at a grand synthesis of all human knowledge." But they encountered a problem: as they studied the past, Renaissance thinkers found that the scholars of bygone eras didn't agree. This was on problem in the time (more on this below).

Another challenge was the Protestant Reformation. They looked to the Bible as the sole authority (and not the Papacy or tradition) and "insisted that all believers are priests" (and thus elevated 'secular' roles to being sacred callings, too). In some cases, "the lines between civil and ecclesiastical functions blurred," which could mean enforcing moral standards. The rise of competing churches made people question which was right, and religious wars followed (to include the English Civil War and the Thirty Years' War). Those horrific experiences led people to start questioning if we could truly be certain of religion . . . or anything.

Finally, the discovery of the New World challenged peoples' worldview as it raised troubling questions about God and the Bible (because how could Native Americans, having not been exposed to the Gospel for centuries, possibly be saved?). This, plus the above issues and the discovery of an ancient thinker, Pyrrho (who claimed that knowing anything with certainty was impossible), further stressed the worldview.

Scientific Revolution, Deism, and Enlightenment
A slew of thinkers arose (Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Pascal, and Newton among others) who "used both science and Scripture" in their investigations and debates. Collectively, these "laid the foundation for a new epistemology in Europe." "Although the past was respected, scholars increasingly believed that they could build on and improve on past authors, and even prove them wrong. The ancients were no longer 'authorities' but merely people who wrote down ideas that might be right or wrong. Study, analysis, and, where possible, testing became more important than simply citing Aristotle. In short, the idea of progress emerged, and with it, a greater optimisim about human potential." The Christian underpinning remained (a rational God made a rational world that we as rational creatures can understand), which still left "room for supernatural intervention," but a shift was coming.

In the early seventeenth century, there was a shift to looking for exclusively rational explanations of the world, and "a similar trend toward reason occurred in religion." In addition, "many people began to think of religious passions as politically and socially dangerous." A new worldview called deism arose.

In traditional/orthodox Christianity, God was understood to be infinite, creator/sustainer of the universe, transcendent yet immanent/personal and relational. Deists believed some of this . . . to them, "God is infinite but not personal; he is creator but the universe operates on its own without any involvement by God; and he is transcendent but not immanent." Deists "believed that reason was the only guide to turth in any area of life, including religion." They respected the ethics in the Bible but "did not accept its miracles, answered prayers, and interventionist view of God."

In other areas, reason also took precedence. In economics, politics, philosophy, and other areas, "knowledge came exclusively from human reason and could be expected to grow and improve over time, based on the further accumulation of experience." The "material world was the only one that mattered." They still had some underlying Christian influence, however, like "the idea of inalienable, God-given rights, which led to the Enlightenment emphasis on life, liberty, property, and virtue." And the idea of original sin was retained (especially in America), leading to our founders establishing a government with checks and balances since humans are so easily corrupted. But things were still changing, and modernity was coming.

Modernity
Our modern worldview came about in the nineteenth century. Many were functionally deistic, and in that view, God was only there to create the universe. "If another alternative can be found to explain how the universe got here, we can safely eliminate God from the system altogether." In that case, what we would be left with was "a world consisting only of matter and energy—a metaphysical system known as naturalism or materialism." 

Related is the idea of what science is. It used to mean simply knowledge, but now came to refer to only studies that followed the scientific method. "Now only things that could be tested and confirmed through the scientific method qualified as real knowledge; everything else was dismissed as subjective or irrelevant." Given some successes in the natural sciences, this gave rise to "the attempt to apply the scientific methods to solve social problems" in many other fields of study. 

Enter Charles Darwin. His theories lent credence to the naturalistic position, though (interestingly) "Darwinism is not itself subject to the scientific method any more than anything in history is. The past is over; you cannot revisit it, observe it, test it, or experiment on it. All you can do is look at the surviving evidence and try to make sense of it." Ultimately, this shows that "Darwinism is not a scientific theory but a worldview assumption, and as such, it is not falsifiable." It is an article of faith that serves as a presupposition, and it along with materialism had broad implications for other fields.

What about meaning in life? The materialistic worldview "disenchanted" the world. "Materialism provides a ready answer to the question of the meaning or purpose of life: there is none." This leads to nihilism, but since that is hard for most to stomach, more people week to "re-enchant" and embraced existentialism ("nihilism-lite"), which "means that we are radically free to determine what we do and who we are." Things matter—because we say so (since we have rejected other authorities).

Postmodernism
Two horrific World Wars and other calamities in the twentieth century led people to re-think a purely materialistic view. Maybe there is right and wrong . . . but if there is some truth out there that cannot be scientifically proven . . . how do we learn it? Enter deconstructionism—in literature, that is "the idea that texts can be deconstructed and reconstructed as suits the reader." That can be applied to other things, too. If knowing is impossible, we can at least make our own meaning. Postmodern thought "is deconstructionism-lite," rejecting objective truth and insisting on cultural/moral relativity, but holding to "the idea that truth is relative and personal." 

Hence we arrive at present day. "You alone decide what is true and false, right and wrong, for yourself. The only limitation is that you can do nothing that infringes on someone else's freedom." The greatest virtue in such a system? Tolerance. "Not only can you not do anything that limits another's freedom . . . you cannot suggest that there is anything wrong with what they decide to do with their freedom." And not only can you not criticize another, but competing views "must be positively affirmed and celebrated." Which leads to all manner of things, including self-determination of identity, gender, and so on. Where are we now? In many ways, back at Rome, with many of their cultural practices and values being embraced in the public square.

-----
At only 215 pages, this book obviously only skimmed the surface of worldviews and how they have changed over the centuries. That said, it is an excellent work. Sunshine writes well and has a gift for explaining things succinctly and clearly. While I would have preferred some more exploration of the nuances associated with each period, I appreciate that this is intended to be an introduction only. In that, it succeeds. Highly recommended for those interesting in learning more about "how we got here."

Rating: A

Thursday, May 28, 2026

DC Deck-Building Game: Rebirth

Today's review is of the 2019 release, DC Deck-Building Game: Rebirth. For 1-4 players, it takes 45-90 minutes.

Overview
Like all games in the DC Deck-Building Game line, Rebirth is a deck-builder where you all start with the same 10-card hand, drawing 5 to play each turn (which give you some combination of power and movement) and discarding used cards. You add cards by 'purchasing' them from the lineup (putting them in your discard pile) as the game progresses to strengthen future choices (once empty, a new draw pile is formed from the shuffled discard pile; the linked game review explains more). 

But Rebirth differs from most DC:DBG expansions in three important ways:
1) it has locations and your character must move between them to achieve objectives (and buy cards),
2) it can be played as a cooperative experience,
3) it is scenario-based, with eight options, and can be played as a campaign (where information from prior games is retained and used in future ones).
Do you and your friends have what it takes to win each scenario?

Review
This felt like The DC Deck-Building Game meets Marvel United. It was busy, but I liked it—perhaps better than the normal game. Cooperative is fun, and I liked how here you do not buy villains but attack them when they are in the lineup; a more intuitive concept than the original (where you can buy heroes and villains alike for your deck). It would have benefitted from a game board to guide card placement, and I cannot speak to all scenarios (I played only the first), but I enjoyed what I experienced. Recommended.

Rating: A