from a discussion from the facebook COEXIST forum, a dude posted this:
The Wall Street Journal asked Richard Dawkins (evolutionary biologist) and Karen Armstrong (Christian apologist) the question "Where does evolution leave God?" I thought folks in this group might find their replies interesting:
My own take is that Armstrong concedes so much ground to evolution that she unintentionally describes the same god as Dawkins does: a god with nothing to do, and one that does not, technically, exist. Somehow Armstrong still derives value and meaning from such a concept.
my response:
Holmes Rolston III in his epic volume "Genes, Genesis and God: Values and their origins in Natural and Human History" takes the reader on a journey from creation of the universe to the rise of homosapiens and our development of culture, ethics, and religions. Stepping back to appreciate the grandeur of it all, Rolston asks "Where is God in this evolutionary saga?"
Nothing that the universe demonstrates entropy (constantly decreasing measure of energy and order leading to its death), Rolston proposes that one entity which is moving in a negentropic direction (increasing in energy and order): life. he states "Nature and energy have been creative, making more out of less." Rolston declares that the information and memory in herent in DNA is needed in such amounts that it could not have floated in from nowhere. therefore: "Over evolutionary history, some thing is going on 'over the heads' of any and all of the local, individual organisms. More comes from less, again and again. A more plausible explanation is taht, complimenting the self-organizing, there is a ground of information, or ambience of information, otherwise known as God."
in Rolston's model, the providence of God, or in imitation of God, provides a negentropic drive against hte unremitting death throes of the universe. God's providence intersects with human and natural history within and around us. i think this is so... but the question still remains of HOW exactly such a God intersects with humans and creation. is this God thinking (like traditional theology states) "Don't sweat it, i got it all under control." or is God thinking (like more progressive/liberation theologies state) "Stop sitting on your hands, get up and do something with yourself and i'll provide the energy and guidance in your work."?
i'm still on the fence but leaning towards progressive, although both are plausible in certain contexts.
I've said it before, and i'll say it again. I'm tired of being a "Christian, but". I'm a Christian but I affirm other traditions, like the LGBTQ, believe in evolution, drink alcohol, don't believe in a sacred/secular split, etc. In my studies this semester, i'm taking "United Church of Christ: History, Polity, and Doctrine" and i'm loving it! I'm learning with each class that the UCC is definately my spiritual and historical home.
The UCC has been many things and it's hard to sum up. In short it comes from 4 denominations that merged in the 1950s. Those "4 Streams" are the Congregationalists, Reformed, Christian, and Evangelical churches. We affirm all four of those histories, some extending all the way back to the reformation, while others were home-grown American Revolutions.
UCC has poked fun of itself calling themselves:
a heady and exasperating mix
unitarians considering christ
utterly confused christians
universalists christ crazed
un-tied christians
and yet stand as a church that wants to be:
united and uniting
reformed and reforming
unity with variety
unity in diversity
looking for the living God
affirming that God is still speaking
believing "In essentials unity, in nonessentials freedom, in all things charity" (Eden Seminary's motto)
here's a brief overview of what each "Stream" brings to the UCC.
The Congregationalists: the Puritan and separatists were part of this tradition. intially it was called "The Way" and didn't want to be labeled anything as the prime beliefs being the autonomy of the individual church and the freedom to follow Christ in context and as the sole head of the church.
they were Calvinists and believed int he elect, primacy of scripture, and that all works are a responce to the freely given grace of God. they believe that creeds and confessions weren't all that important and cared more for conversation and education. the motif's in play were a sense of flexibility and adaptability, social awareness, realistic and practical, and great missional zeal.
some notables: Johnathan Edwards (Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God), John Wise (natural rights such as democracy, autonomy, and covenant is consistent with faith which lead to Congregationalist support of the American Revolution), and Washington Gladden (father of the social gospel: Christians must stand against injustice, rabid and selfish individualism, and economic exploitation).
The Reformed Church: has roots in Germany and names Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin as sources. Liked Calvin's simple worship and struck a balance between Luther and Zwingli in communion: not going as far as Luther but yet refraining from calling it "just a symbol" as Zwingli. Unlike the Congregationalists, this stream was confessional with a lot of creeds, the foremost being the Heidelberg Catechism. They focused that a highly structured church is a good thing and found freedom in the order as it provided helpful boundaries and easy identity.
Lancaster Theological Seminary where I attend was the only historical Reformed Seminary and also where Mercersburg Theology popped up. some notables include the hiding of the Liberty Bell during the revolutionary war, Philip Schaff, and John Williamson Nevin.
The Evangelical Church: didn't have a lot of money or members. They largely affirmed three things.
Pietism that sits between orthodoxy and rationalism
The Christian Church: was largely absorbed by the Congregationalists. they were largely a small confederacy, loosely affliated with one another, that was based on Enlightenment Principles and affirmed: Law, unity, passion with no trained clergy. they wanted warm hearted leaders with a keen moral sense.
so there are the 4 Streams in a nutshell. each brings their own story and contributes in a unique way. there is also a UBER-PROGRESSIVE history behind each of these as the UCC was the first to ordain a woman, african-american, and openly gay ministers. started the first integrated anti-slavery society, wrote the 'Serenity Prayer', argued to uphold the treaties made with the First Nations Tribes, as well as many other firsts. Read more about these firsts here! Plus it would stand to mention that President Obama was UCC in Chicago; NOT MUSLIM. but since Rev. Wright, he's stuck to the National Cathedral, which is okay, Darth Vader is on the outside of the church, so it can't be all bad, right?
Needless to say it's great to know that i'm part of a progressive strain that has been at the forefront of the issues. many want to call Christians closed-minded, stiff-necked, and out-dated, but here is a whole history that says otherwise. they affirm a generous orthodoxy and have been exempt from a lot of charges now leveled at many Christians today. i can't help but want to work to keep this proud history going! RAWK!
"I had a french pastor friend who wanted to become a saint. At the time i was very impressed with him, but i had to disagree and said in effect that i wish to learn to have faith... I discovered later, and discovering right until this moment, that it is only by living completely in this world that one learns to have faith. one must completely abandon any attempt to make something of oneself, whether it be a saint or a converted sinner or a churchperson, a righteous person. by this worldly-ness i mean living unreservedly in life's duties, problems and successes and failures, experiences, and perplexities. in doing so we throw ourselves completely in the arms of God, taking seriously, not our own sufferings, but those of God in the world."
i was once told by a conservative associate of mine that the bible is easy to understand and has just one message. he then went on to say that he knows God's will and lives completely in christ. he later made clear his wish that i'd come to christ as he did, then i'd know the Truth. i then asked how he could be a person of faith if there were no mystery to his life? faith is the very act of NOT knowing what is going to happen but going anyway? what's the phrase? but for the grace of God go I?
in my view, the opposite of faith is certainity. no need for faith if you know how things are going to turn out. faith is a funny thing. faith is living in the mystery and just having this glimmer of a feeling that things will work out in your favor. usually things work out when you're not focus on yourself but another person. funny how that works out huh? it's the christian paradox: the only way we find ourselves is in others, the only way we believe is trusting the unknown. Faith uses a lot of prayer. and prayer does not change God, but it changes who prays.
we must live in this world. faith is not something you go to or keep in a church and only visit it on sunday. faith is something that is lived in every second of everyday. faith like this finds God in music, movies, and others and takes joy. Take joy when you see an old friend or family member. take joy at accidentally encountering someone you know at Saveway, God is there. Take joy at the random conversation you had with a complete stranger on the the Metro or while walking your dog. God is there. God is there, just below the surface, playing hide-and-seek and hoping that God is seen in the mudane day-to-day.
Having a faith like this helps you go into that room... you know the one. that room in the hospital on the CPE rounds that no one wants to go in. or that room in that house on your block where "that family" lives. or that nursing home with the lonely senior who has lost their life partner. or that prisoner that has so much regret and no hope. too much hurt, tragedy, suffering. Faith like this is knowing that in these rooms, there is no hope... and you go in anyway.
be mindful! God is out there. have faith to put yourself out there where God is.
my good library buddy here at the seminary sent me this review of Fight Club. The author concludes that "The result of Tyler’s and the narrator’s use of violence is, unsurprisingly, violence without end." i wish the author would have written a longer article as to how he sees that this would be the result of Fight Club. I mean, i think i can see it, but i need it explained lest my own assumptions get in the way.
and i think that's where i'll start, my own thoughts on what Mimetic Theory and Fight Club assume about the nature of humanity and what not.
Mimetic theory's main assumption is that human beings are not inherently violent, that somewhere along the way violence was introduced and then others learned from there on and the cycle is continually renewed. When we turn to human history, with a citation found from this article by Alfie Kohn stating that some of the points made by critics of biological determinism are:
Even if a given behavior is universal, we cannot automatically conclude that it is part of our biological nature. All known cultures may produce pottery, but that does not mean that there is a gene for pottery-making.
Agression is no where near universal. Many hunter-gatherer societies in particular are entirely peaceful. And the cultures that are "closer to nature" would be expected to be the most warlike if the proclivity for war were really part of that nature. Just the reverse seems to be true.
While it is indisputable that wars have been fought, the fact that they seem to dominate our history may say more about how history is presented than about what actually happened.
Many people have claimed that human nature is aggressive after having lumped together a wide range of emotions and behavior under the label of aggression. While cannibalism, for example, is sometimes perceived as aggression, it might represent a religious ritual rather than an expression of hostility.
But then there's another side of science that takes the opposite track. I think this is the side that Fight Club assumes, that humans are inherently violent and aggressive. This is the belief, popularized by Sigmund Freud and animal researcher Konrad Lorenz, that we have within us, naturally and spontaneously, a reservoir of aggressive energy. This force, which builds by itself, must be periodically drained off - by participating in competitive sports, for instance - or we'll explode in some awful violent action. in some ways, Mimetic Theory assumes this as well with the scapegoat mechanism.
Richard Dawkins (yes, THAT Dawkins) argued in the Selfish Gene that "The general principle that behavior evolves to serve selfish ends has been widely accepted; and the idea that humans might have been favored by natural selection to hate and to kill their enemies has become entirely, if tragically, reasonable."
How about we mix the two? Let's mix that the idea that aggression is a natural tendency that must be drained periodically (Fight Club) and violence being a learned behavior (Mimetic Theory), then we see a larger, fuller picture emerge. Innate tendencies such as competition and pride mixed with the way in which a society functions can bring about the need for violent action due to the circumstances of a situation. After all, we are creatures of circumstance. We adapt and react to the world around us, and because of this there are times when we must engage in violent activity. However, we can use culture as a means to create a situation where competitive means for survival are unneeded, but until there is a united effort to reform the way we interact with the world, violence is just an unfortunate consequence. so therefore a united effort is needed to reform the way we interact! That is what Fight Club does.
Going back to Tyler's vision that Fight Club is after:
"In the world I see - you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Tower. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying strips of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway."
This sounds rather peaceful, tribal. A return to simplicity. Fight Club, as i interpret it, attacks the dehumanization that is taking place in soceity. In 8 simple rules, it provides structure, friendship, vulnerabilty, and an empowering outlet in a life that otherwise depowers and dehumanizes. when you punch another person, you see the immediate result and reaction of the other person, not so when you gossip about them or post blog entries about them ;-). in some ways, it is a more honest and open form of violence, one i feel more comfortable with as it doesn't beautify it or refine it. it's real, it hurts, and there is consquences like loosing teeth and explaining away blackeyes.
i think in the Fight Club model, empathy is the result. shared experiences of the fighters bind them together in a true community. like the priest hugging his opponent after a fight. or how every member mourns their martyr "Robert Paulson."
of course, to say that Fight Club is the answer and a means to end the cycle of violence or perpetuate it infinately is pure spectulation. the movie doesn't give us what happens after the buildings blow up. it does give us plenty of evidence to speculate ON, but never enough to go one way or another.
i stand on the side that Fight Club presents a "system shock" model that is counter-cultural and that leads to true community and a new means of ordering society. much like the system shock model we find in the gospels that lead to a new community that the rammifications are still being played out 2,000 years past.
it's hard to figure out, can Fight Club's violent means reach a nonviolent end? My deontologist leanings (right ends by way of right means) cringes at the thought... but my Christian leanings say otherwise (paradox of the Cross and blood of Christ). not to say that these are separate from each other, but it's the best way i can catagorize and try to explain how my thinking is torn.
how do you see it? can peace be reached through violence? or is it like Gandhi stated "There is no way to peace, peace is the way"? is humanity inherently violence and will we ever get over it? by what means can we escape violence?
i love the fall. there's something serene about the whole time. the feel, smell, and look of it just brings me peace. my fav. holiday is in here (Halloween) as well as my fav sport (football). it's just awesome!
i look forward to the jeans and t-shirt weather. watching football with my wife while enjoying a few brewskies, esp. Sam Adams' October Fest (best beer in existence!). curling up with a good book in bed after a long day of walking around and enjoying the leaves. watching Eve play in the leaves is gonna be really awesome. watching some scary movies or Hocus Pocus or Sleepy Hollow with some red wine is incredible relaxing too.
this fall is a little different. i start my last year of seminary and that brings with it some peace and some sadness. i'll be soon parting with friends i've made over the past two years... friends i've laughed, challenged, been challenged by, traveled to Egypt, and explored vast theological and ethical questions.
CPE is also bringing a new sense of peace this fall. I feel like I have come into my own.
I have realized how structured my life is and have come to the realization of why this came about. Growing up, I had no father. I felt as though this was a big deficiency and that if I could lose something as important as a father, than I could lose anything and everything in a heartbeat. I was a breath away from chaos and felt very vulnerable. I didn’t like this feeling, so to gain some control I developed ways of thinking and doing that produced definable and verifiable results. It was only later that I realized how capable my mother was and how lucky we were to not have my father around. Thomas Aquinas was taught in my Catholic school and I fell in love with his theology and the scientific method. I develop systems and strategies to understand the chaos, I am always working within a framework.
On the flipside, however; I also know how systems can leave many out. Being from a “broken home” I heard how this distortion of the family system and the sin of divorce are ruining society in my church. No matter how good a Catholic I was, I was still working from a negative space. I would never be fully accepted. So my systems then became less rigid, more flexible, more chaos tolerant.
All this was fine until I stepped into CPE. I thought I had a good handle on the world but I am now realizing how naïve I am. I keep going back to the image of stepping out from behind the telescope and observing the sky in its entirety. I am now over the initial shock. I feel more at home in the hospital as I have a better understanding of what the culture is like. I can empathize more now that I have the process down (and why the process looks like it does to meet the demands it must). I see how I can fit in. Initially I thought that I could never be a good chaplain. Like I’m lacking some integral part. I was trying to fit into a mold I would never go into. I painted myself as some purely intellectual person but that wasn’t true. I operate out of my head, but it is informed and balanced by my heart. I am a Myers Briggs “T” and do not have to become an “F” to do this job. I can track, feel, and yet synthesize what the patients are going through. I can name things that they already know, but don’t know they know it.
For example a woman yesterday was talking about how she feels under-appreciated by her husband. This feeling causes guilt in her for thinking about it and she doesn’t talk about it with her husband and thus she keeps feeling misunderstood, under-appreciated, and guilty. All I had to do was say “Wow, it sounds like you’re feeling trapped in this cycle.” And that was it. She broke down and cried and stated that was exactly it and then talked herself out of the cycle. All I had to do was be there and repeat her words back to her. Granted this is a “minor” situation, but it helped me realize that I AM equipped for this job. The brain always seems to be trying to figure out what the heart already knows and put words to it. I can help here. I can be a non-anxious presence in the midst of death, trauma, and heartache.
I can’t control everything and I have no desire to. My desire is to respond. Sometimes the best response is no response at all. I want to help others to respond as well. Many times they already know the way; they just need to say it to someone. A stranger works best here in these situations it seems because there’s no prior relationship there and therefore no judgment on the part of this stranger. This is the kind stranger example set by The Good Samaritan. I just show them the door that they always knew was there. I can show them this door, but they have to walk through it.
There were times where I just was, I didn’t reflect or try to “do” anything. I let the patients and the families do the doing. What they asked for I did (provide information, prayer, get them water) and when they asked me to go, I went. I feel like I was able to let go and move and not feel spent. I am now looking forward to my next shift. I am surprised at how much I’m enjoying this program and how much I’m learning.
I am learning how natural the process is for me. As natural and easy as the changing colors. For this is the season of change and change can be SO beautiful.
Barry Taylor (Entertainment Theology: New-Edge Spirituality in a Digital Democracy. Grand Rapids Michigan: Baker Academic, 2008.) holds Fight Club up as a prime example as what it means to be Postmodern Gothic. There is a transgressive nature in the mindset of the Gothic and the dominant message is “learn to live with mystery” and this is accomplished by sharpening one’s instincts (Taylor 142). So then the Gothic radically embraces passion, learning how emotions like fear, terror, horror, and sadness (as well as the more fiery passions of anger and rage) are means by which people learn to fight back. Fight Club does this to help people liberate themselves from a system that is draining the life away from their souls and keeping them from forming a true community. They find a new code of living through being shocked out of their old ways of doing things. They are able to “come to terms with the world around them through a renewed sense of self through their commitment to a new code of living” (Taylor 143).
For Tyler, dominant ideologies and cultural values exist to be subverted. The means of constructing identity is based on communal relationships, particularly with men although Marla becomes a bigger role as the film goes on, instead of material capitalistic measures.
Tyler does not turn to religion, although the language is frequently used in the film. The Narrator talks about the feeling of Fight Club as being in a Pentecostal church. The grunts were like speaking in tongues and the fights were like dancing. The Narrator seeks a nirvana, however; not salvation first and foremost. “And then, something happened. I let go. Lost in oblivion. Dark and silent and complete. I found freedom. Losing all hope was freedom.”
Even more overt is the scene where Tyler seems to declare that he is an agnostic:
Tyler Durden: Shut up! Our fathers were our models for God. If our fathers bailed, what does that tell you about God? Narrator: No, no, I... don't... Tyler Durden: Listen to me! You have to consider the possibility that God does not like you. He never wanted you. In all probability, he hates you. This is not the worst thing that can happen. Narrator: It isn't? Tyler Durden: We don't need him!
Here we see the complete rejection of all that has rejected Tyler. In the philosophy of Fight Club, salvation is letting go of everything and depending on the community. This is very much like the church described in Acts. The renouncement of property, the subversion of the dominant culture, and finding identity not through the institutions of the day but in one another are all paralleled. The statement of "We are God's unwanted children" comes from Tyler's family system. He is trying to get's his father's attention and this morphs into trying to get God's attention, as noted in this trailer:
The first two rules of Fight Club echo Jesus in the Gospel of Mark, not to tell anyone of his being the Messiah. Word gets out and both movements take off. So is Tyler Durden a Christ figure? I would argue yes and his Christ figure is more in keeping with the Jewish-Christian church than the current idea. The idea of the Messiah as a political agent, anointed by God but completely mortal, that overthrows the oppressors. This is exactly what Tyler does, even going so far as to die at the end and even have a duel-nature. Tyler is both spiritual and human. This could be more along the lines of a Gnostic image of Christ and the real question at the end becomes who dies? Does the Narrator shoot Tyler and is still the same? Or, in Tyler’s death (the Brad Pitt version) we know have the Narrator fully “put on the mind of Tyler”? I would go with the last statement. In the ending scene of the film, we have the Narrator and Marla watching the buildings blow up in a quasi-romantic happy ending. The film then messes up and shows a rather graphic picture of a penis, just like Tyler used to splice into children’s films. This shows that the movement is very much alive and it’s real. Tyler is now in the projector booth and the audience should beware.
Fight Club’s dim view of institutions, including religious ones, are much like the postmodern suspicion of all things systemized. We see a member of Fight Club in the movie try to pick a fight with a priest, smacking the bible out of his hand and spraying water on it. The next scene shows the very same priest wining a fight and hugging his opponent. Even the leaders of the institutions are taken by the message of Tyler.
This idea is best summed up by Robert Capon when he states
“The gospel of grace is the end of religion, the final posting of the CLOSED sign on the sweatshop of the human race's perpetual struggle to think well of itself. For that, at bottom, is what religion is: man's well-meant but dim-witted attempt to approve of his unapprovable condition by doing odd jobs he thinks some important Something will thank him for. Religion, therefore, is a loser, a strictly fallen activity. It has a failed past and a bankrupt future. There was no religion in Eden and there won't be any in heaven; and in the meantime Jesus has died and risen to persuade us to knock it all off right now" (Capon 166).
Tyler has the same thing in mind. All systems fail, all we need is trust in one another, and to be honest with ourselves. We get our identity from being in community, true community, open and vulnerable. Fight Club embraces the uncertainty of the postmodern life, experienced as is, in the collapse of the supporting structures of modernity, in the loss of traditional social ordering. Reconfigurations of what it means “to be” are explored in every way possible and what emerges is a new idea of what constitutes family and community much like what came out of Christ’s teachings some 2,000 years ago.
Fight Club is a 1999 movie starring Edward Norton, Brad Pitt, and Helena Bonam Carter. This movie ranks right up there with the Matrix... every time I see this movie, I see something new.
The Narrator hates his life. His sense of self is rooted in his condo, his clothes, and his Ikea furniture; he works a job he hates so he can buy shit he doesn't need (to paraphrase Tyler Durden). Jack is miserable, he can't sleep. His insomnia suggests that his life lacks substance. He says, "With insomnia, nothing is real. Everything is far away. Everything is a copy of a copy of a copy."
The setting starts out in offices and the narrator’s condo, pictures of sterile, light colors, juxtaposed to the darkness that the narrator is launched into after his condo blows up. So there are two images of the human condition. The first is one of being imprisoned. The cell is not stark, in fact it’s extremely comfortable and filled with all sorts of things that will bring personal fulfillment. Despite the clean and polished look, the colors here are unnaturally bright, stark, and alienating. There is nothing welcoming here.
Events unfold and the Narrator meets Tyler Durden whose ideologies are antithetical to the narrator’s: while Jack represents the material self, Durden represents the spiritual self. When Jack returns home from a business trip and finds out his condo blew up while he was gone, he calls Tyler for a place to stay. While the two chat over a pitcher of beer Durden explains to Jack that the "things you own end up owning you," suggesting that losing all his belongings may have been the best thing that ever happened to Jack. From this point on Durden helps Jack develop his spiritual self. Jack moves into a dingy home where he has nothing: No more Ikea furniture, no C.K. clothes or DKNY shoes. So the second image, the one of freedom, is largely shot in dark colors and at night. This image of freedom is everything that the prison is not; it’s dark, dirty, and squalid. The colors however, are warmer earth tones that eventually get softer as the movie progresses.
The mood is set largely by the narration. His tone and style is cynical and ironic and nonlinear. His thoughts are disjointed and there are flashbacks within flashbacks. He is trying to figure out what happened up until where we first meet him, with a gun in his mouth strapped to a chair. There is a lot of foreshadowing and use of sardonic humor. There is also rage and anger at the world.
Tyler articulates the problem of the film,
" Man, I see in fight club the strongest and smartest men who've ever lived. I see all this potential, and I see squandering. God damnit, an entire generation pumping gas, waiting tables; slaves with white collars. Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need. We are the middle children of history, with no purpose or place. We have no great war, or great depression. The great war is a spiritual war. The great depression is our lives. We were raised by television to believe that we'd be millionaires and movie gods and rock stars—but we won't. And we're learning that fact. And we're very, very pissed-off."
Identity is the prime concern of Fight Club. The Narrator describes his childhood as one where his dad leaves and “sets up franchises” with other moms every six years. The dad tells the Narrator to go to college, get a job, and then “I dunno… get married?” This formula leaves the Narrator in a dead end job without a sense of self. To compensate for this lack of identity, the Narrator spends his time wondering “What dinning set best defines me?” He tries to get his sense of self from how he’s told by advertising; namely to define one’s self through brands and material goods. This path is ultimately unsatisfying as he cannot sleep at night.
The Narrator’s job is interesting to note, because it is a soulless one.
He works for an auto company, “a major one”, and investigates auto accidents caused by a malfunction in the car’s design. What he does is officially called a “recall coordinator which apples the formula of “Take the number of vehicles in the field (A), multiply it by the probable rate of failure (B), then multiply the result by the average out-of-court settlement (C). A times B times C equals X... If X is less that the cost of a recall, we don't do one.” He justifies this in his mind by saying “On a long enough timeline everyone’s survival rate drops to zero.” The jokes used by the recall coordinators are trying to make light of the horror that they are confronting.
He then becomes addicted to self-help groups where “Every night I died and was born again. Every evening I was resurrected.” This is until Marla Singer comes in and ruins it by joining his “Remaining Men Together, Men with Testicular Cancer” group. “Her lie reflected my lie” and the Narrator can no longer sleep. Marla is completely different from the narrator. She has no regard, stealing clothes from a laundry and pawning them for money. She crosses the street without looking. Her philosophy of life is described that “she might die at any moment. The tragedy, she said, was that she didn't.” When asked why they are “tourists” in these groups, the Narrator and Marla find common ground:
Narrator: When people think you're dying, they really, really listen to you, instead of just...
Marla Singer: Instead of just waiting for their turn to speak?
Marla becomes the basis of Tyler Durden. For all intensive purposes, when introduced to Tyler, he appears to be another character in the story. As the narrative progresses, we learn that the Narrator and Tyler are actually the same person. This is evidence of how fractured the Narrator’s identity is. Tyler is free in all the ways the Narrator wishes he could be. This feedback loop created by the Narrator is similar to what he is rejecting in the culture. The conversation at the bar between the Narrator and Tyler shows how different they are:
Tyler Durden: Do you know what a duvet is?
Narrator: It's a comforter...
Tyler Durden: It's a blanket. Just a blanket. Now why do guys like you and me know what a duvet is? Is this essential to our survival, in the hunter-gatherer sense of the word? No. What are we then?
Narrator: ...Consumers?
Tyler Durden: Right! We're consumers. We are by-products of a lifestyle obsession. Murder, crime, poverty, these things don't concern me. What concerns me are celebrity magazines, television with 500 channels, some guy's name on my underwear. Rogaine, Viagra, Olestra.
Narrator: Martha Stewart.
Tyler Durden: Fuck Martha Stewart. Martha's polishing the brass on the Titanic. It's all going down, man. So fuck off with your sofa units and Strinne green stripe patterns. Of course, I could be wrong…
Tyler rejects “the basic assumptions of civilization, especially the importance of material possessions.” He states that “You're not your job. You're not how much money you have in the bank. You're not the car you drive. You're not the contents of your wallet. You're not your fucking khakis. You're the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world.” He seeks to destroy the idea of “self” and replace it with a more communal model. The old capitalistic model is father and his company is using is sucking the meaning out of life. The self must be destroyed in Tyler’s mind and one must truly let go of all they think they know and think they want out of life. Even going so far as to intentionally get into a car crash. This serves to teach empathy to the Narrator, as that was the first time he has been in a crash. He studied them for a living but now he knows what being in one is like.
Tyler starts off using the system to gain money. He sells soap to department stores for large profits—the ironic thing is that the fat he uses in the soap is stolen from liposuction clinics. In a sense, he is “selling rich women their own fat asses back to them.” This evolves into a bigger vision. “In the world I see - you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Tower. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying strips of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway.”
Though making the soap and forming Fight Clubs around the nation, Tyler takes it to the next level and creates Project Mayhem. The sole goal of Project Mayhem is to blow up credit card companies and set the record back to zero. It is a biblical jubilee year.
Doubt is THE movie based on the play.. staring Amy Adams, Meryl Streep, and Philip Seymour Hoffman.
on the surface, this movie looks like it's about whether a priest molested a child in the 1960s. but it is about so much more!
it is about "how do we know what we know?" namely, the postmodern problem. issues of "knowing" and "knowledge" are constantly brought up and questioned. the authority doesn't know anything more than we do... however, there is a bright side. Hoffman states that "Doubt can be a powerful a bond as certainty." meaning all the creeds, religions, and institutions and their claim on truth has garnered many allies... but saying "i don't know" can garner just as many.
we see the conflict of the old guard and the new... traditional catholic versus vatican II. authoritarian power relations structure versus a progressive, empathetic style. views of humanity being good and bad.
doubt has so much more than just molestation doubts... it's about how ppl bond and separate. the basis of community is if we confess our frailty and our skepticism, that is the best way to form strong communal bonds. Streep and Hoffman don't do this between the two of them, although they both connect to Adams, and thus their bond never solidifies.
i found this movie absolutely breathtaking. it's a minimalist show with nothing fancy, no swelling musical notes to enhance the mood or even bright colors... but it is spellbinding and it will be with you long after you watch it.
i spent this past weekend in Ohio, hang'n out with some of our oldest and bestest friends. it is such a blessing to be able to share the journey with those who we were able to see fall in love, get married, and have kids. now we're all have'n a blast chase'n after kids, and we're in awe that we're all together.
but there's an added layer on it. we're all of different faiths. one of my buddies converted from Christianity to Judaism, as this is his wife's faith. he is devout and they are both really involved in their community. the other couple is an inter-faith couple. and i, of course, am in seminary, so that puts Kate and I squarely in the "Christian Camp." so here's the whole spectrum from total Conservative Jewish to in between to Emergent Christian (if i have to label myself something...).
but this weekend has shown that despite our different religious traditions, we're able to COEXIST. we're friends, closer now, despite the difference. but how? how can we still be friends when there's this gap of faith? won't the difference in religious affliation tear us apart? would we be argue'n with our Jewish friends on the doctrine of the Trinity or convince'n the inter-faith couple to decide which tradition to follow, instead of being some sort of heretical mutt spirituality that will just confuse their kids?
no.
because we learn from each other. we have in the past... my buddy taught me how to properly iron, his wife taught me the importance of not wearing blue with black (and i just LOVE sending Kate with her to shop!). The other dude taught me all the best trails in the DC area and his wife is a great resource for books and movies to watch. watching the interfaith couple talk and navigate their traditions is inspiring and i am constantly impressed and learning new perspectives and ways to compromise. the discussions on religion are RICH because of the different perspectives. we all bring something to it. there is room for us all and we don't get too hung up on the differences, mainly the nuanced similarites.
it reminds me of a verse from my own tradition, James 3:13 which states
The wisdom that comes from above is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. Peacemakers who sow in peace raise of harvest of righteousness.
there's no ownership on wisdom, it comes from everywhere and anyone can have it, from the 3rd grade educated kid to the 80 year old Harvard Dr. wisdom knows no creed, race, socio-economic status... but it's hard to keep open, to try to include it all. even ones that i'd rather not look for or try to accept.
as evidenced by a recent conversation over at Jason's blog , how do i as a Christian honor my own tradition without superceeding my friends? how can i seek to honor the Jewish roots of my faith without overstepping?
i don't know. but i do know that our friendships will last and that our children will know themselves as friends of the family before they know of the differing traditions. to them, there will be no separation, only honoring and inclusion.
so that's what i'm hope'n to do. to honor wisdom in all forms.. to seek understanding of interpretation and see how it's practically played out. Grace will abound, wisdom will be honored, and everyone is gonna learn something (even if it's not what to say or do...).
blessings to all who are on the journey, seeking to know God (or put "existence" if you're uncomfortable with God-talk) and thanks for your words, insights, challenges, and considerations.
The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Sometimes the path leads places I don’t want to go, like to seminary or to places where I’ll be vulnerable. Or even to the Emergency Room. CPE is something i'm required to do and it stands for Clinical Pastoral Education. I work as a chaplain from now until Dec. 15th. Funny for a risk-adverse guy like me who has been in the ER only three times in his life.... i don't like hospitals and can't even watch Discovery Health without feeling queasy. i was in the room for Eve's birth, but that was a bit different, being with strangers is another story.. so i'm worried.... but i've found that this is what believing in God does for me, to lead me to the uncomfortable places and to wrestle before I cross over to the other side of the river. Am I wrestling with God, an angel, or myself? I never know. I just know that where I am at is different than where I was.
I have just followed around a veteran chaplain for a day on the floor, so my experience has been limited thus far. It has spawned a slew of new thoughts and considerations. I have been kicking around the idea of whether or not “religious” people are different from nonreligious people. I thought that there really was no difference aside from one day a week. But seeing the work that is being done in Lancaster General Hospital, I think that there’s more to it. Religious people do things that no one else will do. it's like they're jump'n right on the tracks of the oncoming Suffering Express! Going into these hospitals and listening to stories and hearing of the suffering people are in boggles my mind. Then I notice that no atheist is in a chaplain role. To put oneself right in the way of suffering is something I only see being done by those who subscribe to a belief system.
Then there’s the belief system to consider. In seminary, I attack any logical inconsistencies in my own as well as my fellow classmates theologies but in a chaplain role I found myself just listening. Even when I feel the hairs starting to stand up on the back of my neck, I consider where the other person is coming from. I empathize. From shadowing the vet and hearing my supervisors talk, this is what chaplains are supposed to do. They are largely into hospitality; care for those in trauma making sure nothing is lost in the chaos and visits and prayers for those who are in long term. They don’t run around and tell people what to believe and they aren’t there to make others feel better, although people do after a visit. Largely they are there as a sounding board, to let the person who is suffering know that they aren't alone.
Maybe that’s enough. To know that you aren’t alone, that someone is with you. Just like I find comfort that I am not alone and I trust that God is with us, Immanuel. So I am already learning a lot! I like my peers and the diversity they bring and how they make me consider various aspects of my own faith like miraculous healing and what I make of Jesus’ role as a healer. I am only nervous about doing my first Code T or T Alert and hope I will be shadowing someone during that time.
All in all, I feel supported and excited to be learning new things and discovering “blind spots” in my own thinking and theology. I’m looking forward to seeing how God is at work in the world beyond my limited scope. I am nervous about trauma but the support from both the LGH staff and from my family is very reassuring.
I hope that i will sieze these fleeting moments. my world is so rich... and it's bizarre to think that all of that nothing amounts to something. reality is mostly empty space, nothing that is pose'n as something. and yet all of us exist.
these symbols you are reading aren't the images that are conjured in your head.
one day my daughter will speak in complete sentences, drive a car, find love and heartbreak and love again...
all we have is now and metaphors to try and capture it. even our best technology, video camera's that record in HD, digital camera's that can freeze and instant, are nothing compared to the present moment, and our memories of it. and by the time you recognize this moment, this moment will be gone, but you'll bend the light pretending that it some how lingered on.
rawk in these mountains and now diamonds will remain. we're live'n in this life together and we'll wait to find if it lasts forever...
I had a great conversation this summer with my friend and seminary colleage Sally... and then now with Jason posting about heaven and hell and Julia's inquiry as to what i think about the here-after, i figured i'd post a kinda-comprehensive view of the afterlife. This of course is going off the assumption that there is an afterlife and also through the Christian-lens. So here it goes.
largely, we have no idea what happens on the other side. i see the scriptures as mainly pretaining to the here and now and the work of bring about God's kin-dom to earth. but this leads to the idea that there is a kin-dom already in existence and it must be brought here.
there is an intense dualism here, as Jay pointed out, that if there is a kin-dom of heaven, there must also be an opposite. some believe that there is a hell and satan who is fighting to bring that to earth, while others think that we're already in hell. i don't think so. i think we're in creation, we have a great deal of free will and we screw up a lot yet learn from it. for me the world is getting better, not worse. as we learn, we do better. but what about those who don't? what if you die and get there and see God face to face and are forgiven? prodical son remember? it's not about book keeping it's about forgiveness and uncomprehensible grace. like the parable of the workers in Matt 20:1-16. those who have been working longer are paid the same as those who showed up in the last five minutes. grace isn't fair. and if we are free to choose God in this life, it stands to reason that we're free to choose or deny in the next.
John 3:16-21 talks about how Jesus doesn't condemn the world but save it... so if you have to be a Christian to do this then mathmatically, Jesus condemned the world because there are more nonChristians in the world than Christians, and more dead nonChristians than Christians (sometimes at the hands of Christians, but that's another story). unless "those who love the light" can be ppl who follow God under a different name.. because since Jesus is God and if one would worship God, then you believe in Christ byproxy because of the Three-in-one deal we have going on. so everyone gets in... but not everyone will choose it. Hell for me, would be those who can't accept, even after meeting God face-to-face, that they are loved.
it was by reading the scriptures that i got to this point... it was what made me break from my Catholic upbringing. because if it's all about "Believing" then what? which way is right, protestant or catholic? and then which one of those? what if the Unitarians are right and there is just one God and Jesus ain't it like we think (i.e. no Trinity?). i was told my mom was going to hell by my priest during mass.. i walked out. later, i was told that all protestants were going to hell because they aren't "right". and when you visit the catholic church, you have to not only be a Catholic, but a PRACTICING one to take communion. this is anti-inclusion to the extreme. the liturgy of the RC church is the most unwelcoming to visitors precisely because they think they have it and don't need to be of service. however, they miss something.... all of this "right and wrong" has everything to do with RELIGION and NOTHING to do with Christ. who is Christ's brothers and sisters? those who do the will of his Father! (Matt 12:50). and that is to love their neighbor and God with heart mind and strength. plus Jesus never asked the sinners, prostitutes, adulterers, or lepers to first believe in him before he healed them. he just did.
as Robert Capon states: "Christianity is not a religion. Christianity is the proclamation of the end of religion, not of a new religion, or even of the best of all religions. ...If the cross is the sign of anything, it's the sign that God has gone out of the religion business and solved all of the world's problems without requiring a single human being to do a single religious thing. What the cross is actually a sign of is the fact that religion can't do a thing about the world's problems - that it never did work and it never will."
2 Corinthians 5:21. "He made him who knew no sin to become sin for our sakes. . . ." The job is done. The church doesn't preach that, though. It's always saying the job is done; but then it insists you have to cooperate with that job before it will be done for you. Wrong! It is done for you. It has been done for you. It's all done for you. Trust it. i seems to me that we're too hung up on trying to get ppl to fear hell to become Christian. this is the wrong step! it is the joy of being Christian that inspires conversion, not the fear of hell yet every preacher i hear seems to be SOOOO hung up on hell and salvation, describing the levels of hell in great detail "as if they spent several years in that commonwealth" (Erasmus). Jesus gave no systematic or geographical map of hell. so forget what you know about this as this is not the Good News. i was too hung up on this issue of damnation and think i drove too many from the faith when i was younger.. now i understand the WAY.. namely Christ. How did Jesus act? what did he do? did he run around saying "you're all gonna burn?" NO! There are some harsh words, but they are directed at those who think they have a handle on who is in and who is out.
When Jesus told his parables to the people, his disciples asked, why do you talk to them in riddles? And his answer was: "So they won't catch on. Because anything they could catch on to would be the wrong thing. As Isaiah said, seeing they don't see and hearing they don't hear, neither do they understand [Matthew 13:10-17]. That's why I talk to them like this: because I don't want them to have little lights go on in their heads. I want to put out all the lights they've got, so that in the darkness they can listen to me"
the parables basically give us is stuff we can't stand to hear. Take the Lost Sheep. What we want to hear is that the lost have to find themselves first and then come back to God. Wrong. All you've got to be is lost. Not fancily lost. Not ethically lost. Just plain lost. Likewise, all you've got to do to be raised from the dead is to be dead. Not uprightly dead or piously dead. Just dead.
so does this make me a pluralist? kinda. i see God at work in others.. like my brothers and sisters that are agnostic, atheist, Buddhist, Muslim, and Jewish. these ppl live the gospel whether they know it or not. i think Christ would have a lot to talk about with these people as well saying "i totally get that.. did you happen to read this passage? that's what i was talking about and you embody that!" to some extent it is "Christ by any other name..." but it's not an empty pluralism. there are unique things to each tradition, each philosophy has something i can affirm. however, i firmly believe that God as revealed through Christ (note: NOT Paul) loves and calls all ppl to Godself and heaven will simply be a matter of "i can't believe you love me God, but i tried to follow as best i knew how and what made sense in my context.... i accept your grace and forgiveness, please accept and forgive my disbelief and sins."
when you read the teachings of Buddha or Mohammed, you'll see how different their ethics and goals are. there are similarities, like Buddha's nonattachment is similar to Jesus' and Mohammed is all about submission to God's will, much like Jesus too. however, the end results aren't the same. Jesus wants to create heaven on earth and justice for all (esp. the poor, outcast, widowed, orphaned, etc) where as Mohammed seems more like a centralized Theocratic dictatorship (with him at the head as VOICE of Allah) and Buddha's ethic of service seems selfish as it's only about self-enlightenment. nirvana is nice, but i prefer heaven. Buddha is atheist, i believe that all of existence came from the Source, i.e. God. Jesus was Jewish, but we are a branch grafted onto that tree (Romans), but not entirely the same, plus the resulting years of oppression and persecution hasn't helped Judeo-Christian relations... but i firmly believe that there is a ton we can learn from our brothers and sisters... we do not supercede them, we have a different take on the TaNaK plus an appendix they don't have. we also don't have the midrash, Talmud, and many other traditions and cultures so vital to the Jewish faith. we Christians can learn a ton! anywho, i feel that all religious that are honestly followed and that are generous hearted are on the right track and are a great good to the world. the wrong-hearted religions have ppl blowing themselves up, starting wars, and calling others names, and that's not the type of religion, regardless of the name, that i'll support. intolerance will not be tolerated.
so what does this mean for Christians here and now? namely to serve some more! we are called to make disciples out of all nations, and we've done that. if you count up the scriptures though, we are to serve and forgive, and to serve.. not for conversion's sake... if we preach the Good News and it's not accepted, "we knock the dust from our sandles and move on" (Luke 9:5) without promising condemnation or judgment. i'm not friends with ppl from other religions to convert them, that is a dishonest friendship, a house built on sand.
Grace is grace, it has happened, all are forgiven. all things are being made new! this is cause for celebration! not war, injustice, and damnation (as those wouldn't be Good News). i hope the church can awaken to this idea, repent of their sins against other religions and against the Gospel, and bring a new era of "Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven."
blah blah blah! ;-) there is more to say... but i'm interested in what you think. let me know!
English royalty behaving badly! starring Keira Knightley and James McAvoy, about a love story that spans decades. something goes wrong and lovers are separated.
this movie is all about the idea that objectivity is a myth and all history is revisionist. there is the question of culpability as well as the ambiguity of guilt.
the most interesting thing is how Atonement doesn't happen through religion, or even in the real world. it happens through art. art is the new medium of forgiveness... the new priests are the artists and the creative imagination being the tool that can heal a fragmented world.
always look to see why the story is being told.. is it out of guilt, kindness, or "hey this is funny/cool/sad!" i loved this movie because i'm all about art! finally a movie that puts poetry back to what it was! the teacher of humanity and the balm for our souls... that's in Gilead? i dunno.. check out this film.. and i heart Keira
Defiance was a movie we got from the Lancaster Public Library and I expected it to be a “shoot-‘em-up.” What I found was a film with deep meaning. movie directed by Edward Zwick and starring Daniel Craig and Liev Schreiber. The movie is based on the true story of the Bielski brothers who fought the Nazis in World War II on the Belarusian front. There are four Bielski brothers, Tuvia the oldest, Zus the husky fighter, Asael the sensitive one, and Aron the youngest.
The initial scenes show displacement, death, and chaos. Asael finds Zus in the woods and they head to their home only to find all of their family dead save for Aron. Zus grabs the mezuzah. When they find Tuvia in the woods later, Zus gives the mezuzah to Tuvia to acknowledge his leadership as well as to show the birthright. My friend and Jewish scholar, Yael, interprets this scene as “When a Jew moves from the house they remove their mezuzah from their doorways unless the next occupant is also Jewish. I saw the act of giving this mezuzah to the oldest brother as an affirmation of the family's survival. One day it would again be hung on the doorpost of his home, even if right now he has no home” (Lange).
The opening scene calls to mind the Diaspora Jews; the Jews of the Exodus, the Exile, and the various occupations. Like in the Bible, the setting is a character and must be considered and fought with every step of the way. The scarcity and menace of the forest is shown and felt in the characters. There are many shots of figures moving through the forest and very few shots of civilization. They are outgunned, out-numbered, and they are living in a forest with people used to the city life. When Tuvia meets Isaac Malbin, he askes what Isaac does. He states that he’s an intellectual that publishes a socialist pamphlet. Tuvia is surprised “That is a job?”
There are all sorts of problems here! Namely how do we live as community in a hostile world with shortages of food, resources, and with ppl you can't get along with... one of those being your fiesty brother.
The resolution to all of these problems is to form a resistant community removed from the rest of the world. There is a rejection of laying down and dying and “waiting for God.” In a sense, there is a rejection of traditional religion in the movie. “All too often traditional religion wants to take us back to ‘what was’ rather than help to root us in ‘what is’” (Taylor 122). Tuvia stated that the “best revenge is to live” and to live as humans with dignity.
There is however, a look back to traditional religion and ancestors to get the core identity of the group. Asael says, when training women how to shoot rifles, “this is not a gun, this is Bar Kochba’s spear. Samson’s jawbone. Elhud’s sword. The slingshot David used to bring down Goliath. We will become warriors like the Maccabees and the Tsiccerai.” This recalls the history of Jews being underdogs who resisted the invading power. The salvation comes from within the group, it is traded among the individuals of the group, one picking up the other when they fall. This is tested at every turn and there are exceptions to the law that Tuvia laid out.
A woman was raped by a German soldier and has a baby. Tuvia is at a crossroads because pregnancies are forbidden and he is considering shooting the mother and child. Lilka, Tuvia’s love interest, saves him and his humanity in this moment stating that the best thing to do is to bring life into the world of suffering and death; letting the child and mother live would be the ultimate act of defiance. Tuvia breaks down and cries here as he realizes that he loves Lilka. He finds love despite himself and affirms it. This is saving for Tuvia but there are two other times where others save him.
The Germans bomb the camp set up by Tuvia and his group and they are forced to flee from the invading infantry. They run through the forest but reach a wetland. Tuvia sits at the river bank and weeps. This calls to mind Psalm 137, “By the rivers of Babylon, There we sat down and wept...” Tuvia has completely given up and mourns. Asael saves him saying, “God will not part these waters, we will do it ourselves and not by miracles but together, through our strength. Strong will help the weak.” Asael provides the vision that is counter to what the world is doing, namely the strong killing the weak, the many oppressing the few. In this community, the lion lays down with the lamb.
The community reaches the other side only to be attacked by a panzer. Zus comes in and saves the community he has been running away from. He had overheard that the Russians were going to let the Germans kill Tuvia’s group. They were using the community as cover as the Red Army escaped and set up camp elsewhere. Zus realized that he was not fighting for the same things as his fellow soldiers were. This realization called him back to his true community.
What does this movie say about God?
God is mentioned frequently here. The movie revolves around questions of Theodicy.
First, there is a hope of a messiah, as evidenced by the conversation between the teacher and the intellectual, Isaac Malbin:
Teacher: “All I know about politics is that there is a monster in the East with the big mustache and the monster in the West with the little mustache; this is all I need to know about politics.”
Isaac: “Your messiah will have a mustache too… and a full beard!”
Teacher: “The messiahs are all in politics and they are killing us.”
Zus: “What is killing me is all your talking!”
Isaac: “Roosevelt! He has no mustache!”
There is still a hope in a savior in the line of thought of Isaac. Isaac represents the tradition in Judaism that believed that God determined the time of the Messiah's coming by erecting a great set of scales. On one side, God placed the captive Messiah with the souls of dead laymen. On the other side, God placed sorrow, tears, and the souls of righteous martyrs. God then declared that the Messiah would appear on earth when the scale was balanced. According to this tradition, then, evil is necessary in the bringing of the world's redemption, as sufferings reside on the scale. This is a big feature in post-Holocaust theology (Braiterman 55,62). The teacher, on the other hand doesn’t believe in this tradition.
The teacher prays “Merciful God, we commit our friends - Ben Zion and Krensky - to You. We have no more prayers, no more tears; we have run out of blood. Choose another people. We have paid for each of your commandments; we have covered every stone and field with ashes. Sanctify another land. Choose another people. Teach them the deeds and the prophesies. Grant us but one more blessing: take back the gift of our holiness. Amen.” He would give up being “God’s chosen” because this has only brought oppression and death to his people. When the teacher is first introduced he states that he viewed this as a trial, “as God’s way… it isn’t. Recent events have somewhat shaken my resolve.” He represents the view of agnosticism. The teacher doesn’t fully present these thoughts, but lets them hang as to emphasize his doubt and his inability to make sense of the violence and slaughter around him. By the end of the film, he says to Tuvia in his dying words that “I had almost lost faith. But you were sent by God to save us.” Tuvia states that this is ridiculous but the teacher states “Just in case, I thank God and you. You are an angel.” This represents the tradition in Judaism that angels can be mortal and are “messengers” from God. This view is closer to an Open theism as found in the writings of Harold Kushner. This position that argues, as does Process Theology, that God prefers to persuade rather coerce, and/or that omnipotence has been willingly relinquished so that humanity might have absolute free will. For example, the scientist-theologian
John Polkinghorne suggests that, in addition to free will, God has created the universe in such a way that it is, to a significant extent, allowed to make itself, and that such a world "is better than the puppet theatre of a Cosmic Tyrant” (Polkinghorne 14).
For many, the Holocaust is evidence that there is no God and that life is unfair and the world is chaos. “Others see the same unfairness and ask themselves ‘Where do I get this sense of what is fair and what is unfair?” (Kushner 142). Tuvia and his brothers really don’t ask questions of God’s existence. They were on the margins in the community anyway, but their rebellious lifestyle gave them the tools to survive and lead in the new context. Some would call this providence. Process theologians would praise Tuvia and his brothers for listening to God’s urges and being self-aware enough to put what they have learned into practice in service of others.
Asael is the one Bielski brother that seems aware of his theology. It is one of community and one that does not ask for God to do the impossible or unnatural, nor does he operate out of a sense of revenge as Zus does. Asael is the theological voice of the movie. His view reflects that of the prayer “Likrat Shabbat” by Jack Riemer:
“We cannot merely pray to you O God to end war;
For the World is made in such a way
That we must find our own path of peace
Within ourselves and with our neighbors.
We cannot merely pray to you O God to root out Prejudice:
for we already have eyes
With which to see the good in all people
If we would only use them rightly.
We cannot merely pray to you O God to end starvation:
For we already have the resources
With which to feed the entire World
If we would only use them wisely.
We cannot merely pray to you O God to end despair:
For we already have the power To clear away slums and to give hope
If we would only use our power justly.
We cannot merely pray to you O God to end disease:
For we already have great minds
With which to search out cures and healings
If we would only use them constructively.
Therefore we pray instead
For strength, determination, and will power,
To do instead of merely to pray
To become instead of merely to wish:
So that our World may be safe,
And so that our lives may be blessed” (Kushner 118).
great film with a ton in it! WATCH IT! here's another great line:
Koscik: “Why is it so fucking hard to be friends with a Jew?”
Tuvia: “Try being one.”
but first a recap: a dear reader friend sent me this link from Torah: Rain for the Soul. SEE! I knew i wasn't original in this thought. Turns out Rambam had this interp of Genesis from the 1100s, and it's not unique to him!!! turns out we can learn a lot from other faiths if we shut up, listen, and stop trying to convert or damn them to hell.
Genesis Chapter 2: Well i guess this is growing up!
another awesome quote from that site: Those who learn for the sake of learning find the Torah sweet; those who learn for ulterior purposes find it bitter. (Zohar, iv, 229b)
so Dear TV Preachers,
stop putting the Bible through YOUR rubric of supporting conservative, capitalist, and sexist (among other -ist) values. learn for the sake of learning. struggle with it, learn from it, and be transformed by it. don't transform it to suit your needs and context. maybe why you're angry at your fellow humans (i.e. the gays, unbelievers, nonbelievers, nonChristian, Liberal Christian, Emerging Christian and secular-types, etc. etc. etc.) is because you're bitter. just a thought, could be wrong.
-L
now for FUN!
Robbie the Rookie Zombie
once upon a time there was a boy named Robbie who was bitten on his pinkie by a zombie. turns out that he turned into a zombie, but still had full use of his cognitive capabilities. so he decided to get up and go out and do what zombies were supposed to do.
but he couldn't remember what zombies were supposed to do all day. he then remembered reading somewhere that zombies were always looking for guys named Brian. so that's what he did. each day he'd go out and say "Brrrrrrriiiiiaaaaannnn.... BrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiIIIIIaaaaannn.... BBBBRRRRRiiiiiAAAANNNN..." until someone would say, "I'm Brian, how can I help you?" and Robbie would shake his hand and go home.
This left Robbie very unsatisfied and not to mention very hungry. But Robbie kept doing it, but asked if the Brian he met that day would buy him dinner. Most would (Brians are nice like that) but the food just didn't taste right to Robbie's zombified taste-buds.
One day, after months and months of being a zombie, Robbie ran into another zombie. He asked the zombie, "Hey, what's up with this Brian thing?" and the zombie was stunned!
"Brian?!" the zombie scoffed. "It's BRAINS! BRAINS, YOU IDIOT!"
It was then that Robbie realized that he had misinterpreted the text, and that he was also dyslexic.
okay... once and for all! there was never an GARDEN OF EDEN! there were never just two ppl, an adam or an eve. scientifically the earth is billions of years old. God is very old. so quit acting like we'll return to a perfect state.
if you want a fall, it'd be when the first multi-celled organism ate another multi-cellular organism. it may have been when the single-celled organism ate another one to become a multi-cellular organism! hell! i dunno! what i do know is we can't keep believing in a fall or original sin or baptism washing away.
i heard a devout Christian say that they really don't like how their baby is filled with original sin because it cries all the time. WTF?! why not just get it baptised? then the original sin would wash off and you'd have no more crying.. that didn't work?! baby is still crying? prolly cause it's not a sin! it's the only way the baby can tell you what it needs. this type of moronic thought is what is driving ppl away from Christianity.
also... let's rearrange our thought on the fall.. cause apparently ppl like this idea. so how about we start out as a little baby, we're selfish because we have no concept of other ppl... much like Adam and Eve. only thinking of themselves, unaware that their actions could have consquences. we make mistakes, we do what is forbidden, and sure.. we sin.. but we LEARN! we GO AND SIN NO MORE!
we fall UPWARDS. we go from a place of selfish innocence to a place of spiritual maturity. in our spiritual maturity we see the bigger picture (albeit not the whole one) and we trust that we are guided, loved, and sustained by God. so much so that we are able to forgive and love our enemies.
what do we think about that? is that something we can do with?
hey you hetero-males out there! wanna know what makes the ladies crazy?! men with babies!
i was sitting in Longs Park, just minding my own business, trying to be still and know that God is God. I was just feeding Eve a bottle and reading Kushner's "When Bad Things Happen to Good People" and i was hit on by two different women.
the first woman, around my age, came up to me as her own kids were running around and throwing stuff in the lake and having fun. she stated how beautiful Eve was and we talked about how it is being a parent. as she was leaving she stated how i make beautiful babies. i stated how "i didn't really make her, my wife did, i just contribute a little at the beginning." to which she said "well, i'm sure you make the process as pleasurable as possible." i smiled at this and then she collected her kids and walked off. it only hit me later to which "process" she was talking about. sex? the pregnancy process (i.e. getting Kate ice cream and sunkist?)? the delivery or the parenting part? or the whole thing? was i being hit on?!
i brushed it off and continued with the bottle, Eve happily sucking the bottle down and staring at the willow branches swaying in the breeze. a 60-ish woman and her friend come up. they too fawn over Eve and state how great it is to see a dad out with his daughter. i asked why and they said "i had to about break my husband's arm... unless it was about sports..." as they were leaving, after a short convo, one of the women turned and said "it was great talking to you! take care! and you are just a vision in that hat!" (i was wearing my OU hat).
this of course is just two examples of a slew of things i overhear while spending my day with Eve. while on a walk i heard "I think it's so hot when dads push the stroller." from a group of moms... are dad's really that absent? i know my own was but for different reasons.. like he wasn't around! but are "present" dads this big of lumps?
the whole row here of seminary dads are all active and watching their kids during the day while the moms are out bring'n home the bacon. all i see, everywhere i look, are dads my age taking an active interest in their kids... both of my brother in laws do their own thing as well! they are active. so is this a stereotype left over from the previous generation? or are we the exceptions? or is the expectation bar set extremely low for men? how deep does our gender-ideals go?
Clint Eastwood's last film is set in Detroit in the current times. It looks like a normal, run-of-the-mill Eastwood film with a gravel-voiced loner "take'n it to 'em AMERICAN STYLE!" but that's not it at all.
The mood is one of loss.. there is a loss of repect in the disrepectful youth, cultural expectations, respect for authority, tradition, and elders. Eastwood is in a classic role of his, namely an isolated and self-reliant person that is under siege and hostile to those around him. with good reason, dude has seen war in Korea, only survivor from his squad.
life for this character is not good as his wife just died, he doesn't like his kids or grandkids, the new priest is too young, and his neighborhood has gone to hell. Eastwood is a giant racist at the start of the film, calling his neighbors Swamp Rats, gooks, and all sorts of other fun things.
however, after saving a kid the Asian Hmong community rallies around their reluctant hero. they invite him over and he doesn't want to try the food, but at the urging of the young lady and the line "it's better than eating jerky" he tries it and falls in love with the food, the family, and the culture. the culture is one of respect for elders and traditions that Eastwood was mourning the loss of in his own family.
this movie is a secular transpotion of an Christian theme, namely a commentary on John 15:13 "No one has greater love than this, that one should lay down his life for his friends." the package of problems is also traditionally Christian, namely isolation, guilt, separation from God and others. Through Eastwood's friendship with the two youth next door, he opens up and chages. this movie shows the power of confession and relational living.
God in this film is persistent. grace and love is not through the traditional channels, such as the church or family. here we also see a new family emerge, like that Jesus talked in Mark 3:35: "For whoever does the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother." Jesus erases the biological bonds of family and replaces them with theological ones.
the mediators of healing in the film are flawed human beings, esp. evident in the transformation of Eastwood. there is mutuality and reciprocity with these relationships and everyone comes out better for it... well.. save one, but even then, who knows?
i hope you will watch this film and give me feedback. it was one of the most moving movies i have seen this year.
I took a theology and film class taught by Lee Barrett this summer and loved it. here's the intro to what we learned based loosely on my notes:
Everybody loves a good story. The old medium was to sit around a flickering fire and listen to the story be told. Now people pile into theatres to what the flickering screen and the story is told in 5.1 surround sound and high definition.
this is an avenue to the sacred, but you won't see it if you aren't looking for it.. movies morph biblical as well as other culture's sacred stories into scriptes. but each movie as theological implications as it states "Life is like..."
a box of chocolates? war? dragons at your doorstep? rule following adults not seeing an evil that doesn't play by the rules? these are movies what movies do! forest gump, saving private ryan (or pick a war movie...) reign of fire and harry potter all have a problem and a resolution to that problem. each critiques in it's own way what is wrong with the world and how best to navigate it.
Lee gave us 5 questions to ask while watching films: These questions are: 1. What is the image of the Human Condition? 2. What is the mood of the movie? 3. What is the problem that propels the plot? 4. What are the resolutions to the problem if they are any? 5. What does all of this say about God or ultimate reality?
to critique movies, i'll primarily be using #3, 4, and 5.
/Vermont%20Autumn%20Cliche.jpg)
