Thus Far: The Middle of the CPE Program

I am in an extended unit of CPE. Here is my first post on the subject as a refresher. When I came into the program, I was very nervous and unsure of what to expect. The hospital culture seemed very foreign to me. Everything had its place and life was regulated and if I messed up, a whole slew of legal issues would come down on me. Coming off of a parish internship, I felt that I was too theoretical and too apt to preach. Now I think the hospital is a great place. It provides a window to the community that it resides in. It is also the place where faiths sustain people or break apart under the weight of the situation. For a person to fully heal there must be a physical as well as a spiritual healing. I feel more like a pastor now more than ever. I am blessed to hear the stories of those I meet and to walk with them a while on their journeys.

I am learning that I pick up on theories and frameworks naturally. I feel like this is my gift. I am able to sit with people and listen to the system they are using. What are they holding? What frames are they using to interpret life? Once I figure this out I then see how they feel about these frames. If it is working, I don't bother messing with it no matter how I personally feel about it. If they are Wiccan, Gnostic, Fundamentalist Christian or what have you, I’ll use what they give me and go from there. If they are having trouble, I introduce a new idea and see what they do with it. This role of "idea-planter" gives the patient to openly consider and articulate things they are already feeling as well as permission to fully explore these feelings and ideas. I am learning how to translate theory into practice in ways that people can hear without getting overwhelmed. Philosophers are able to take something simple and make it complex, I’m becoming more an artist which takes complex things and make them simple. What I’m learning is invaluable and feel like I’m not leaving near as many people confused as I did at my internship.

I have also learned that I haven't always been too aware of my feeling spent or not. With school work, reading, CPE, parenting, and various other activities, I'm realizing that I have just a little bit on my plate. Usually I would keep at it, grinding the work out, but in this line of work, I really can't do that. One must be very conscious of their boundaries in the pastoral care setting. I will have to learn how to trust a group to accomplish a goal and have patience in the process. I can’t do everything nor should I.

All in all, there has been great growth for me at CPE. I absolutely love it although it is a GIANT time consumer... makes me miss my wife and daughter.

The Greatest Man Who Ever Lived?

in my facebook COEXIST forum, this question was asked and i responded:

i think the guys from Weezer are. after all, they have the song with the title of this thread. however, it's on their red album and it sucked and that discounts that.

I'd go with Jesus.

and what about women? who is the great woman who ever lived? my money is on Catherine of Sienna or Gloria Steinem.

which a response came that:

I hate to vote against Jesus (I do not wish to be insulting to those who hold him in high regard), but as a man I would say he accomplished nothing, and as a god, the term underachiever comes to mind.


Paul was much more influential than Jesus. His writings and those of his followers Mark and Luke comprise a great part, perhaps the majority of the New Testement and transform the biblically recorded works of Jesus from insignificant to not only miraculous but the path to eternal life.

I don't know about the greatest but given Christianity's affects on western civilization, Paul certainly has to be nominated as the most influential person ever.

aside from the fact that this person views Christ as a failure (aren't there scriptures that speak to this? ;-)) there is a good point in the fact that Paul is oft quoted more than Christ in many of our churches. It is my opinion that the more conservative the church, the more you hear Paul. this has been my experience and i could be way off here...

i've been thinking about this question for a while and wonder at the rubric we're using. and since Jason got me reading a certain philosopher again, i had to ask "are we using what Nietzsche called "The master morality" or the "slave morality"?"

Slave morality: the morality created by oppressed people in order to overturn the prevailing values of those in power. Nietzche raises up the example of the early Christians and their new way of thinking that opposed the morality of their Roman masters.

According to Nietzche, morality has never been created through reason, or appeals to civility, or practicality or any other traditional method described by philosophers. instead those in power decide what's good. this is esp. true in the earlies moralities where aristocrats and kings held all the real power in society and dictated what was important in life.

"It was 'the good' themselves, that is to say, the noble, powerful, high-stationed and high-minded, who felt and est. themselves and their actions as good, that is of the first rank, in contradistinction to all the low, low-minded, common, and plebeian."

Master Morality: include power, beauty, strength, and fame, in other words WORLDLY attributes and partly because the attributes enabled them to stay in power. like Homer's Iliad claims Achilles is the best because he's the most powerful and strongest. In Greek Society, it was the heroes that were the best.

so for me then, the greatest men and women who live are those who resist and follow a slave morality. Gandhi, MLK Jr, Jesus, Paul, St Teresa, Rosa Parks, and many others. those are who we need to hold up as ppl to follow vs. what advertising, government, and yes, even some religious leaders tell us.

to all those in the resistence: inform, infect, do what is unexpected: we are winning:

Making Trouble Locally

i saw this article written in the local paper and felt the need to respond. here is what i wrote:

to the Editor,

In my years of working with youth, I see that they aren't morally ambivalent but that the church isn't speaking to what they are concerned about. In the question of "Do you people care about gay marriage?" the answer is yes and that they don't agree with Pastor Cornell.

That is bad news for Cornell as the youth are over it and he doesn’t speak for all Christians, but there is hope. With 25 years of pastoral experience, I'm sure that there are other issues where he can be a lamp unto the feet of the youth. However, he can only be a light if he stops, listens, and hears the concerns of the youth instead of pushing his own conservative agenda.

I don't mean for this response to be snarky, but instead affirm that this pastor does have some experience. he do have a wealth of knowledge that young people would love to explore, but he is dead wrong on this issue. his being obsessed with it doesn't help.

Working with Leadership NOW kids, I can help but view that they are incredibly moral and good people. if you need proof, just check out Agent Smith's guest post or Cody's Blog, or Alyssa's Blog. They are largely over the "gay" issue but are polite enough not to hoot and hollar at someone like Pastor Cornell. They are able to include Cornell and hear what he has to say without shame'n or judge'n. i am greatly inspired by this and am learning it myself. of course this is coming from my liberal christian side, i'm unsure if kids from the conservative side feel the same way. i have some exposure to them, not much, and have generally gotten the same feel.

there is an excellent discussion going on in the LancasterOnline Forums. check out Reverend Alobar on post #3. complete and utter deconstruction of the argument and i love it! just don't have the time to do it myself.

i pray, as Jesus prayed, that we all may be one some day in the body of Christ. that we are able to affirm one another yet maintain our own identity with integrity.

Ethics 101

In ethics there are three parts to look at: the agent, action, and outcome.


then comes schools of thought which focus on each. here is a super-sloppy and quick intro to each:

the agent: Virtue Ethics like those proposed by Thomas Aquinas and others focus on the person as the source. this then becomes a discussion on the inherent nature of humanity being good or bad? Christians have always been divide on this but Augustinian thought seems to dominate and Calvin and Luther have picked up on the Bad part and run rampant with it. but some secular humanist and other faiths study this way too. like the Dali Lama and Tibetan Buddhism is largely concerned with the private transformation and buddha-like nature of the person.

the action: deontology is the idea that only moral means can make moral ends. you can't steal or kill at all. this can lead to some harsh laws like those followed by Javert in pursuing Jean ValJean and no room for transformation. one proponent of this style is Immanuel Kant. check out this video, it does a decent job, although not altogether accurate introduction (much like this one!):



the outcome: teleology is the idea that the ends justify the means. so one can steal bread to end starvation or murder for self-defense... however, this can also lead to apologetic measures like bombing for peace or conversion by the sword that Mulsim and Christians are particularly guilty of. it's a little more open to transformation and takes into account circumstances and context.

here's Eve explaining Teleology:



what do y'all think? which do you subscribe to?

Fireproof Movie Review

so i watched Fireproof... and i was surprised! i liked it! but i feel there is an itch that i gotta scratch and i can't figure out what it is.

Fireproof is a small budget movie that looks like it's made-for-TV, but it does have some good writing and decent acting. It stars Kirk Cameron and Erin Bethea as a couple whose marriage is on the verge of implosion. now i was very hesitant because of Kirk's fundie theology and his "Way of the Master" website. but since Anglican Gurl asked, and it seems to be a very popular movie in some Christian circles, i figured i should check it out.

since this is a low-budget movie, some characters are 2D (like the mom and the wife) while others are stereotypes (like the black nurses and their "mmmmm hhhmmmm"). but overall it's a good story without getting too preachy. it's a movie that affirms marriage, and i gotta think that there are many out there that will benefit from seeing this movie.

i wonder at the born-again message and whether divorce can ever be justified. the one dude who did go through a divorce was only married a year and "it was before i was a Christian." so what about those ppl who struggle years through a marriage, attend church every day, and STILL get divorced? it seems that incompatability is not part of God's plan.

maybe that's what i need to scratch. this movie is throughly middle-class materialistic. Kirk is after a boat that he wants and looks at internet porn. there is no struggle to put food on the table, no addictions, no abuse, just apathy in the relationship. it is hard feeling for this childless couple in their huge, well-decorated house, driving their brand new cars. of course, material possessions need to be questioned and Kirk does give up his boat... only to buy MORE expensive (albeit needed) stuff for his wife's parents. so the importance of material goods are never questioned. in fact, it's the STUFF that ultimately reunites the couple, no transcendence or spirituality needed.

so i wonder what this movie would have looked like if you introduce poverty, abuse, adultery, addiction, children, unstable and unsupportive family systems, or if the couple were already church goers... but that's not how the story goes, so i guess it's a moot point. but it does make me wonder whether or not there is room for those things in this movie's theological framework.

one thing i really did like was that it was Kirk that had to change. in many of the failed relationships that i know, the woman is the first (and sometimes only) one to seek change and reconciliation, often to the detriment of her needs. she tries to give the husband what he asks for, and when she does, the husband just wants more. i think of my own mom and grandmother here and how they sought change and reconciliation. but the change didn't need to come from them and any demands they strove to meet weren't the problem in the first place. it was the man who needed to change and reconcile. i really liked that part and hopefully this movie will drive that same point home to men that if they want to see change in their marriage, they must sometimes BE the change (to paraphrase Gandhi).

i also love how Kirk learns how self-sacrificial love is. and how it solves a lot of problems, that sort of servant-leadership and self-sacrificing love which is all over the Gospels and well used by the likes of Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr, as well as many others.that was pretty tight.

the theology framework in the movie is pretty solid. the dad is probably the weakest actor, but delivers all the theological lines, which were mostly the evangelical "thou aren't doing right, thou shalt be smited" by the angry God. there is a holistic reconciliation with the family. first Kirk reconciles with his wife and then with his mother who he has treated like crap the whole movie. it was pretty touching and inclusive, and i really enjoyed that and think it was a brilliant addition to the film.

this is a good film, albeit a light one. i know there are those out there who can really benefit from this film. and while i enjoyed it, i feel it just reinforced what we're doing already in our relationship. i really liked the idea that "when a man dates a woman, he studies her and gets to know her interests. when they marry, he usually stops. he should continue on. think of your dating as earning your high school degree. you should continue on and get an associate's, bachelor's, master's, all the way up to a PhD." this is a great metaphor.

Guest Sermon by Agent Smith

I met Agent Smith through LTS's Leadership NOW program for young adults. Agent Smith traveled this summer to Thailand with Leadership NOW. This is a sermon he gave to his congregation about his trip (i added the pretty pictures!) I am always amazed by the profound wisdom I encounter with Leadership NOW and you'll find this sermon particularly enlighted.

also a message to pastors: WAKE UP! LOOK WHAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR PEWS! LET THEM HAVE A VOICE! thank you.

and now without further delay, I present Agent Smith:

This week, as a part of the seasons of creation, we are talking about mountains… Mountains that are offer “mountain top experiences”.

The idea of using mountains as a metaphor was a challenge for me.

It was hard to know which way to go with it...In some ways, a mountain is a good thing…being on a mountain can be inspiring…energizing...refreshing…and relaxing all at the same time. The Bible is full of stories of people having visions while up in the mountains.

But, trying to climb a mountain can be exhausting and discouraging and maybe even dangerous.

And then again, being on a mountain gives you a different vantage point…your place on the mountain impacts your view on the world. And that’s the first thing I wanted to talk about.

In Thailand, we had some of those experiences; most of them were related to the hospitality of the Thai people. Thai people have always been known for their respect and hospitality, and the reason for that is because it used to be a law.

Now that they have realized that there are some people who have bad days and have a hard time being nice to every Westerner they see, the laws are no longer in place but this way of thinking is still very much a part of their culture. The laws were known as the “Sakdina System” a system with points.

Just imagine a pyramid, no wait, how about a mountain? Ok, well on this mountain there are different levels, and on each level there is a group of people, like farmers, beggars monks and elephant trainers. The number of points you have depends on your occupation, who you are related to, and who you work for.

Down in the valley of the mountain are the beggars, and peasants with 1-5 points, and at the base of the mountain you can find the farmers with maybe 10 points. Ok, so move up the mountain, you can see merchants and gas station owners with 50-100 points. And about half way up the mountain you see elephant trainers with 300 points, and then you see the king’s elephant trainers with 600 points.

Now you look up and see the royal family with maybe 1000 points. The king on the other hand is even further up, he has infinity points, but he is still not at the very top… up in the clouds above the peak are the monks and novice monks. But there is one group I left out… the “Farangs.” (tourists like you or me.)

To Thai people, we Farangs are nothing but selfish pigs with money to spend. People who come just to take what they want and leave... Although these Farangs are looked at like this, they have a lot of points so they are treated with a lot of respect. We westerners the Farangs, have 800 points on the “Sakdina system”, only because we help to support the Thai economy.

It is hard to have the, well let’s call it the Thai mentality, when here in America, the way to get respect, is to dress to impress, or have a lot of money, or a big house… all of those big _physical things_. Comparing the two ways of thinking is something that is hard to wrap my mind around.

The difference really jumped out at me recently. I’ve been doing some research about how people “do church” So, for the past couple of weeks I’ve been snooping around at a local mega church. The American way of getting respect was demonstrated when the minister opened his sermon like this. …

This young, hip guy walked onto the stage all decked out in 3 huge diamond rings and a silver necklace, then the first thing he said was, “Ok, so everyone, I want you to check out these awesome kicks, these are probably the coolest shoes ever worn by a minister, these are the coolest things out, are they not?” This statement, for some reason, bothered me for the rest of the night. Especially because one of topics of his sermon was about not caring what other people think about you. He talked about people who have eating disorders, people who self harm, and all of these other things people might do to try to impress other people. I’m not exactly sure why it bothered me so much, but it did. I seriously almost raised my hand to tell him about a story from Thailand. A story about a monk, a monk who told us about his pair of shoes.

One day this monk found that his shoes were old ripped and torn (not just out of style) so he decided that he should invest in a new pair of inexpensive shoes. So, the next week a man selling shoes walked by and the monk pounced! He bargained, and bargained and bargained, until the monk could actually afford the shoes.

The price for his new pair of shoes 100 baht, not 100 dollars but a little over three dollars; this was still a high price for the monk, because monks do not have paying jobs. So the monk went back to his temple wearing his semi-shiny new shoes and as the tradition there, he left them outside the temple for the night.

So the next morning he got up, and went to the front of his temple, and could not find his shoes, he looked and looked and looked, and could not find them anywhere! He assumed that someone must have stolen them, and he has yet to have seen those shoes again. The way he looked at that situation was surprising. He saw it as him donating money to the poor shoe salesman, and that the person who stole the shoes, might have needed them more than he did.

I have to wonder if the minister at the mega church would look at it that way if someone stole his expensive Italian leather shoes. I doubt it.

I wish that I could look at things like that, the next time Josh wants to play the x-box while I’m playing… I’ll just pretend he does not have hours upon hours that he can play, and I will think, wow, he might never have a chance to play x-box again… Well, I don’t know about that, but one thing I do know for certain is that Thai people deserve respect, respect that they will not accept because they feel like we deserve more respect, just because we are Farangs.

Whenever we went to market, we always saw Farangs with their wallet in hand, ready pay their way through the city of Chang Mai to get the best experiences that money can buy … climbing that mountain of fun experiences.But they were turning their backs to the valleys…the valleys full of blind people sitting down in the middle of the street, singing into an old beat up amp with traditional Thai music playing along, Or turning their backs to all of the Thai children that are different in some way, turning their back on those valleys and pretending they are not there, the valleys located at the bottom of their mountain, valleys filled with poverty and despair.

While in Chaing Mai we heard stories about children, different children, children with Down’s syndrome. These kids are usually hidden away into their parent’s house so that no one knows about this child.There are some cases like that still here in America, but it’s rare, but in Thailand, it happens, and it happens often. Children with Down’s syndrome are often hidden from society, with hopes that their family will not have to explain to their friends and family what is “wrong” with their child.

We went to a place called the Healing Family Foundation, which run by people who have family members with Down’s Syndrome and similar conditions. It is a place for children and adults with this type of special need to go during the day. While they are there, they learn work skills so can make a little bit of money and have fun group activities for exercise. In my eyes, that place, is a mountain within a valley. It is a place where they are loved and cared for and learn to climb their own personal mountains.

I’ll tell you about another valley that people want to ignore that I experienced in Thailand. Our group was headed up a mountain and we came upon some people selling paintings. I stopped for a quick moment…because one thing you don’t want to do in a valley is to get separated from your group….I saw a couple of paintings that I thought Joshua might like, so I bought them. We weren’t in a major touristy area so they weren’t overpriced. I turned around and about a half dozen other people who had paintings literally started running after me…While they were saying “You buy Cheap” They were also saying “My children have nothing to eat. My children need to eat. You buy. You buy.”

People want to ignore the valley of severe poverty and the huge differences between the “haves” and the “have-nots” that is growing bigger all the time.

But, back to my trip with the group up the mountain…I rejoined the group and we went to a Buddhist temple at the top of the mountain. We were given the opportunity to be blessed by a monk. A lot of people have seen that picture and some were confused by it. I wasn’t praying to the monk or to Buddha or anything like that, I was opening myself up to receive the blessing that he had to offer. Even though we couldn’t understand each other with words and, even though he is a Buddhist and I am a Christian, I had a real mountain-top experience in that moment. I could feel that he cared for me. That he wanted the best for me and he gave that blessing without expecting anything in return. I will never forget that moment. Under normal circumstances…..as in when I’m not trying to write a sermon, When I think of mountains, I think of the Blue Ridge Mountains.

And I love the Blue Ridge Mountains. Maybe it’s because of going to the church retreats every year. Maybe it’s because of our many trips to EB Fox’s campground near Boone. Maybe it’s because of fly fishing for trout in Valley Crusis. Maybe it’s because of our annual trip to find our Christmas tree. While I like the real mountains, I’m not too crazy about some of the metaphoric mountains that I face and I’m sure you face, too.

You know how I mentioned that trying to climb a mountain can be exhausting and discouraging and maybe even dangerous?? As a teenager, I have Algebra mountains, I have Spanish mountains. I have acne mountains. I have “trying to understand the female mind” mountains. I have relationship mountains. As an adult, you might have employment mountains or health mountains or trying-to-do-too-much mountains.

I have to admit it. Sometimes it gets depressing. You’re struggling to climb one of those mountains and, just when you think you’ve made it to the top, you realize there is more to climb or you slide back down the hill or somebody who’s further up the mountain knocks the rocks loose and, here comes an avalanche.

One of the things I learned in Thailand is that the Buddhist monks are expert metaphoric mountain climbers. How is that? They are always learning…always in training. They spend a lot of time praying, too. And, they live in community with others…They are ready to help whoever needs help and they are ready to accept help, too.

I think that’s how they deal with their mountains.

Now, there are certainly differences between Buddhism and Christianity but I think that, we as Christians, can learn some things from the Buddhists.

We can be Seekers, always looking to learn more and be better at what we do

We can be Prayers, always asking God for strength and wisdom

We can be family to one another, always ready to give and willing to receive

We can be grateful for our blessings, & realize that the journey is part of the reward

We can be responsible, because we share ownership of this world and need to take care of it

We can be confident we know we are not alone as we struggle up that hill.

Instead of complaining to God about how big our mountains are, we can boldly tell our mountains how big our God is.

Instead of complaining about how far we’ve got to climb to get to the top of the mountain, we can concentrate on what we’ll be able to see when we get there.

Instead of trying to reach the top on our own, we can tie ourselves to our brothers and sisters in Christ so, when they slip we can help them and, when we slip, they can help us.

How we look at a mountain is our choice. How we respond to the mountain is our choice. How we look at a valley is our choice. How we respond to a valley is our choice.

Let us pray…
Gracious God. Help us to see the mountains for what they are. Help us to see the valleys for what they are. Help us to think, to act and to be according to your will.
Amen

Thinking about Christian History In America

Corporate or Colonial

The Movement is unstoppable…
Future Markets, Holy Wars
Been tried ten thousand times before
If you think that God is keeping score, Hooray!
–Clairaudients (kill or be killed) by Bright Eyes

It’s hard for me to find a whole lot to affirm in the Christian History in America. While there are small pockets of Christian behavior, the lot of it is a story of genocide, greed, and colonial expansion. But such is the history of man. When wasn’t this the case?

With the decimation of the Native Americans and the history of slavery, I struggle to see the good. I take some comfort that Noll is aware of this. He writes that American was a place “where Christian heroism, Christian exploitation, and the quite realities of day-to-day Christian life were all defined by the experiences, the assumptions, and the values of the European Churches” (Noll 8). I am still unsure how to hold this with integrity.

Olaudah Equiano asks the “polished and haughty European recollect, that his ancestors were once… uncivilized and even barbarous?” When I read this question, I was hit by a ton of bricks. This question is directed at me! Here I am feeling polished and so much more enlightened than those Christians who were first exploring this land. Don’t I fail to see that I too am just as limited by my own cultural and individual biases? Maybe ten, twenty years from now I’ll read my own writing and be appalled? And even my children or grandchildren could be embarrassed by the assumptions I make here and now. Just like my Christian ancestors who came to this land, I am living out my faith in the best way I know how, with the interpretation I have, and in the context I find myself in. My intention is to do good and be light to the world, but my actions have unintended consequences.

I recently heard a seminarian state that they are tired of politics. Well, they had better drop out of seminary now, because there is politics everywhere! Especially in church! Most of the time, we get it wrong. Take the English Reformation, it was spawned by the King’s motivation to produce a male heir. In the process, the crown was able to seize the funds of the Catholic churches and monasteries and expand its own corporate wealth. The human need of security and profit oft times lead to sin. The English crown saw a market and went for it in the name of Christ; future market and a holy war in tandem, like the Bright Eyes song quoted above. Seeing this, the Puritans headed for a new land away from the politics of England. Their intention was noble, but it ultimately failed as they still couldn’t fully escape the influence of England. I do find the Puritans noble in the suffering they went through to pursue their beliefs. I felt relieved when I read about spiritually sensitive Christians like Jean de Brebeuf and his Jesuit colleagues. The majority, however; were not like the Jesuits and Christian history in the Americas is awash in the blood of the innocent.

I could despair at this fact if it weren’t for my view of history. To put it simply, when we know better, we do better. Meaning when we see the evil committed and the human toll it takes, we work to correct. We end slavery, we stop the genocide. However, this also works in the opposite way. We are incredibly good at war and killing large amounts people efficiently. My view though is that things are getting better, not worse. For Christians such as myself looking at history, we see the effects of the past and we work not to repeat them in the future. We acknowledge the mistakes and we don’t get apologetic about it. We ask forgiveness and work to end our own versions of slavery (i.e. sex slavery, sweat shops, racial tensions, etc), genocides, and war. We are working to get post-race/colonial/sexist/heterosexist/anti-semetic etc. towards a peaceful coexistence were oppression is minimized and justice prevails.

I, like my Puritan ancestors, hope to create a new society based on God’s kingdom as envisioned by Jesus Christ. At the same time, I seek to be as spiritually sensitive as Brebeuf in my interactions with those of other faiths and cultures.

Works Cited

Equiano, Olaudah. “Traditional Ibo Religion and Culture.” Pages 13-19. African American Religious History; A Documentary Witness. Second Edition. Ed. Milton C. Sernett. Duke University Press: 1999.

Noll, Mark A. A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishers, Grand Rapids, MI: 1992.

Where does Evolution Leave God?

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.

A Good History

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.

1. Pietism that sits between orthodoxy and rationalism
2. no creed but Christ crucified
3. in essentials unity... that phrase listed above.

H. Richard Niebuhr and his brother Reinhold Niebuhr both came out of this tradition.

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!

There's no such thing as Secular

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers:

"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.

Dealing with Violence: Fight Club's Assumptions

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?

Autumn Changes

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.

What Fight Club Says about God and Community

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!

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: Movie Review

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.

Inclusion?

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.

CPE

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.