Donald Miller and Hauerwas, on the same team?

I would have never thought I’d associate Donald Miller with Stanley Hauerwas. Donald Miller is from my hometown of Portland, OR, and as such when he’s been to Calvin, I’m always really excited. His popularity confirms that where I’m from is a really cool place, which I believe but hardly anyone here really knows. When I picked up Blue Like Jazz last year, though, I wasn’t really all that excited about it. It was interesting, but I wasn’t going to go out and by the precious moments figurines of it or anything. Then, he came last October to Calvin, and I found out last minute and went with some friends. I was horribly disappointed, because that was in the last few weeks before the Presidential election, and he was here as part of Obama’s campaign team, of all things!!! I had written an article for the school newspaper explaining why I thought it was best not to vote, which I can assure you, hardly anyone really understands, let alone believes it themselves. So my friends and I got in a mildly heated debate as we left and I expressed my utter disappointment. But this year he came as part of a book tour he’s doing at 65 cities around the country. The book is displayed on the left, “Searching for God Knows What.” He even had an opener, which was a strange phenomena for an author, to me at least; she was another author who just read her book called “Angry Conversations with God” (Susan Isaccs). But this time, Don did not let me down. I really had low expectations after the previous year, so he way exceeded them. He told the story of his experience when his book was going to get turned into a movie, and how that got him on the track to realize that his life was too boring for the screen… which made him wonder what makes a story good? He then spent a lot of time studying narrative structure, which really excited me, because I think that was part of the problem I had with Blue Like Jazz. It did not have a narrative structure that I could really follow and appreciate, it just felt like it was so disconnected. In his lecture, Miller explained how when you are asked a question like “how did you meet your wife?” you will relate the story in the proper narrative structure, which is to say, express it as a character who wants something, experiences conflict, and then hopefully gets what he or she wants. Now why did I say he and Hauerwas are on the same team? Well, I admit, I am a Hauerwas fan, but I have not read as much of him as I should. I read Resident Aliens and it changed my life so completely, I’m a little afraid to read anything else because it can’t have that same conversion-experience effect. But I do know that what I loved about Resident Aliens from the very beginning (there were a lot of things that I had to be converted before I could fully appreciate, but this I loved from the first), was his chapter on story. I had a teacher in high school who taught the Bible as story, and it was amazing. Literally mind-blowing. Hauerwas, I know, is associated with the termed “Narrative Theology,” and although I don’t entirely know the intricate details of that perspective, I think Miller would subscribe to that view as well. Miller is different because he appeals to the popular culture, of course, and Hauerwas feels as if he has not been truthful enough if at least one student doesn’t get offended and leave his class. However, Miller said that he felt all of our stories were just the subplot of the epic story. Christ was not the climax of our stories. We only find significance in our stories when we associate ourselves with the overall story that appears in Scripture. WOAH! Really, Donald Miller!! Yay! This is wonderful! Now, I did hear criticism that the lecture was very self-affirming, because Miller did tell a ton of stories about himself. However, I thought it was sort of appropriate that while he was talking about how we should live our lives as if they were cinematic stories (that is, good stories) he constructed his lecture as a story in which he wanted to figure something out, experienced conflict, then is now in the process of doing it. For Miller, this happens in the form of a ministry he has started that equips churches to have mentoring programs for young men. (He himself grew up without a father, and cited many statistics of various criminals who grew up in households without a father as well). I look forward to seeing other things from Miller in the coming years.

Movie Review: Angels and Demons (And my return back to this blog)

I have another blog now at theotherjournal.com. When I agreed to blog for them  I was an enthusiastic new college student, ready to take the world by storm. Throughout the year, I discovered that despite my good high school education, I still had more to learn. Much more than I anticipated, really. Along with finding other things made a priority in my life, since blogging during my high school days tended to be a defense against loneliness. Those things made blogging a chore, and something I had to do, and many weeks I just couldn’t think of anything blog-worthy. I hardly read blogs anymore, either, so that didn’t help.

But, this summer,  I am no longer living with 40 people. My boyfriend is roughly 2,000 miles away. I have a part time job, but who knows how much that will occupy me (or have any sort of fulfillment in my life). So, I have decided to resurrect this blog (for something other than school projects). This will give me an avenue to blog about whatever. The other blog they said I can write anything, the important thing is that I write, but I can’t just write thoughtless things on that site. I feel like it has to really intertwine the theme of church and culture, and if it doesn’t, I’m at a loss.

I’ve ended up writing about TV shows a lot on my other blog, sort of on accident, but that’s the only thing I’ve been doing for entertainment. I haven’t had time to read much, and so it’s just TV and movies. So here’s a blog about a movie. Maybe I can get the entertainment stuff out on this blog (although most of my seasonal shows are over). Then I can find more academically rigorous and philosophical things to say on the other one. =)

I watched the first Dan Brown novel made into a film after reading the book. I, unlike  the predominant church culture at the time, was not scared out of my mind for how people would take the book/film in terms of Christianity. It certainly is not that kind to religion in general, since the plot of the book basically argues that the Catholic church has been harboring all these secrets for so long. That’s not why I enjoyed the story, however. I really liked Brown’s way of piecing together the puzzle pieces in an action-packed novel that I couldn’t put down. The movie couldn’t quite do it justice, but it wasn’t bad.

This time, watching Angels and Demons, it’s been a while since I read the books, I just remembered I enjoyed this one more than the last. And after watching the movie, I remember why. This one has all the puzzle piece mystery thriller aspects that I enjoyed the first time, while being much more sympathetic to the church. Religion is not just a side-plot in this movie as it is so often if it is brought up at all…  Roman Catholic practices are integral to the plot. Thousands of extras were used to play devout Catholics who were upset about the Pope’s death, and they were not shown to be just mindless sheep who turned to religion out of fear. Instead, faith was praised. The Harvard Professor, who as an academic, could not understand God because his head told him not to. He was asked what his heart told him, and he said that his heart told him he didn’t need to. (His substitution for “belief” by answering with “understand” is interesting to note). He said faith is a gift, one that he had not been given yet. Weird! The atheist got religion right in a way that many Christians would not be able to articulate. I pity Brown, because that character is probably him. He’s the one who knows church history better than those in the church do, and yet his heart-head battle is too strong, and he is not receptive enough to the gift of faith yet. But there is definitely hope.

In the film, there are also corrupt priests, of course, and Brown certainly does not paint a clear and easy picture of right vs. wrong. The character who would be most likely to be called the antagonist saved the lives of thousands of people, and everyone had the impression that he should be made a saint and recognized as a martyr. I remember in the book the struggle between religion and anti-matter in the hearts of individuals was much more pronounced, like the priest who helped research it and discover it. He wanted to create anti-matter as a testimony to God, not as a way to show that science could out-do God. But of course, often the church tries to create something (like watches) for spiritual purposes, but the secular forces are much to strong and use the item for their own purposes. (Watches were meant to keep order for monks who had a set schedule on which they prayed the psalms. Now watches serve the purpose of the god of capitalism).

While I watched the movie, I could not help but wonder how on earth they filmed everything, and how much it cost! So much artwork is included in the movie, just as it was last time, and historically places. It was beautiful, and you’d have to check another site to see how much of it took place in a Hollywood studio and how much didn’t. I did read a source that was remarking how much the Pope disliked this movie… well, or what he thought this movie must be. The Vatican staff said they did not even read the script, just heard the name “Dan Brown” and assumed it was anti-religious. Because of that, they refused that it be filmed in much of Rome and the Vatican. Ewan McGregor, who plays the most controversial and perhaps anti-Catholic character, does not think the movie is anti-Catholic: http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/Movies/story?id=7586038&page=1. But regardless of whether it was actually filmed in the Vatican, it was very convincing,  and very well filmed, I thought, from the point of view of someone who has never taken a class on the subject.

And with that, I am going to move on again to thoughts of my time in college. Because college really kept me humble. I mean, I thought I had everything all figured out in high school; I felt my education was better than all my friends, and so when I went to school, of course I would still be a step ahead of everyone. And while that was true in some senses, in others it was completely wrong. So many people were smart in their respective fields of interest, whether it was film studies, or even my own major, philosophy. I could hardly keep up with conversations about philosophy in class and out of it, despite being a philosophy major. It worried me. Thankfully I found a home in English… there I could talk about things intelligently, among other intelligent people that I didn’t feel simultaneously threatened by.

I hope to continue writing here throughout the summer, perhaps as a relief from my McDonald’s job. Yes, you heard right, McDonald’s. I have a blog post somewhere about the evils of consumption, and McDonald’s is as good a corporation as any to represent that whole world. But, I am just a minimum wage employee who will work my designated shift, making sure the well-oiled machine that is McDonald’s continues to see another day with happy customers. It has to be better than using marketing ploys to get my friends’ parents to buy knives. The most important difference is: these customers come to McDonald’s. They have already decided they want to buy things. Now maybe my mannerisms and friendliness and efficiency will have an affect on whether they will come back, or if I can get them to add anything to their meal, but I dont feel like I’m constantly trying to trick them into something they didn’t ask for. Perhaps I’ll change my mind, but right now, I have no ethical qualms about working for McDonald’s.

VS.

Living in History

Occasionally I imagine how the future generations will view our time in history. History had always been somewhat interesting to me, particularly because I like learning stories, but it really became important when studying the person of Christ and the Incarnation. I became convinced that history was important to God. Through the Incarnation, he came and became bound by time and a particular culture and place in history… to be more like us. So time is important. Humans are necessarily time-bound beings. Which is to say, humans are historical.

So, that begs the question, what will our time in history look like when it is the past? We are able to look at the centuries that have come before us and analyze them… how will we be analyzed? I don’t think most people go around living their life in terms of how they will be analyzed in the future… ocassionally, perhaps, but people are much more concerned with living in the present. I don’t think Martin Luther wondered what a college student in 2008 would think about his 95 Theses… he was much more concerned with the current state of affairs.

So in light of these thoughts, I thought it worthwhile to read Frank Viola’s assessment of the Emergent Church movement. he writes it as one who is thinking historically; who has looked at phenomena that are just as reactionary, and how most people don’t acknowledge the flaws until it is too late to change them. Here is a call to change the emergent church before it is too late. This article is a bit dated, but still interesting. His bias is quite clear in that he supports house churches, which undoubtedly have their own problems, but still is a really good article for explaining some of the main components of what Emergent churches tend to look like, and what those flaws are.

God Probably Doesn’t Exist.

The British Humanist Association, supported by Richard Dawkins and others like Ellis have tried a new method to make their opinion heard that religion is worthless: plaster it on buses in Britain.

At first glance, this may seem horrible. But does Dawkins have a point? What he’s reacting to are the religious posters that say things like, “Repent! Or go to hell!”

The full slogan says: “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”

Who knows what the affect would be. People are getting so cynical of advertising in general…. Why not post something like that? Will it really matter either way?

Pacifism… Not sticking one’s head in the sand

One of my friends was in a debate tonight regarding war, specifically the current war. The opening question was whether or not America should pull out of Iraq and into Afganistan. There were a number of good points raised by the five students, some more than others, and I have to say that my friend did a remarkable job as an informed individual that answered the question comprehensively.

There was one student who, in his opening statement, made extremely clear that he is a pacifist. I am a pacifist too, as one would know from my previous entries, so at first I was interested in how he might relate that to the current situation. But that was the problem… he didn’t. He “answered” the question, saying that America should not move out of Iraq, and should not go into Afganistan. Then he went into what might have been a good argument for pacifism in another context… however, it had no bearing whatsoever on the actual topic being discussed. He was the only one of the five to bring his Bible up to the debate table (although he didn’t open it; maybe it was just there as moral support), and he argued that murder and killing and violence are unnatural. Very true. But what does that look like for this situation?

A lot of the other students had obviously been well informed about specific cultural and political tensions between not just the three countries mentioned, but Iran as well. They addressed each others’ concerns well, and then the need for clarification about the pacifist’s position arose. When the moderator asked for clarification of what it looked like to stay in Iraq but not be at war, the pacifist opened a whole other can of worms: he said that our government is a Christian nation, and as such we should be “pushing” Christianity, although not in a military sense.

I’m sure that shocked a lot of us. He went on to say other things that are clearly fallible, or at least need a lot more clarification, like the Roman empire fell because of the pacifism of early Christians, and that the Christian force he’s promoting will not disrupt any current cultural tendencies, essentially taking out the “Christian” aspect of Christianity, since a “secular” group could promote justice and peace just as much as Christians.

All that to say…. I really wish he hadn’t given pacifism such a bad rap. Pacifism isn’t a denial of all reality. It is ascribing to a higher reality. There are governmental issues that need to be discussed pragmatically as well, and if as a pacifist who thinks that those ultimately will fail, and want to abstain from that, like me, that’s fine. But if you go as far to say we are a Christian nation, and ignore the specific issues that are making this a complicated topic, just trying to promote pacifism in the process, I wish you wouldn’t. Really. Be a closet pacifist or something.

America: A Christian Nation?

85% of Americans identify themselves as Christian (although only 33% admit they go to church regularly).

77% of people in Israel identify themselves as Jewish.

Are you surprised? I was.

What does the term “Christian Nation” even mean? I wish it would disappear entirely.

*Source: http://harpers.org/archive/2005/08/0080695*

Always Swim with a Buddy: What Can the Imago Dei Learn from Transgenders?

“Our bodies are like dust covers.”

So said prodigal son Ryan Stevenson, son of a murder victim who had been found in the ocean, severed in two.

Oh, but perhaps I should mention, this isn’t exactly a real story, but the plot from the most recent episode of the TV show Bones. The show features an anthropologist who sees religion as a “mass illusion” and completely illogical. Her partner is a non-academic Roman Catholic (in the sense that he is a normal guy who’s faith means a lot to him, yet he doesn’t spend his time academically trying to support it). The two of them throughout the four seasons have had disagreements about science and religion, and often offer at the least an interesting dialogue, even if it seems a little biased.

In this episode, the skeleton of a woman named Patricia, who was a pastor in a church called “Inclusion” (welcoming recovering drug addicts and alcoholics) washes ashore. Through a good amount of investigation and ingenuity, they discover that the pastor is actually the same pastor that had been a televangelist in a materialistic fire and brimstone type church, a church that openly spoke against homosexuality…. but the interesting facet is that former pastor was named Patrick… and had been male.

The quote I started with, from Patrick/Patricia’s son, is central to the whole religious tension in the show. Patrick’s son had taken over the pulpit after his father had disappeared some five years earlier, presumably dead. He gets fed up with the church, perhaps as his father had, and engages in types of social work as an act of redemption. Upon finding out his father had died, but had lived a life as a woman, Patrick’s son was not offended by his father’s sex change. Instead, he was saddened he had not known her as that person.

Booth, as a Catholic, shares some of the concerns that were raised by Patrick’s former wife. She was convinced that Patrick would never do that, at first, because they believed that people are made in the image of God, and God does not make “biological mistakes,” as the psychologist Sweets phrased it in the show. Bones countered that this woman had obviously had plastic surgery and colored her hair. Booth somewhat heatedly responds quickly that in the case of this woman, she was just augmenting the image God had given her, not totally dismantling it.

And while it is a complex topic to wonder whether or not people really are attached to their genders, or perhaps more accurately, if our gender stereotypes are all-encompassingly correct, what I would like to end with is the final moments of the episode. The son takes on his father Patricia’s role as pastor of the Inclusion church. And in his sermon he starts off by saying, on the outside we are gay and straight, black and white, fat and thin, man and woman, saint and sinner… but that we are all children of God. He says he is sorry he didn’t get to know his father Patricia but he wants to get to know her, that redeemed human being both in her old Bible, but most importantly through the church community. The people that she loved, and people that loved her back. The true Imago Dei.

Booth comments, “I get it. Redemption through transformation.” And poignantly asks, “What is it you believe, Bones? ” Despite all of Bones’ genius and scientific expertise, there is still something lacking, something that is often complemented by Booth’s presence, but is still something missing in her as an individual. And yet, Bones response illustrates this exact point! She says, “I believe in swimming with a buddy.” Booth is confused, but I think her point is extremely profound, and somewhat uncharacteristic for her, since she is quite proud of her individualality.

But even Bones understands that it is through relationships, through community, and through learning from others, or “gathering wisdom” as she phrases it, that we find meaning through our relationship with others, and for the church, by manifesting the imago dei.

Abstaining from Voting

I have heard numerous times during my time at Calvin, “This election is very important! You need to vote!” But rarely is it explained exactly why I should vote; it is simply assumed. The assumption is that as a Christian who lives in a democratic country, my right to vote is a blessing, and because of that, I should honor my faith as best I can by voting in a morally observant way. But what if the particular values I find intrinsic to my faith are contradicted by both the candidates? Do I pick the lesser of two evils, and find the candidate that most reflects the same convictions I do?

That is certainly an option that many Christians choose when as they decide to vote. But even if I do pick the candidate that I think is most “godly,” I know that my particular convictions are directed toward the goal of renewing the world and bringing about the Kingdom of God. Can I be sure that the candidate I vote for has that same goal in mind? As much as the candidates talk about their religious faith, is it too cynical of me to assume that they are simply using religion as another ploy to market themselves and their ideas? Perhaps they do have a genuine faith. But, at the end of the day, if it comes down to a choice between the Kingdom of God and the “Kingdom of America,” will not the President of the United States pick America? By voting for a president who will serve this country no matter what, am I not in some way placing an allegiance of country over my allegiance to God?

These are the concerns I have about participating in the American federal political system. But more than that, I am concerned that none of these options have been voiced openly in the Calvin community (at least not to my knowledge). Although those I have come in contact with have not expressed the belief that to be Christian is to vote Republican, or vice verse, it is assumed that whatever way a Christian votes, he or she is required to do so. Period.

However, there are a number of good arguments supporting an alternative Christian practice—intentionally not voting. Before I explain a few of them, let me be clear in saying that my purpose is not to say that the only option a Christian has is not voting. Neither is it to condone a lazy or apathetic attitude when it comes to the state of the world today (although a level of reasonable critique should be administered). It is not even to say that if one votes at all, he or she is wrong. In fact, I think that voting Christian-ly is certainly better than ignoring one’s faith in the “public” arena. My purpose is to open up the conversation by showing a different way of imagining one’s purpose as a Christian, and how one’s citizenship in the Kingdom of God might prohibit one from participating in the political workings of the kingdom of the world.

First, one must ask, what is the story of America, also known as the nation-state? Why did it come into being? What does it promise us? These are very complex questions to answer, and there may in fact be a multiplicity of answers depending on the interpretation of the questions, but for the sake of this article I will simply concentrate on one. The nation-state arose ultimately for the purpose of peace, gained through the notion of freedom. If we look at Locke’s description of government, he says that the purpose of government is to protect each individual’s property, which is to keep each person safe from harm, in a sense. However, the definition of freedom employed by Locke and the American myth is a negative one—individuals are freed from the interference of others to do whatever they want. This is very different from the Christian view of freedom, which has a positive goal, and claims that it is only by being bound to Christ for something—his Kingdom—that true freedom occurs. America is offering an alternative myth and an alternative definition of freedom than the Christian one. It could even be called “idolatrous.” In this view, to support America’s political system is to give validity to that idolatrous myth by participating in its rituals (of which voting is one of the most important. War, of course, is the other biggest one).

Another perspective is that voting is not just a “right,” but a sacred “rite,” implying that whether one is a Christian or not, one is religiously believing in something when one participates in voting.  Abstaining from it may be an act of witnessing to the world that our allegiance is tied to the worldwide body of believers, not to America. America is a concept of the imagination; we have to imagine that there is such a thing as borders, and that those borders separate us from “the other.” It is much easier to hate “the other” and go to war with “the other” if we have an “us vs. them” mentality.

Another aspect of politics that may prompt a Christian to abstain from participating is that voting is a strictly personal act. To abstain from it would be an effort to link ourselves communally to believers around the world, especially those believers in countries in which America is currently engaged in war.

These are a few perspectives. Now, you might be thinking, but when I vote I am really trying to love my neighbor as best as I can and imagine a nation in which all people flourish. That is a very worthy reason to vote. However,  here is my question: must the Christian’s duty to love his or her neighbor be mediated by the apparatus of the nation-state of America? Or does the church have an alternative politics that is not dependent on the nation-state to bring about the flourishing Kingdom of God?

Brand New

I haven’t posted a video in a while, so here’s a music video I stumbled across. I was listening to the song originally on my Pandora station, and when the title came up “Jesus Christ” I thought it was going to be a heretical mockery of Christianity. But it became pretty clear pretty quickly this was not the case, and I think the person who compiled the pictures for this video did a pretty decent job. The lyrics give me goosebumps.

Jesus Christ, that’s a pretty face
The kind you’d find on someone that could save
If they don’t put me away
Well, it’ll be a miracle

Do you believe you’re missing out
That everything good is happening somewhere else?
But with nobody in your bed
The night’s hard to get through

And I will die all alone
And when I arrive I won’t know anyone

Well, Jesus Christ, I’m alone again
So what did you do those three days you were dead?
Cause this problem’s gonna last more than the weekend.

Well, Jesus Christ, I’m not scared of dying,
I’m a little bit scared of what comes after
Do I get the gold chariot?
Do I float through the ceiling?

Do I divide and fall apart?
Cause my bright is too slight to hold back all my dark
And the ship went down in sight of land
And at the gates does Thomas ask to see my hands

I know you’re coming in the night like a thief
But I’ve had some time, O Lord, to hone my lying technique
I know you think that I’m someone you can trust
But I’m scared I’ll get scared and I swear I’ll try to nail you back up

So do you think that we could work out a sign
So I’ll know it’s you and that it’s over so I won’t even try

I know you’re coming for the people like me
But we all got wood and nails
And turned out a hate factory
We all got wood and nails
And turned out a hate factory
We all got wood and nails
And we sleep inside of this machine

Stanley Hauerwas and the Modern University: On Prayer and Foreign Policy

“But in a university shaped by the narratives and practices that come from the Christian tradition, I would think it would make a good deal of sense to pray before class. This practice, I believe, would shape the knowledges that constitute that class. Furthermore, the questions of the class I think would change. Rather than asking, “What would be good for an American foreign policy?” We might well ask, “What would be the common good of Christians in the United States being in unity with Christians in Basra?” And as a result we might have to reconsider how should we think about and live our lives.”

~Stanely Hauerwas, “Learning Like a Christian,” Interview on September 9, 2008.

http://www.theotherjournal.com/article.php?id=426