I tried to take math 100 last year, which is theory, and I dropped it after about a class and a half, so I was not looking forward to statistics, especially since it’s four credits instead of 3. However, I am actually really enjoying it. It’s still challenging for me; my brain doesn’t naturally think the way others’ might who would excel well in statistics. But I really appreciate the way my professor connects statistical work with every day living, and even her own spiritual journey.

At the end of each semester, students get asked a question about their courses– how well did the professor incorporate Christian faith into the classroom. It’s always a debate whether that question should be in there for math and science professors. Do they teach things in a way that’s different than what a state school might teach? Many days, that answer is no, they are teaching the same material. But, the character of the professors is clear at Calvin, and sometimes the content does lend itself to spiritual inquiry, if you’re inclined that way.

My professor has done two things that are worth mentioning. First, she reads Thomas a Kempis, The Imitation of Christ. It’s so fascinating to hear his words about not relying too much on knowledge that passes away, but focus on the things important to God, and then go study stats. Yet it works, somehow keeping us humble in all our educational endeavors.

The other thing happened a few days ago. She was talking about probability. I should also say, her notes are really wonderful– clear and to the point and very thorough, so I feel like I’m really being taught the material, not forced to figure things out on my own. She was going through her lecture on the overhead (overheads! I haven’t seen a teacher use one of these since elementary school), when all of a sudden she turned it off. She said, “You know, I have a hard time teaching probability. When I read the Bible, I only find one verse about chance; everything else is about God’s control.” The room sort of got quiet; often there are a lot of bored rustlers throughout the class, since not many are actually really excited about stats in this core class, and many of the first year students still don’t have the hang of the college thing yet. But this day, we all were still as we waited for what she was about to say next. She had told us before about her children, two of whom are hearing impaired. On this day, she talked about her journey in relation to that, how 20 years ago when finding out her children couldn’t hear, and worrying that they also suffered from a disease that gradually took away their eyesight as well– to say it was challenging is probably an understatement. There was a statistical chance that any other children the couple had would have the same disease as well.

When friends and acquaintances would talk with them, they would often recommend that my professor and her husband not have any more children. That sort of existence was just too painful, their friends thought. For my professor, however, that made it seem like her friends thought her two children shouldn’t have been born at all, which of course she as their mother did not belief to be true.

The classroom was silent as we listened to her tell her story in raw vulnerability. This was a core class, I imagined students thinking. I just expected to come to class, do the homework, take the tests and move on with my life. But instead, I encountered a woman who shared her experience of God with us; some of which works really well with statistics– but she recognized the limits of probability language as well.

She and her husband did have another child, and he is not hearing impaired at all. It also became clear as her other children grew up that they did not suffer from the disease of gradual blindness, even though they still had hearing impairments. (But since they rely heavily on lipreading, it’s a wonderful blessing that they are able to keep their sight). But, being the statician that she is, our professor related this story with their doctor, of how she asked him, “So you are saying my children have no more chance of going blind than the next person in line at McDonald’s does?” and the doctor agreed, that was about the statistical chance her children would have of going blind.

I’m really enjoying my final year at Calvin, and I’m taking less credits so I can find the time to find the epiphanies in the mundane. I’m also trying to reduce my omnipotent impulses by doing less– living more simply, and appreciating what I do have, not trying to spread myself too thin.

Both of those phrases, epiphanies in the mundane and omnipotent impulse from busyness, came from other classes I’m taking, which I’ll write more about in a bit. I just finished a book on story-telling and preaching that was really interesting, so I might even have another post up today.

Peace be with you, even in your statistical studies, if that is where your heart lies, or in whatever you feel called to do and be.

In Katy Perry’s 2008 hit that really put her on the map, she sings, “I kissed a girl and I liked it… I hope my boyfriend don’t mind it…” She goes on to talk about “trying the girl on,” not even knowing the girl’s name, but instead playing an “experimental game.”

Jenell Williams Paris, the author of “The End of Sexual Identity,” comments on the biblical use of the term “knew” to mean sexual intercourse. For Christians, sex is about knowing and being known, unlike what our commodity culture tells us: we can “have” sex (ownership), we can “do it” (casually), we can “make” love (commodity)– ultimately, sex is about what we desire to have, and when we receive the object of our desire, then we’ll be fulfilled and happy. Katy Perry’s lyrics are a helpful illustration once again: “Us girls, we are so magical; soft lips, red lips, so kissable; hard to resist, so touchable– too good to deny it.” The chorus line as well talks about the “taste of cherry chapstick.” Perry buys in quite easily to the pornographic illustration of a woman as a sex object, and if you look at how she presents herself in public you can see she is trying to become that in an original way, but so that she doesn’t just be the object herself, she objectifies other women and becomes the active consumer as well (at least her character in the song does). In fact, one blogger has a great comparison between Katy Perry’s sense of personal style and food, saying that watching Perry’s “California Girls” was almost like a late night raid of the fridge: http://groovyfoody.wordpress.com/2010/10/21/katy-perry-a-visual-feast-for-your-foodie-eyes/

If sexuality is about knowing and being known, that means we cannot relate to one another as inhuman objects of desire; instead, our treatment of sexuality should restore humanity. So why, then, do Christians (and others) resort to narrowing down a person’s identity to one thing– their sexual desire– by creating sexual identities for people: homosexual or heterosexual? By calling someone homosexual, we are saying that they are who they desire. But the problem is, desire is not as straightforward as that. Every person desires multiple things, and is in fact, desired by God. Why does that not become the foundational identity shaping characteristic of our lives?

Paris argues for the eradication of “sexual identities,” and as an Evangelical married woman with three children, she is content to self-identify as a woman (not arguing for the eradication of gender– gender differences gives us good things; when men and women have sex, they make babies! hooray!), as someone who is married, and as a mother, but not as a “heterosexual,” because by labeling herself that way, it’s giving power to her and disempowering another group of people (cf., Judith Butler). She also uses her training as an anthropologist to show us that a two-gendered society is a social thing; one culture has five genders in which there is a range of feminine and masculine traits displayed in the other three genders.

Similarly, it is a contemporary cultural creation to have a society that has two modes of people: homosexual and heterosexual. There were no homosexuals in the time when the Bible was written, she argues, because there were also no heterosexuals. There were men, and there were women; but sexual normalcy at that time was around procreation, and even though sexual desire was very important (i.e., a woman orgasming during sex was thought to increase her chances of becoming pregnant), it was all centered around the stability of the family. So words like sodomy and adultery and masturbation described sexual deviance. In the 1930s, the terms homosexuality and heterosexuality began to be used in medical contexts, but both were describing groups of sexual deviants. These were people who engaged in sexual acts that were not for the purpose of procreation. But the way we use the terms today is so different from then, because we use them as identity shaping categories.

Identity shaping categories are not bad in and of themselves, we need something to tell us who we are and to which community we belong; what becomes a problem is when we privilege one identity group over another. In fact, her biblical exegesis of 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10

is that they are talking about a cultural practice in which older men would have sex with younger boys. This was seen as a good thing in Greek culture, because they believed women were deformed creatures, and that sex between men was the purest form of friendship one could have. But there was still an active and passive role at place; the men were the active participants and the boys were the passive ones (which NIV has a footnote on the 1 Corinthians passage saying:  ”The words men who have sex with men translate two Greek words that refer to the passive and active participants in homosexual acts”). To protect the young boys, then, Paris argues Paul was saying this practice should be ceased.

Now I would probably agree with a review of Paris’ book that says more biblical exegesis would have been helpful; the most interesting part of the book was the first three chapters and after that she didn’t really hold my attention well.  She also didn’t give a lot of specific instruction for churches who are wrestling with the issue of  same-sex relationships; even if we get rid of the vocabulary and attitude of treating people as either “homosexuals” or “heterosexuals” it still remains to be figured out whether same-sex relationships are God-honoring or not, and she does not give a lot of help, just saying each situation needs a case by case treatment.

I appreciated this book a lot, and would recommend it. Whether we are attracted to people of our same sex or opposite sex, or we desire to have children, or be in a monogamous relationship, or serve God– all of these things can be mixed together in who we are. Paris cites Paul, reminding us that our desires aren’t always to be trusted. Instead, we should trust in God’s desire for us, knowing that above all, we are his beloved.

Hopefully that did justice to the account; I am still very unfamiliar with it, but this is what I’ve gleaned from the brief conversations on it so far. Recently, Halden has been posting a few things as well regarding “place,” claiming it isn’t just about putting down roots anywhere, but one has to ask “which place?” Halden first affirms an aspect of this emphasis that new monastics often do (i.e., The Wisdom of Stability):

“I understand that Fitch is emphasizing “place” (as many missional and new monastic folks do, including myself) in an attempt to combat certain elements of the contemporary evangelical church, such as suburban commuter churches in which the congregates don’t share much in the way of meaningful common life. In the face of churches whose members may live anywhere and not necessarily anywhere near one another, the call to “place” seems to make some sense. Certainly the church is not faithful if it construes itself as a sort of abstract meeting place that does not call us into common life and mission together.”

But, at the same time, Halden is skeptical that “place” can do all that it often is cracked up to do.

It seems to me that the more pertinent call to the church is not simply to embrace “place”, as if that were some overarching category. Rather the church must discern how different spaces are created in this world, how the principalities and powers seek to divide, enslave, and dehumanize those for whom Christ died and in whom he still suffers. It is into those spaces, the spaces claimed by the idolatrous powers that the church must be found if it is to be counted faithful to the Messiah who proclaimed salvation and restoration to “the least.” In entering these spaces we are not promised the security of “place.” Quite the opposite: “The Son of Man has no place to lay his head.” Discipleship calls us, I believe, not into the security of place, but into the insecurity of obedience, of suffering with and bringing the good news to those who are being ground under the oppressive wheel of the powers. It may be that “place” is not a gift we will always be able to claim or assume upon. It may be instead that we are called to die to the security of “place,” and be driven, by the Spirit to pour ourselves out as a drink offering with, for, and alongside those who are driven out of “place.”

This seems to really resonate with some of the primitivism language I was talking about earlier. A few months ago, I did a paper on church architecture, and since all the best papers are arguments in which you should pick a side, I decided to argue for an articulation of church architecture in which it was distinctly churchy– that is to say, a gothic church building emphasizes beauty and the unique contribution that Christianity can give society, whereas I would not readily support church buildings that de-emphasize the peculiarity of what it means to be a Christian and look like community centers that are often stripped of Christian symbolism other than a simple cross.

However, I could have taken a different position, and that is what I call the “house church” model. This is the model that says any space can be used for Christian worship, there is no sacred-secular distinction, and refurbishing or renting buiildings that were or are used for different things emphasizes our temporaryness. This notion of mobility, of not putting down roots because we are only “resident aliens” so to speak, also makes a lot of sense to me as well.

However, now that I have quoted Halden extensively, I should also make sure to state my differing opinion with him as well. His second post goes on to talk about the incarnation. He restates the questions others had been asking of him:

“If we relativize “place,” does that amount to a denial of the incarnation, in which God in Christ comes and dwells in a particular place and culture? If we are to be in the world as Christ himself was, does that not also mean that the church ought to enculturate itself, establishing rootedness, identity and longevity by stabilizing its life in a particular place, thus imitating and participating in Christ’s incarnation?”

Halden goes on to say that:

“This use of “incarnation” I take to be an extremely widespread problem in a lot of contemporary ecclesiological and missional discourse and practice. It relies on an an unbiblical expansion of “incarnation” into a theological category that neglects the actual meaning of that doctrine in terms of the concrete history of Jesus Christ. That is to say, “incarnation” does not name a broad theological principle or metaphysical-ecclesiological quality. Rather it is a doctrine about Christ’s singular person and work that is derived from the radical event of his crucifixion and resurrection. “Incarnation” must be understood concretely in terms of Christ’s own history, his concrete story.”

Now, my response would be to say you can “relativize place” while not denying the theological category of the incarnation. As Halden goes on to talk about, Jesus did not literally put down roots, he traversed a lot of geography, and Paul later traversed oceans and continents as well for the sake of the Gospel. However, I do not identify the mystery of the incarnation, and the call to live incarnationally myself, as synonymous with the assertion that I need to put down roots. Instead, I think the doctrine of incarnation is more about the type of God that God is– he wants to be present in a material way and affirm materiality. The church, then, as the imago dei, should also affirm materiality by being earthy people, connected to the dirt that we were created from, not trying to escape things like water, bread, and blood by spiritualizing it into theoretical principles about salvation. Being incarnational, to me, means caring about the bodies of others, not just their minds. Sometimes that can be done by committing to living in a place over time. Perhaps sometimes it can be done better by a good sense of mobility. But you can be mobile while still appreciating your body. In fact, mobility might heighten our self-awareness of our body as it gets tired and strained through the instability of mobility, and by being reminded of our own embodiment, we remember the embodiment of others, and we try to relieve their strains and weariness.

I think it’s perfectly legitimate to have the incarnation be a theological category that is applicable to us and our lives, not just Christ’s; but it does not mean we have to put down roots at the expense of marginalization and oppression of others.

Now, her period of exile is coming to an end, and we are consuming her once again. On our terms. The dogs return to their vomit, instead of leaving it alone. And Britney wouldn’t know what to do alone. She’s done the rehab. She’s been able to have some sort of rebirth– a 29year old version of her 17 year old self. She wanted to come back because she knew nothing else.

To show she would do anything to be back in the spotlight, check out this clip of her in Jackass 3. (And, ironically enough, this was deleted from the final cut of the film– the only way the public found out about it was from Jimmy Kimmel).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekIgI55XG58

Now, the video was released 2 months ago and has over 5.5 million views. That’s not bad for youtube standards. Britney is willing to consciously enter into humiliation for the sake of her fame. Any press is good press.

Her most recent video, “I Wanna Go,” has a number of interesting elements. First, she has been blonde and beautiful again the last few months, trying to erase her shaved head from people’s memory. In this video, she plays up her child-like image with pink highlights in her hair, sparkly makeup, and high pink striped socks. But, unlike when she was a teenager, she now has had some experiences that make her need protection. She wears spiked shoes and wristcuffs, a punk belt (you aint getting in these pants unless I want you there!), and a cut off mickey mouse shirt. She’s a constant paradox: trying to look young and youthful with a small pink bikini but making sure we know she’s stronger and tougher than before; she makes the rules, not whatever company she’s working for (i.e., the Disney corporation when she was a mouseketeer). The head of mickey is even a skull.

She knows she’s a sex symbol: she might as well act like it, take off her top when she wants to, grab a stranger’s junk, make men of all ages want her. The songs talk about doing whatever she wants, and not taking crap from people who talk about her. She says, “Lately I’ve been stuck imagining what I want to do and what I really think.” Implying others have done it for her. Now she talks about doing all the dirty things she has running through her mind, but of course, she doesn’t admit that she’s never had a thought that hasn’t been culturally created for her. Her song isn’t all that different than any of the other club songs out there, like JLo’s “On the Floor” (with 255 million views in 2 months).  Lopez’s song is interesting too, because she sings it with Pitbull, and he’s the one telling her to get on the floor and “back it up like a tonka truck.” I’m sure all the feminists are cringing; while these women sex objects might give the illusion that they are in control and are being hyper-sexual out of their own volition, unlike someone like Pamela Anderson, who seemed to sincerely enjoy sex for its own sake (See “Sex, Drugs and Cocoa Puffs”, the chapter on “porn” I think), these women seem to be forced into being hypersexualized as a means to an end: to be famous, you have to be sexy. Even her frequent use of the word “blow” seems intentional; one can’t really hear that word without thinking of the Ke$ha song, and the word obviously has sexual undertones. Ke$ha has perhaps been doing all along what Britney now wants to do: construct a role for herself that embraces the messy “I do what I want” image; if I want to look like I don’t comb my hair, I won’t comb my hair. If I want to drink all the time, I’ll drink all the time. If I want to have sex, I’ll have sex, with whoever I want. The last one, at least, is the avenue Britney seems to be going.

The turning point in the song comes when Britney encounters a paparazzi, and seems to give him usable, lovely photos. Until, she grabs the camera and dashes it to pieces on the ground. The lyrics say that it she is “all tied up” and “everyone is waiting for her to erupt,” and then it becomes a showdown between her and the press. Other songs have been written about the relationship between the press and celebrities: most notably “Paparazzi” (warning: that link might ruin the song forever for you if you currently like it). She seems to defeat the men with the cameras that have surrounded her, using her microphone, perhaps saying she will silence them all by just doing what she wanted to do before all the fame stuff twisted it: sing and perform for the world. But, unfortunately, her singing will not defeat them; they tern into some sort of half-machine, cyber creatures with terminator eyes. When the music video lets us see through the eyes of one of the paparazzi, it is quite telling: it says that she is the “primary target” and his “weapon of choice” is a camera, reinforcing the Smit quote earlier about how the collective “we” has done violence to Britney.

She seems to escape with the help of one of the press that she identified as “cool” at the beginning of the music video (if you know what the part with the milk is all about, please, enlighten me lol, unless its possibly a reference to her as a mother now… leave a comment if you can help the analysis there), but of course, he starts to spark, and she wakes up from the what we now know was a dream. But, “Jiarmo” (sp.) never really did rescue her, she never did discover his true nature as one of the evil paparazzi, and his act of taking her away to an idealistic landscape had been just a dream. The end scene of a stillshot of his eyes flashing red as we hear a creepy laugh is of course a montage to Michael Jackson.

The video seems really sad to me, just because it seems that Britney recognizes the cycle (at least in part) and yet can’t get out of it; and like Michael Jackson and numerous other stars, they probably will not be able to get out of the cycle and still live. Britney, perhaps you should go back into exile. It’s safer for you there. Let’s hope that the cycle might be broken; but this video ends with you still in the clutches of the paparazzi, who will eventually decide it’s time to violently consume and exile you once again.

Yesterday, I found an amazing chapel building on Northwestern’s campus. It had beautiful stained glass windows, beautiful stone work… in the atrium the stone work is from Jerusalem!

As I was taking pictures in the atrium, all of a sudden the organ began to play! It felt like a sign that I had to go inside. and I’m so glad I did…(Sorry the picture on the right is blurry).

Then, I found these two really great banners that all my Reformed friends would love! If you can’t read them, the first one says “II: Q: ‘What is the chief end of man? A: To glorify God & enjoy him forever’ ~The shorter catechism.”  and the second one: “VI: ‘It is the heart of sin that men use what they ought to enjoy and enjoy what they ought to use.’ ~Thomas Aquinas.” If you were thinking about doing your PhD in philosophy, or attending Northwestern for any other reason, I would encourage you to do so. I am tempted to myself just so I can worship here. =)

Regarding the difference between Catholics and Protestants and how they approached Scripture, it came up in our conversation in a number of ways. First, as someone who might go into pastoral ministry, I have thought it important to learn Greek (and perhaps Hebrew, one day). This retired priest has never learned Greek, although he has learned Latin of course. The “of course” is because Latin is the language of the Roman Catholic Church, and as such, that is the language he needs to know. The church comes first to give authority to the Scriptures, which means that my classmates and I when we occasionally express why we’re studying Greek as trying to get to the true meaning of the passages… to Catholics that wouldn’t make sense. The true meaning of the passage is what the church says it is (keep in mind this is me as a Protestant talking, and a Catholic might give a little different account).

The second difference that occurred was when we started talking about pedo-baptism. Having been in a Christian Reformed school for the past three years, I am well-versed in conversations about this, since Reformed folks usually baptize infants (although you do get the occasional Reformed person who thinks believer baptism is the way to go. And of course, it’s helpful to remember that a good church should have both– the church should not grow just because it’s congregation keeps having babies, but through evangelism and conversion as well, meaning a good baptism service should have babies and adults. And one beautiful thing to remember is that according to the early church in Jerusalem, we are all infants in the Lord when we get baptized). The issue, however, wasn’t to discuss pedo vs. believer baptism. It was the role of Scripture in arguing for one or the other. For instance, I have heard it said that Scripture does not explicitly promote infant baptism. Of course, that makes sense, since the first people in the church were going to be adults, and we do not have canonical texts that stretch into the second generation of church.

This made me think of a really great article I read however that lays out three ways in which Evangelicals read Scripture (and its implication for worship practices, such as baptism). If you have an article search engine, the article is called “What is ‘Biblical’ Worship? Biblical Hermeneutics and Evangelical Theologies of Worship” by Michael Farley (or just leave a comment and I can email it to you).  I’ll give a brief summary of the three positions here. But first, I should give the definition of Evangelical that Farley gives. He defines it simply as those who have a strong appreciation for the authority of Scripture. This, I think, is one of the main reasons why I will always have to stay a Protestant. Catholics, instead, have a strong appreciation for the authority of the church, even if it marginalizes Scripture in the process. I personally would like to have a strong appreciation of the authority of Scripture and the church as the interpretive lens through which we read Scripture, but I wouldn’t want to marginalize Scripture in favor of the church. I hope that makes sense.

But, on to Farley’s three positions in which Evangelicals read Scripture. First, is praxis-oriented regulatory principle, which is an example of thinking only explicit commands are used for Christian worship practices. He quotes John Piper, for instance, who says,

“…In the New Testament, there is very little instruction that deals explicitly with corporate worship… Why…? In the New Testament there is a stunning indifference to the outward forms and places of worship. And there is, at the same time, a radical intensification of worship as an inward, spiritual experience…”

For Piper, it’s okay that there isn’t a lot of explicit teaching on worship practices. Instead, the important thing is the sermon, in which one is encouraged to say just the right words that will bring about spiritual change in the inward lives of the congregation. However, as anyone who has read Jamie Smith knows (i.e., Desiring the Kingdom), the material practices, the liturgy that we engage in, affects our beliefs, more than text-based arguments would, or at least before the textual persuasion occurs. To me, this first reading would be very limited in what you could actually do in a corporate worship service, and because of that, you would miss out on having the type of liturgy that would make you the people of God. So, my thinking would be we need to have a different way of reading Scripture.

The second one, patristic-ecumenical theologically oriented regulative principle, is a little better. Whereas the first position looks primarily at the New Testament, this position expands to include how the early church interpreted the Scriptures for the sake of their worship practices (there are some Protestants, I’m thinking of James White, who seem to like church worship practices just because they were old. Even though we have some differences with Catholics, we still want to be faithful to the early church, to the extent that we can). One example Farley gives is the use of the Christian calendar for worship. This is a good biblical practice for Evangelicals, even though it’s not explicitly used in the NT, because it immerses the congregation in the full narrative of Scripture over the course of a calendar year.

Finally, the author of this piece particularly appreciates the OT and its comments on worship, so he argues for a Biblical typological theologically-oriented regulative principle. This position looks at both the New Testament and the Old, interpreting the whole biblical canon with a Christocentric lens. Unlike the second position, those who hold this position would be okay with disagreeing with the early church if it is inconsistent with their theological  interpretation of Scripture.

Ultimately, I think Farley’s piece is definitely worth reading in its entirety. I’m happy that Evangelicals do not just have the first mode of reading to their name, but his takes on the second and third seem a little incomplete to me. I don’t want to like something just because it’s older than everything else, which is what people seem to like about the second model. The early church must have had it all put together is the implicit assumption, and I think that’s just wrong. And the third model is Farley’s disappointment in the evangelical church for not appreciating the OT enough, which is fine, I think the OT is a great source for Christian worship practices… but again, it just seems incomplete. I’m not sure how else to phrase it. If any of you have some great hybrid that articulates how you, as an Evangelical (or Catholic for that matter) reads Scripture, please let me know in the comments.

I talk about their fidelity, and the way sex has played in their relationship. Most of all, I analyzed it in terms of the dichotomy between romance and mundane, in keeping with some of the literature we have read. Most romantic relationships are built off of the novelty and newness of getting to know one another, in an “other-worldly” sort of way. Even sex is portrayed as transcendental– at least when you’re single– in the television and movies. Some of the stereotypes (although this is not always the case) is that sex when you are married is boring. Most of the shows I watch that have married couples, at some point in their relationship the sex will get boring and that will be the central plot for the show that week as they try and figure out some new, novel way of having sex that makes it enjoyable again. On “Private Practice” one of the doctors is a sexologist (this link is a little iffy, so if you aren’t comfortable with seeing almost full nudity, don’t click on it– the character I’m talking about painted herself with edible paint, and that is all she’s wearing): things like that are her job– to help people find new ways (positions, toys, food, etc.) of having sex so that it is new– almost like they are constantly trying to go back to being strangers to ramp up the “danger” and adventure of sex that is experienced between strangers. In television and movies, people often have casual sex with someone they just met, and it is usually portrayed as enjoyable and without consequences, whereas married sex is boring and just a duty spouses have to perform.

For Lynette and Tom, however, their household duties of raising a children and keeping house together are just as important to their relationship as the romantic “getaways” that other couples base the majority of their relationship on. For example, in the book I linked earlier, “Sex and Love in the Home” by David McCarthy, he says that the celebrity wedding and marriage is fascinating to us because we want to know what people with unlimited economic resources will do with themselves. If they had the means to hire people to do the things most of us have to do (wash dishes, do the laundry, go grocery shopping, wake up at 4am to feed the baby etc.) what would they do with themselves? Many people wish for that kind of relationship because they think that the romanticism is what is most important, instead of seeing the ordinariness of everyday living as “romantic.”

I recently saw a video in which Christina Aguilera talks about being a “single mom” and how hard it is to be a working mom. But the whole time I just kept thinking… Okay… but how much do you really have to do? She mentions wanting to be the first thing he sees and the last thing each day… which is perhaps better than some stars do probably… but her emphasis is all about his “happiness.” There is also a connection between romanticism and the desire to bring happiness or be the happiest you can be in a relationship– like that is the most important thing. So instead of disciplining a child because it might make them unhappy, parents try and be “buddy-buddy” with their children, and as McCarthy says, they have the parent-child version of the romanticism between husband and wife that is so important in our culture today.

Most of all, McCarthy’s criticism of this romanticism is that it is just a version of individualism; the nuclear family, which revolves around the romance of the two parents, is so different than the conception of family which includes extended family and all the difficulties they bring. That is one criticism I had of Tom and Lynette Scavo; his mother moves in briefly to help with the baby, but when they find out she is starting to go senile and be forgetful, they immediately move her to the realm of the “professionals” instead of taking care of her at home. (Thanks to Rob Moll and his book “The Art of Dying” for this insight– check out my review of  here).

But my question is: is all romanticism bad? I recently watched an old episode of Chuck (episode 4.5) in which his sister, who is pregnant, is having a hard time adjusting to her husband paying more attention to the baby than he is to her. So she wants to go on a “baby-moon,” that is, a romantic getaway just husband and wife, on some exotic beach somewhere where they can get away from the household duties and from the knowledge that she is about to become a mother. (His fascination with talking to her belly for an hour has a weird romanticism about it too, though). As I watched this, hearing McCarthy’s critiques of romanticism in my head, all I could think of was, well… sometimes we need romantic getaways, right? Is that a bad thing? I wouldn’t want to try and base a relationship off of only romance… But I could see someone walking away after having read McCarthy and think that they are never going to buy flowers for their significant other or go on vacation. Now granted, I haven’t read the whole thing yet, but I really hope he doesn’t say all romance is bad. But I do appreciate his critique of it; why is it that people get divorced so easily, if it is not the emphasis on novelty, on achieving happiness above all else for ourselves, and having really great sex? Our relationships with one another have reduced each other to mere commodities we can trade in at will. So for that… I recognize the dangers of romanticism.

We’ve heard stories of college presidents in the past who ate lunch in the dining halls with students, and who made an effort to be a visible presence for the purpose of community building. The current president, for better or worse, has strengths that lie in raising money for the college– another very important enterprise, especially for those who benefit from a lot of financial aid that allows them to be at Calvin in the first place.

However, Laura and I have been in a class with Jamie Smith this semester,and through this class and others we have had with him we have come to recognize that worship is a fundamentally formative experience that should be the foundation upon which everything we do is based. We are reading The Blackwell Companion to Christian Ethics (edited by Stanley Hauerwas) and at one point it says that our life during the week should be rehearsal for what happens at worship each week.

As a society, we tend to think that ideas are what form us, above all else. And at a college, this is especially true– a place that’s dedicated to pouring ideas into our heads that will somehow shape us into virtuous people. Calvin even has 14 virtues it expects its students to gain by the end of their four years here, but the virtues are hardly even present; faculty is just encouraged to incorporate them into their pedagogy somehow.

But if the only way it expects us to gain the virtues is through the classroom in which ideas are poured into our heads, they are going to be sorely disappointed. Students who come to Calvin are aimed at what they think the good life is not because they have well articulated worldviews, but because they have developed habits that form them into certain types of people. Those habits might be partying, drinking, and sleeping around, or making the time to pray every morning and go to church each week. The point is, it is through the weekly habits that students develop that they develop virtues or vices.

And what Laura is calling the college to in her article (not just the college president) is to recognize that even though we are an institution where higher learning takes place, we should recognize ourselves as fundamentally a worshipping community, in which we worship together first and foremost so that when we have controversies and disagreements we have that solid unity through the Holy Spirit that we can find comfort in.

One way that the college is hopefully going to be supported in this way is through a campus wide initiative to have every person in the Calvin community– students, faculty, and staff– or as many as possible, involved in a Bible study studying the book of Philippians. Philippians 2:1 says, “¹If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, ²then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose.”

This is such an encouraging thing then that the campus is reading this together. Hopefully it will set in and be able to offset the controversies that are currently taking place.

If you are curious about what exactly the controversies are, check out these links:

The New Pornographers: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/15/calvin-college-cancels-ne_n_717494.html

Evolution: http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/06/evolution-controversy-at-calvin-college.html

The Memo: http://chronicle.com/blogPost/Calvin-College-Faculty-Asks/8304/

In verses 16 through 20 Mark describes how Jesus is walking along the sea of Galilee when he sees Simon and Andrew, two brothers who are casting their nets because they are fishermen. When Jesus calls for them to follow him because he will make them fishers of men, immediately the abandon their nets and answer him. (16-18). Then, Jesus goes a little further and sees Jacob the son of Zebedee and his brother John, two fishing net repairmen. He calls to them too, and they do more than abandon their nets– they abandon their father, Zebedee, in the boat with the two hired men! At first when I read it, I thought the word for “hired men” was hate, and so I got the impression that they were leaving their father with hate for him, all of a sudden, making me think about how being a disciple of Jesus means a reconfiguration of the family and our allegiance to the Christian family first…. but then I read NIV and it said it was “hired men.”

Now I have to admit, this is just a second year Greek student’s interpretation using a Greek text and lexicon, so if I’ve missed the grammatical stuff, which I probably have, then I apologize and feel free to correct me. But this really fascinated me, how the first people Jesus calls leave behind their nets, but the second time Jesus calls two brothers, they not only leave their net, but their father as well, and their boat. Perhaps the first pair of brothers left behind those things as well in their quest to follow Jesus, but textually it escalates and reminds the reader that not only does God call us to leave behind the path in life which might make us the best “living,” but we might also be called to leave behind our family and our whole way of life, just like Abraham in Genesis 12: “Leave your country, your people and your father’s household…”

Initially our building was going to be designed to have a classroom in the basement… but alas, the basement never got finished because of lack of funds. But this year, we are doing something almost better than that– having dinner together each week, and then having class in the dining hall! Food is such a communal activity; I am really excited about this, I can’t even tell you. The professor will give each table a discussion question or two that will set up the conversation for the day, and when we have guest lecturers, they will eat with us too.

But anyway, all that to say– the theme of the course is “Scientific Literacy: The Gap Between What Science Establishes and What People Believe.” First semester we will be reading Origin of Species, a book everyone has heard and often talk about of but few have read, and second semester we will focus on the topic of Climate Change. During our first event together as we tackled the issues of the compatibility of the Bible with science was to watch the movie, The Genesis Code. The movie tackles the issue of the age of the earth more than evolution, but the issues are related of course. I came in with hardly any expectations… and yet, they were all dismally disappointed by how incredibly horrible the movie was.

The movie has a tacky plot in which a womanizing hockey player falls in love with a “chaste” Christian girl who’s doing a report on him for the school newspaper. She’s quite possibly the worst reporter in the world, however, because she lets him convince her that there needs to be some empathy between the reporter and the subject, which was pretty much just an excuse for him to ask her about her love life. She said she broke up with her boyfriend, and when he asked why, she said it was because she “wouldn’t give him what he wanted.” “You mean you’re…” he shockingly replied. “I believe the word you’re looking for is ‘chaste.’” She wittily said. Except… despite the writers’ obvious attempt to make her seem hip, the jokes just fell flat every time.

What was really disappointing besides for the bad acting and the bad writing (not to mention to horrendous special effects), was the overall plot. It really felt like they said, “Okay, we want to have this 6 minute section in which we show how the Bible and science are compatible… what plot can we throw it into?” and the plot they decided on was the way overdone, Christian girl meets atheist boy and falls in love with him. Why is it never that the Christian boy falls in love with the atheist girl? And if the girl was so “chaste,” why was it that the Twilight lookalike always had a seductive look, no matter what she was saying? (She would either be biting her lip or licking them slowly. You’d think someone would have caught that). Apparently, despite being chaste, she had no problem being a tease, until she found out his mom was dying, that is. I have to admit I felt a little bad for him at that point, but really the odd flashbacks and special effects (i.e., floating heads while he was in class) made me chuckle despite my initial empathy.

Their romance hit a wall when he declared that he couldn’t believe in the whole “Genesis” thing. And since science had proved that the earth took billions of years to form, and Genesis said it took only 6 days, Genesis was wrong. And if the beginning of a book was wrong, then why would one want to believe the whole thing? A legitimate concern, but if the filmakers really wanted to convince me of their theory, a documentary would have been so much better. Instead, they had the main girl’s brother (a crazy kid that in the filmmaker’s attempt to make him “realistic” really just made him creepy– characters in a movie have to be at least a little unbelievable for us to be able to understand them. We’ve expected a certain type of character presentation on the screen, and if you try to make it too realistic, it just gets weird). But anyway, the brother is a physics major with a few of his other friends, and finally about an hour and a half into the two hour movie we see him give his “findings” after his sister suggests an idea to him. Her “ah-ha!” moment was as if they were trying to tap into the Da Vinci Code… hence the title, “The Genesis Code.” She pieced together all these seemingly unrelated clues to throw together a theory.

The theory basically was this: certain things affect time dilation: speed, gravity, and space. So for example, if Ender goes travelling in space (haha they didn’t use Ender, but go with it), time will pass for him at a different rate than those on earth because of the effect of gravity. I don’t really know how to explain the other two affects. But since God would not have been on earth when he created the world, and would have been unaffected by gravity and speed and such, time for him would have passed much quicker than it did on earth. So 1 day for him would have been millions/ billions/ trillions of years…. I didn’t really fully understand it. But again, like I said, if the information had been presented in a documentary, I would have taken it more seriously, but considering they had all these bizarre characters and their weird dialogue making the whole thing laughable, I wasn’t impressed.

I found out afterward that the film was promoting a real theory by Gerald Schroeder which he talks about in The Science of God. But even Christians don’t necessarily buy the theory, something about the dates being wrong. If you want more information about that, leave a comment and I’ll try to get someone who is more into physics to explain it better on the comment thread.

Oh, and on a sidenote, there were two subplots that were randomly thrown in and had nothing to do with the whole movie, i.e., that the guy wouldn’t date her because he didn’t believe in Genesis (so the time dilation theory was to help the Christian girl land the guy). The first one makes a little bit of sense– the guy’s mom is dying, and so part of his frustration with God was that he didn’t answer prayers because when he was a kid his dad died in a crevice in Alaska despite the prayers he and his mother offered every night. So now that his mom is dying, he is troubled and not quite the womanizing guy everyone thinks he is. But then when he sees the “proof” that science and the Bible can coexist, he decides maybe prayer can be a helpful things, so he gets together with his hockey buddies and prays in front of them (why he has to pray with them, I don’t know. There was a weird undertone of masculinity in the film– like they emphasize that the girl’s dad is a pastor who likes football, shooting guns and lifting weights for no real reason. I guess to try and show that Christianity isn’t feminine. Yay Mark Driscoll).  But his prayer just comes out of nowhere and he strangely has a very articulate prayers to God saying that he knows he isn’t praying right, that he’s not supposed to just come when he needs something… but the thing is, he does want something. He wants God to somehow make it clear to his mom that he didn’t mean what he said when he found out his dad had died. He apparently angrily told her  that his dad had gone to Alaska because his mom wanted them to have more money….  (yeah, I know– SOO out of the blue), and so it was her fault that he had died. He was probably like 8, by the way. Of course his mom knew the truth!

But, then, just as he’s kissing the girl for the first time (on Calvin’s bridge!– much of the movie was filmed at Calvin, but oddly Calvin’s name wasn’t mentioned in the credits…. hmm, I wonder why….), the pastor and some other people show up to tell him that his mom has taken a turn for the worse in the hospital. (Btw, during his prayer at the hockey rink I leaned over the guy next to me and whispered, if she gets better, I’m going to be so mad!) But anyway, he goes, and he has this weird flashback moment when he reaches the doctor, the weirdest in the whole movie, before the doctor finally says… “oh no, no, no, that’s not what I meant!” Apparently the mom had gotten better, making me totally lose any remaining shred of respect I had for the movie. So he told her, “Mom, I didn’t mean what I said” and she said, “Of course you didn’t!” and looked at the new girl he had brought into her hospital room. And then, I don’t remember what happened after that, nothing much I’m sure, since the whole movie was pretty much disastrous.

So, in summary— bad acting, bad dialogue and plot, bad special effects, odd theory poorly presented… but, I will say this– the girl’s hair looked great in every scene, so gotta give props to the hair stylist at least.