from Woody to Wes

The following strikes me as a tenable proposition:

Woody Allen was the master of the "deep but funny" film. His early and best works (Manhattan, Crimes and Misdemeanors, Annie Hall, Hannah and her Sisters) were profound meditations on the human condition, spiked of course with his trademark humor which made the pill of profundity easy to swallow.

Allen's later career however took a turn away from the Jacoboian moral struggle found in his earlier work. In retrospect, I can't help but speculate that he flirted with God, but allowed the Lord to go the way of Mia. Perhaps because of this, Allen seems eager to pass on the "deep but funny" baton which he carried so well, content with being merely funny (which he of course does quite well). I say this because in Anything Else Allen plays Dobel, a man who has allowed his neuroses to devolop into psychoses, yet with enough wit to martial the respect of a young writer (Jason Biggs) who seeks his advice. The message Dobel has for his mentee, and the message he seems to have for all of us is this:

"I, Woody Allen, am not to be followed if 'life-lessons' is what your after. In fact, I may be even a little crazy. Seek wisdom elsewhere."

Now granted it's risky to plumb any given work of fiction or film and see one particular character as being the "voice of the writer," but it's not impossible, especially when certain signals are given, as they have been before. For example, in Husbands and Wives, Woody and Mia played a couple whose relationship was falling apart while Woody's character fell in love with a twenty-something - a scenario almost exactly mirroring reality in the Allen love-life at that time. So if Woody is showing his cards in Anything Else (as I suspect), at least it wouldn't be the first time.

But if this forfeit has occured, who then can inherit the mantle of the film both witty and wise?
Continue...

There have been many attempts:

Zack Braff's Garden State and Russel/Baena's (cowritten) I Heart Huckabees are in their own ways on the "deep" side, yet both are hurt by plotlines built around the "blame your parents" school of maturation. Because of this we'll have to wait on these writers a bit before we get something on par with the early Allen.

Alexander Payne is quite the screenplay writer, as evidenced by the bittersweet quality of About Schmidt and Sideways. But because both were originally novels, we can't give Payne the "writer-director" credit he would need to match Woody. (Incidentally, wouldn't it have been nice for Sideways, a movie with the twin themes of need for companionship and love of wine, to have ended with the Eucharist? Oh well.)

Paul Thomas Anderson's Punch Drunk Love and Magnolia are definitely contenders. His films are gut-punch good, but hit a bit hard and suffer for it. Without the humor, they lack the buoyancy of Allen's work... but we're definitely getting warmer.

Sofia Coppola's understated Lost in Translation is very close to the mark, but with so few writer-directorships under her belt, as with Zack Braff, it's too early too tell.

Where then is the young filmaker concocting that perfect heavy/humorous blend with the same consistency as did the young Woody Allen? We need look no further than to Wes Anderson.

From Bottle Rocket to The Life Aquatic we've had four tenderly written and exquisitely executed pieces of work that summon both laughter and empathy with scenarios just beyond the scope of probability. Somehow this guy is getting it right.

That being said, rumor has it that Woody is back in his stride with Match Point. We'll see.

Resurrection 20/20

Not unlike the recent PBS documentary on Freud and C.S. Lewis, ABC's 20/20 "documentary" on the resurrection (or at least on what people think about it today) turned out to be, in my opinion, a balanced presentation of both sides of an issue. Ten points for ABC. Except after the cheap shot ending to Alias last night, they're back to zero.

But in order to summarize some recent thought on the resurrection that showed up on the program, I'd like to offer a one question quiz. Don't forget to study!

1. The resurrection of Jesus Christ was...

A. not historical
B. historical
C. more than historical
D. both B. and C.

Now, the answers: (I would have posted them upside-down but most computers are stationary.)

If you answered A, chances are you're not a Christian. It might then surprise you that many have tried to answer A while maintaining their profession of Christian faith. This is a hard thing to do. Nevertheless, such persons enjoyed much influence in centuries past, were very intelligent, and there were very many of them. In fact, some of them are even still alive! But if they didn't succeed in reinventing Christianity, it is quite likely that their remaining representatives today won't either. Especially since John Updike did them in with one of his better poems. Be assured then that those who answered A need not fear being saddled with the label "Christian." Should you wish to engage those who have been, please keep reading.

If you answered B, you most likely consider yourself a Christian, likely one who has forged his or her position in opposition to those who answered A but still wanted to be designated "Christian." Well, there aren't not too many of them around anymore, so your battle is for the mostpart over. However, you are (perhaps unwittingly) the subject of recent critiques. Some think that you're "old fashioned" because your faith is tied to a conspicuously "modern" conception of the "demonstrable historical event." Your critics however really do have a point, so please don't make the mistake of thinking they're the A people that you're used to. I hope if you'll keep reading you'll be convinced to change your answer.

If you answered C, you're theologically fashionable enough to realize that an utterly unique event such as the resurrection of God incarnate can't be quantified in a neatly "historical" way just as can, say, the death of George Washington. Because of this, perhaps you find those who answered B old fashioned, but still, those people do have a point. Perhaps if you keep reading, you'll be convinced to change your answer.

If you answered D, well done. You're aware of the important critique of "modern" apologetics which can be unnecessarily tied to "Enlightenment epistemologies." Yet you realize that just because the resurrection is not merely historical, this doesn't mean it's not historical. It's both/and. It happened at a certain time in a certain place, but at the same time transcended time and place. You've understood that in the desire to correct "old-school Evangelicals" by answering C, one can too easily fall back into A, or at least be perceived to be doing so by those who don't have the time to sort through the issue. You know that Christianity properly understood does the job of fulfilling the natural order and only then surpassinig it. The resurrection is not ahistorical, it's not merely historical, nor is it superhistorical - instead it's transhistorical as evidenced by the resurrected Christ who could do both this and this. Therefore defenses of the resurrection are of course insufficient to establish Christian faith, but nor are they a complete waste of time. Congratulations, you passed the test - welcome to the mystery. For extra credit please go convince those who answered A, B or C.

Good luck -you'll need it. You're liable to be labelled "irrational" by both A and B, or too rational by C. But keep trying. Carravagio may help.

I've lived in this town for three years and just now figured out where Einstein's house is.

Fortunately the house isn't as big of a deal as the ideas, which the Teaching Company has delivered on once again, for free.

millinew

Indeed "thou shalt not covet they neighbor's template," but even so there are times when one just needs to upgrade. Hope you like it.

Thanks to eris free for the free(!) design along with a relatively understandable tutorial on how to get it to kick in.

UPDATE millinew is now millinewer - thanks to eris for the free structure, but to my brilliant wife for the customizations that made it unique. Take note: The couple that learns HTML together stays together.

Graduation

What a weekend.

Friday: A baccelaurate service in which Professor Blount told the graduating class of Seminarians to "pick a fight."

Saturday: A graduation ceremony in which President Torrance told us, in effect, not to.

Of course, they're both right. Trick is to know when to follow Dr. Blount, and when Dr. Torrance.

Wouldn't it be nice if there was someone who could help us decide?

Sunday: How convenient that the answer came the next day when Bishop Councell confirmed the Confirmation class at All Saints' Church.

Councell explained that Pentecost is one of the "big three" feasts of the year, but is too often eclipsed by Christmas and Easter, just as the Holy Spirit can be eclipsed by Father and Son in our perception of the Trinity. He urged us all to avoid the "American idols" of affluence, appearane and achievement, and to instead take the dangerous risk of living a Spirit-empowered life.

So yes, pick fights. And yes, avoid them. But attempting either without the Spirit whom we celebrated yesterday will translate into either arrogance or cowardice.

It's a fitting parable: The quandry one is placed in by the Academy (Friday and Saturday) is solved by the Church (Sunday).

Anyway, now that I have a degree whose unfortunate title implies that divinity can in fact be mastered, allow me to assure you that it cannot, for

"'Knowledge of God' is an oxymoron as long as we understand it strictly along the lines of 'knowledge of something as acquired according to the universal standards of knowledge'" (p. 45 of this fantastic book).

The next degree won't be nearly as churchy. Please stay tuned for changes in millinerd.com in times to come. It may even be a whole new site. Who knows? I'll see what the executive staff comes up with, and will be sure to let you know.

MoPA

Who wants to pay $20 plus to go to the new MoMA (pronounced as "moema" for those in the know), when you can go to the MoBIA for free?

They just opened, and seeing how much they have to draw from, the MoBIA could turn out to be amazing... or simply a missed opportunity. We shall see.

And because Art based around a specific belief community is much more appropriately postmodern than the attempt to house all the best modern art (which often mocks such communities) under one roof - might I suggest calling it the MoPA?

the liberal dream pope

Benedict may not be ideal, but can't one still dream? I would have liked a non-authoritatiran Pope who didn't just hammer away at the diversity within Catholicism, but let it flourish. Someone who would have said something like this:

Catholicism in fact can never be merely institutionally and academically planned and managed, but appears ever again as a gift, as a spiritual vitality. And it in the process also has the gift of diversity. There is no uniformity among Catholics.... The treasury of faith provides many dwelling places within the one house. And we should preserve this dynamic openness.

Nowadays, particularly among the most modern representatives of Catholicism, there is a tendency toward uniformity. Whatever is alive and new, anything that does not conform to the academic outlines or to the decisions of commissions or synods, is regarded with suspicion and is excluded as being reactionary... I believe that a great deal of tolerance is required within the Church, that the diversity of paths is something in accordance with the breadth of Catholicity - and that one ought not simply reject it, even when it is something contrary to one's own taste.... tolerance is in order, accepting the breadth of Catholicism.

A Pope like that could have really changed things.

I would have liked a Pope in office who when asked point blank by a reporter if non-Catholic Christians should return to the Catholic Church would have responded something like this:

The formula that the great ecumenists have invented is that we go forward together. It's not a matter of our wanting to achieve certain processes of integration, but we hope that the Lord will awaken people's faith everywhere in such a way that it overflows from one to the other, and the one Church is there. As Catholics, we are persuaded that the basic shape of this one Church is given us in the Catholic Church, but that she is moving toward the future and will allow herself to be educated by the Lord. In that sense we do not picture for ourselves any particular model of integration, but simply look to march on in faith under the leadership of the Lord - who knows the way. And in whom we trust.

Man, a Pope like that could have really done a lot for Church unity.

Oh wait, my mistake. That was all Ratzinger. Every last word. God and the World (pages 452-453 and 455-456).

The Scarlet "U"

Below are some extended thoughts on pluralism, framed as an engagement with one its most articulate advocates, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks. Responding, I think, to Samule P. Huntington's The Clash of Civilizations as well as 9/11, Sacks wrote The Dignity of Difference in 2002. He calls a plea for "tolerance in an age of extremism." I commented on the book briefly before, this time will be anything but brief.

Continue...
The Good Stuff
There's a lot to like about the book. For example, its appreciation/critique of globalization is persuasive. "Morality," Sacks reminds us,

"belongs no less in the boardroom than the bedroom, in the market-place as much as in a house of prayer."

No argument there. McDonald's is no perfect company (yes, that was an understatement), but before we boycott Ronald we should recall that

"No two countries who have a McDonald's have ever fought a war against one another"

(minus the NATO campaign in Kosovo that is, but the point I think stands). Trade is good. War is bad. We should promote the virtues necessary for the first and not the second. In other words, the future may present us with a choice between trade or war with China. I pick trade.

The book discusses theology as much as economics. And in doing so it does not capitulate to relativism (as a cheeseball title like Dignity of Difference might lead one to believe). How could one call the book "relativist" when for Sacks, "the human project is inescapably a moral project"? How could the book be dismissed as another vacuous plea for ambivalence masked as "tolerance," when Sacks insists "something far stronger than toleration is required" in order for us to survive?

Here is Sacks' recipe for the postmodern world:

"Absent religious faith, add the failure of the 'Enlightenment project' to create a universal ethic, and the result is moral relativism - a way of thinking (or rather, refusing to think) about life choices that may be suited to a consumer culture, but one that is wholly inadequate... to the challenge of assertive ethinicities and exclusive belief systems."

Rather than accepting the recipe, Sacks insists on the missing ingredient of religious faith. Though the Enlightenment predicted that religion's

"public roles was at an end... The strange fact was, however, that religion refused to die. What has emerged is, in George Weigel's phrase, the 'desecularization of the world.'"

In other words, the lunar eclipse is over, and what do you know, the sun was there all along. Contrary to the claims of generations of European intelligentsia, God is not going away. Religion is back (even though it never really left). And therefore, as Sacks puts it, the book is a "a theological basis for respect for difference, based not on relativism but on the concept of covenant."

And so, deeply respectful of religion, he then sets out to give us religious folks a lesson in successful twenty-first century planetary cohabitation. But he does so by establishing a, shall we say, "New Covenant" with all world beliefs.

The Not-So-Good-Stuff
"The paths to salvation are many," the Rabbi explains.

"There are multiple universes of wisdom, each capturing something of the radiance of being and drefracting it into the lives of its followers, not refuting or excluding the others, each as it were the native language of its followers, but combining in a hymn of glory to the creator."

If the religions of the world therefore can just accept this idea (an idea which is arguably itself a religion) then there is hope.

Sacks' motivations are of course laudable. He doesn't want us to kill each other. Good for him. But here is his means of avoidance: God, Sacks writes,

"has given us the means to save us from ourselves... we are not wrong to dream, wish and work for a better world."

At such points the book, in my estimation, tends to degenerate into a well documented and sophisticated version of Can't we all just get along?

Despite my disagreements however I still can call Sacks' argument successful, because he is Jewish. He writes, "The God of the Israelites is the God of all mankind, but the demands made of the Israelites are not asked of all mankind." This is true enough. He concludes, "There is no equivalent in Judaism to the doctrine that extra ecclesiam non est salus, outside the Church there is no salvation."

Ah but you see, I'm not "in Judaism" (unless you count graftings, but more on that below).

The Christian Problem
What happens when the religion you profess is founded upon the fact that it is for everyone, as Judaism is not and Christianity very much is. In fact, one could make the case that the universal character of the Christian faith is the point of the New Testament (or at least of Luke, Acts, Galatians and Romans). Scholars often refer to the "sociological miracle" of the first century that resulted when the tribalized Roman world found unity in diversity in one new social body - the Church. The diversity that Sacks is seeking on a global scale may be contained by design within the Christian faith.

This ideal has of course often failed to be realized. But I don't see how anyone could convincingly argue that it's not in the charter.

Allow me to quote an earlier post of mine (such vanity that one):

"A Christian cannot follow suit [with Sacks' book], unless of course the charge to 'baptise all nations' actually reads 'baptize some nations' or the promise that 'every tongue shall confess and every knee shall bow' actually reads 'some tongues and some knees' or the assurance that 'Christ shall be all in all' actually reads 'Christ shall be some in some."

I can therefore read Sacks' book, learn from it, and strongly recommend it as a thoughtful perspective on globalization from a man both deeply intelligent and religious. But the very universal insistence that there can be no universal is a part I can't sign on to. Nor can a good Muslim. Nor can a good Marxist. And Christianity names itself among these as a universal religion with a truth to be offered to everyone.

The Jerk Problem
Granted, Christians with whom I share this conviction are unnecessarily abrasive in the way they share it, not to metion their bundling up lots of "extras" with the universal message that are by no means universal. This is a stategic disaster, amplified by the fact that these are the Christians repeatedly called for interviews on CNN. The desire to distance oneself from such rhetoric may be a reason why Sacks' rhetoric is so alluring. Who wants to be one of those jerks who thinks their way is the only one? To an extent then I think The Dignity of Difference could potentially provide the service of cooling off some hot-heads. But that being said, bathwater is bathwater. In this case the baby is the conviction that Jesus Christ is for everyone. Only one of them needs to go.

If however, the cooling off of a hot-head leads to a burning out (as can often be the case), then what are we Christians good for? I think gentle Jesus had some thoughts on that. Or, if you prefer, here's an earlier version of the saying, which concludes with a helpful admonition to not be a jerk: "Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with on another" (Mark 9:50).

Enter the Trinity...
Fortunately the role of a Christian in the twenty-first century doesn't have to just be a "no" to unchecked pluralism. In fact, the easiest way to lose the battle would be to think we've "won" if we stopped with that. Christians have the much more exciting task of unpacking just what kind of "universal" this is.

Sacks says that "Unity in heaven creates diversity on earth." But a Christian does not believe in mere unity in heaven, but a diversity in heaven (the Trinty) that, strangely, can creates a unity on earth.

Sacks is concerned that we make space for one another in our dialogue, and this is of course a genuine concern. So much so that even God has followed Sacks' advice. Explains one theologian,

"If letting-be belongs to the nature of infinite [that is, God's] freedom - the Father lets the Son be consubstantial God, and so forth - there is no danger of finite freedom [that is, human freedom], which cannot fulfill itself on its own account... becoming alienated from itself in the realm of the Infinite."

More of the same can be found here. If within the Trinity itself God has already permitted a diversity amidst Father, Son and Spirit - then there is no risk in humanity losing our distinctions (individually or even nationally) by participating in the life of this kind of God. To put it elsewise, if the "Absolute" is in itself diversified, then the postmodern prejudice against "Absolute Truth" has no beef with the Trinity.

The Trinitarian understanding of God is not that God is so "free" that he has to flex his infinite, absolute freedom leading to a Jean Paul Sartre's infuriated protest. God's freedom is well beyond the kind of smothering "divine" liberty that the existentialists abhorred. God is so free in fact that he can even give the different persons within his Godhead freedom - so free that he can even give his own creatures freedom to rebel against him. He is free enough to give them the choice to accept, or not accept his reconciling love.

Similarly, the Trinitarian understanding of God is not that God is so "powerful" that he has to flex his infinite, absolute power so mightily that it would threaten Nietzsche enough to have to compete - God is well more powerful than that. God has no need to be "macho" (which usually a sign of weakness anyway). Instead God is so powerful that he can become a creature among his creatures, allowing himself to be tried and condemned as a criminal before in a gesture of suffering love.

Such is the "freedom" and "power" of the Trinity. So free and powerful it can be bound helplessly to a cross. One might suggest a concept of God like that can afford to be universal.

Furthermore, the Trinity has a bizarre ability to appropriate.

Father: The transcedent greatness so beautifully expressed by the Platonists and Stoics, not to mention the holiness and demand for obedience of Islam is contained withing the majesty and mercy of the Father. Furthermore, the infinite nature of God is certainly large enough to swallow Buddhism's nirvanna, while personalizing it at the same time. It is not by accident that Christian and Buddhist monks have much in common.

Son: The particular historical engagement of God's dealings that Judaism emphasizes so well is of course preserved (and fulfilled) in this very Jewish Savior. Also, the anthropomorphic inisigts of Paganism are, not abandoned, but both cleansed and dignified in the Incarnation - which is not myth however, but fact.

Holy Spirit: It's not that Pantheism or Hinduism are without significant insights into the nature of God. But in the Perons of the Spirit the legitimate insights of God's presence (not indentity) in all of nature, and his infilling (not possession) of the believer are not only corrected but fulfilled.

One again, a God-concept like this can afford to be universal. And one should have enough confidence in it that there's no need to be a jerk in presentation. The Trinity: It sells itself!

What this doesn't mean

1. This doesn't mean Christians have God figured out (unless you can explain the Trinity to me). Nor do we have the whole story. We have the clue to the whole story.

2. This doesn't mean you'll find a "Gone Crusadin'" sign on my door. (But that being said, I found this review of interest.)

3. This doesn't mean I insufficiently understand the postmodern critique. I like the postmodern critique, and simply think the Trinity survives it. Proclaming omnipotence-crucified strikes me as the best way to combat Lyotard's legitimate fear of "totalizing power." Deconstruction: Not too threatening to followers of a God who already deconstructed himself. Shouldn't concepts of God that don't end up in suffering love summon the pomo-police before this one does?

4. This doesn't mean that a Christian knows who's "going to heaven" and who's "going to hell." We are continually told that there will be a lot of surprises about that. Perhaps the people who should be most worried in fact are Christians. But still, the very universal message must go out.

5. This doesn't mean that I'm presenting one particular church as the chief representative of the universal way of Jesus Christ. Both Catholics and Orthodox Christians make that claim, I am not doing that here. For better or for worse, I'm Protestant.

6. This doesn't mean I'm anti-Semitic. Supercessionists are regretfully uninformed of a mystery. The next verse even reads "All Israel will be saved" (11:26)!

Confession
So there you have it. I'm a Universalist. I wonder, does this kind of faith, with the above qualifications made, still fail the Sacks' test? This is, as I understand it, Chrisitianity packaged without the sodium reduction. Should it be taken off the shelves? Is it a threat to a balanced cultural diet?

I hate to sound like a reactionary, but sometimes it seems an
Adulterer would have an easier time than a Universalist nowadays. So if you've read the novel I guess the only question left is whether the "U" goes on one's shirt or one's skin.