The Passion

For me, it didn't lead to anti-Semitism. The central Jew of the movie came off too well for that. But it did lead to another "anti-ism." To use that old-time religion language, I was convicted. I don't think I would have been one of those people who endured with Jesus to the end. I'm too worldly, too fleshly... and that needs to change. In short, there's been an outbreak of anti-millinerdism thanks to Mel Gibson's film.

Man... With thoughts like that you'd think it was Lent or something.

And by the way, coming to you as I do from Seminary-land, I couldn't help smile at this review.

Dear millinerd...

So Dave asks a fine question in comments below that millinerd would like to take a crack at:

"What is scripted in "God's plan" or God's will? A lot of people in their 20's talk about finding or knowing these things; and are also keen on attributing specific events in their life as being part of God's plan. Is this Reformation kind of thinking that is taken to it's logical conclusion in Calvinism? Wesley would say we have more control/freedom over the events of our life?"

The short, cliche response: Live like a Wesleyan and believe like a Calvinist.

The short, original response: The answer to the question, "Does got have a specific calling for my life, or does he want me to choose a path myself?" is "Yes."

The really long response:

Let's start with literature's approach to the problem. Ancient lit. is generally determinist in its outlook. For example when in Homer's Odyssey, Odysseus ("No-man") blinds the Cyclops, the Cyclops laments that this was prophesied by a soothsayer long ago and there was nothing he could have done about it. Or take the Oedipus myth, where the fate of Oedipus' ruin was determined from the start.

On the other extreme, Modern lit. emphasized free will, complete human autonomy apart from the gods, or God's designs. The de-Christianized existentialism of Jean Paul Sartre I suppose would be an example. Life is meaningless, but one must nobly choose path into the void nonetheless. (Incidently, don't let Kierkegaard know - the founder of existentialism would be furious that his movement was taken out of it's Christian context and sold to philosophy 101 students God-free). But the point is... Ancient lit. stresses determinism/ Modern lit. stresses free-will... but which is true? This is the age old paradox that the Western philosophical tradition could never figure out... and now that that tradition has been hacked to pieces by Foucault, perhaps never will.

ENTER THE BIBLE: The Bible however stands in between these two traditions. In it there is a tension between God's "providential" plan, and human automomy. Take for example, Genesis: There is a delicate balance between narrative and geneology in the Pentateuch. The narrative part is where human decision and freedom is taken into account, but the part we all like to skip over for good reason, the long geneologies, are the "drumbeat" of God's providence that provides the background to the story.

And it's not just the Old Testament where this paradox is evident. How does one make sense of, for example, this passage in the New Testament:

"Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure." - Phillipians 2:12-13

The answer is of course that you don't make "sense" of the passage... how do we know "sense" as we understand it is an ally? Instead you let both God's working and ours to be true at the same time. (Or just dismiss the passage as absurd, which many do.) But the best New Testament example is Paul in Romans 9-11 where he wrestles through this very question in regard to Israel... and does not come to an "answer"... instead the logical frustration transfigures into praise... (spec. in Rom. 11:33-36). He wrestles with the question, and having maxed out the logical route - he moves from the realm of theology and into doxology. The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein is said to have remarked of such passages that if he doesn't understand them, it's not Paul's fault but Wittgenstein's. He was humble enough to admit he simply wasn't on the level of a mystic like Paul, rather than dismissing the passage as "contradictory." Perhaps he, like Paul, understood that reason is overrated. That being said, it's not that Christianity is illogical, it's translogical. It simply maxes logic out. That's why no one can be "explained" into the faith.

ENTER CHALCEDON: Just like, as the Council of Chalcedon decreed in the year 541 that Christ is 100% human and 100% divine even though our minds can't comprehend it; so also is the Christian journey 100% God's work and 100% ours, even though we can't figure that out exactly. It's a mystery... not a puzzle. A puzzle you can figure out. A mystery won't allow that. It instead figures you out.

This crazy guy named Clive Staples was right when he said as proof of Christianity being true is in its complexity...

"If Christianity was something we were making up, of course we could make it easier. But it is not. We cannot compete, in simplicity, with people who are inventing religions. . . . anyone can be simple if he has no facts to bother about." (Mere Christianity p.145)

Cults are simple... thus their seductive appeal. Christianity is complicated... moreso than Homer and Sartre, and so it should be.

In the great cocktail of American Christianity, where all the European variations were mixed in - the "Wesleyan" and "Reformed" traditions have got caught on the opposite end of this complexity. Wesleyans, or Arminians (with lots of good company in the Catholic tradition) emphasized free will and Sanctification (our part in the Christian life); whereas the Reformed, or Calvinist tradition emphasized determinism and Justification (God's part)... these differences play out on every town square with the corresponding Methodist and Presbyterian Churches.. (But they have their roots in the Arminian controversy in Post-Reformation Europe.) The whole Openness theology debate (yawn...) that's going on right now is simply one more time around this well worn track of American Christianity. Those who believe both in the Bible and (whether they know it or not) in the vestiges of the Common Sense Realism that this country was founded upon will debate these mysteries ad nauseum because there is ample Scriptural proofs for both sides.. and both sides won't ever "logically" fit.

ENTER BARTH: But why should we run it again? Notice how the greatest 20th Cent. Protestant theologian, Karl Barth, tries to solve the impasse:

"When we speak of justification and sanctification, we have to do with two diifferent aspects of the one event of salvation. The distinction between them has its basis in the fact that we have in this even two genuinely different moments. That Jesus Christ is true God and true man in one person does not mean that His true deity and His true humanity are one and the same, or that the one is interchangeoable with the other. (Church Dogmatics IVii p. 503)

There Barth uses the proceedings from the Council of Chalcedon regarding the nature of Christ to "figure out" a problem very similar to free-will/determinism question, the justification/sanctification dilemma. Sure the 2=1 math of Chalcedon could be considered an an oxymoron... but oxymoron literally means a "wise foolishness..." it's not necessarily a bad thing. Barth uses Chalcedon as his key because he thinks that nothing in the Christian life can be figured out apart from Christ. And if Chalcedon rightly shows Christ to be a mystery... perhaps much in the Christian life is as well. But a definable mystery, not a foggy one. The elements involved are not the mystery (God's nature and human nature in Christ/ God's will and our will in the Christian life)... it's how they are united that is a mystery. And by the way, it's not that Karl Barth is some kind of isolated original... he simply read earlier theologians and started to think like the church did long before reason's modern reign which put Christianity into such a tangle.

ENTER US: Applying this to the lives of those in our 20's, I suppose the trick is to enjoy and engage the mystery. Many of us have learned to do some serious second guessing when ourselves or someone else has a clear insight into "God's will" in a given situation... and rightfully so. Sure miraculous prophecies do happen, but rarely, and even less rarely can they be relied upon... but they can happen. Yet should the prophecy not come, it's a process of applying wisdom and insight of oneself and others to the hilt (our 100%), and mixing that wisdom and insight with serious, specific prayer (God's 100%). This is difficult... especially when our paths are so unclear... But it's a lot more fun than having your cult leader tell you that's God told him your calling in life is to make the Kool-Aid.

I'm sure you'll agree that nothing says "Lent" better than a prolonged investigation of a magnificent 12th Century Altarpiece - one of, perhaps the best one in existence:

Using this fantastic link, I highly recommend you give some of the panels a few clicks. As explained in the dedication, it arranges the entire Bible typologically - top row is "before the law" (Adam-Moses), bottom row is "under the law" (Moses-Christ) and the middle row which illuminates the top and bottom is "under grace" (Jesus, etc.). You'll get the hang of it. And next time you're in Klosterneuburg, Austria you can check it out in person.

Other cities fill their rioting needs through the usual method of their teams actually winning national championships. For obvious reasons Philadelphia had to develop an alternative tradition: the Fat Tuesday riot on South Street. But it looks like there's gonna be a crackdown this year.

Here's a little number by millinerd and his friend.... It may be a little rough around the edges but we're new to the technology.

Context is everything

So what does one do when one discovers the striking parallels between Genesis 1 and 2's Creation Stories and the Mesopotamian Enuma Elish creation myth? Or when one realizes that the Flood story as it appears in Genesis 6-8 is extraordinarily similar to the Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic? The parallels are simply beyond dispute; And here are some possible reactions:

Reaction 1. Insist that these stories in fact copied the Bible, not the other way around. This move however is not only unnecessary, but highly unlikely.
Reaction 2. Commit the genetic fallacy, which is the mistaken assumption that discovering the origin of something means you can dismiss it.
Reaction 3. One could come to the conclusion that these early chapters of Genesis may in fact be a brilliant satirical play on the pagan literature of a surrounding culture, with a monotheistic punch line. For example: Our pagan neighbor's say there is a moon god, we say God made the moon... So hah! The Babylonians say that the gods caused the flood at their chaotic whim, we say God caused the flood due to grief over human sin.... So there! See those Ziggurat towers in Babylon - here's a playful jibe in the form of our tower of Babel story, etc., etc....

These notions actually check out - If we all had the chance to take Akkadian and Hebrew, the linguistic puns would be obvious.

In long, read this. But in short:
Reaction 1 = An unfortunate head-in-sand recourse.
Reaction 2 = Tenured Religious Studies professor at a University near you, and his/her students who don't know better.
Reaction 3 = The smarties.

UPDATE: Here's yet another dose of contextual illumination: Babylonian accounts contemporary to the writing of Genesis list two kings who lived 64,800 years, and ten who lived for 432,000 years. So? This may illuminate why the patriarchs are said to have lived so long (Adam through Noah lived 700-1000 years). It could be a jibe at those Babylonian accounts - suggesting a more humble estimation of humankind. So basically, early Genesis may be a case of really good satire. Which makes The Simpsons utterly Biblical.

Women of the Dark Ages

If for the sole purpose of casting doubt upon the popular lie that modern women can only find true fulfillment outside "organized religion" which has always suppressed the feminine - here is another Medieval woman quote from one of Hildegard of Bingen's visions:

"Flow with mystical learning, so that those who want you to be scorned because of the guilt of Eve may be inundated by the flood of your refreshment! For you do not receive this keenness of insight from man, but from that supernal and awesome judge on high" (from p.325 of this)

Did I mention that all her visions were approved by the Pope of her time, and that she had quite an influence upon him? Perhaps, as a professor here has suggested, we should continue to insist that people of the early Medieval era lived in the "Dark Ages"- a darkness due to our ignorance, not theirs.

a nod to the Flaming Lips

Never mind that the lead singer often lapses into Kermit the frog voice - this band still comes highly recommended. Specifically the Yoshimi vs. The Pink Robots album.

Sure I only learned about them when they sold out and played for a commercial (don't let my college-self know) - but with less time to stay ahead of what's cool, I have to let the cool come to me.

In a very avant garde gesture, they let you listen to the entire album FO' FREE. On Yoshimi, track 9 is their "famous" one, but I really like tracks 3 and 5... (Kermit voice can be found in track 5).

UPDATE: Now I'm all about track 6.

Community Dreadwatch

Seeing that the job is just not being done, I must take up Community Dreadwatch duty, where dreadlock stereotyping will be reported and dealt with.

Though contemporary abuses are on the wane, I am not at ease. Looking back, the Summer of 2003 was a flirt with disaster... but came out neutral - for the horrendous Matrix 2 dreads:

were cancelled out by the acceptable Johnnie Depp dreads:

In the future we may not be so lucky... Please report any negative dreadlock portrayals directly to millinerd.

millinerd vs. baptized nihilism

Yes there are some good aspects of postmodernity, but for the bad - here's a little more pomo detoxing:

"much of so-called postmodernity is simply a nihilistic intensification of the modern project. The claim to be at the end of all master narratives may simply be a covert way of liberarting the self from any claims upon it."

This from a fantastic essay by theologian Frederick Baurschmidt.

He goes on to explain that theologians entranced by the postmodern (i.e. the hyper-modern narrative of self-emancipation), have a peculiar way of doing theology. For them...

"the Christian story can no longer be understood or presented as the world's true story; it is at best simply the story that Christians tell about the world, and which they cannot impose upon the world or even preach to the world in the hope that the world might turn and be converted. Such theologians point to the contemporary awareness and tacit acceptance of religious pluralism as creating a new situation in which notions as the necessity of Christ for salvation or the Church as the locus of grace are simply incredible and should be abandoned. Indeed, they must be abandoned, for they inevitable wage war against the Other... In this version of postmodern theology the Church's task is to bring the Reign of God, now glossed as the modern project of emancipation, to its completion."

Yup, that pretty much explains it. Fortunately however there are some much more fruitful and creative ways to do theology, such as Radical Orthodoxy (or as I like to call it Neo-neo-Platonism), which is competantly introduced and perhaps too harshly assessed here.

Speaking of icons... in just one swift scroll down, you can experience a year in the life of an American Orthodox Christian... light incense for best results.

I have been shocked to discover than ancient Christians were not as holy as I had thought. Simply click and scroll down on any of these ancient Russian icons to discover their secret sin.

Go Team Dread! Our kind made the New York Times Magazine.

As the proud driver of a Ford Focus, I'll have you know that Princes William and Harry were featured driving one on Fabulous Lives.

Our commonalities stopped there.

Old School mouse-operated DJ simulation in effect.

Lenlowland has spurred some reflection on the career of one Nicholas Cage. Anyone who has seen Adaptation (where he plays twins) now knows the secret. Hollywood wants us to think it was "camera tricks" that did the twin thing. But the truth is there really are TWO Nicholas Cages.

One of them did Raising Arizona, Leaving Las Vegas, Adaptation, etc.

The other one did Face/Off, City of Angels, Con Air, Family Man, Windtalkers, etc.

The first is trained as a professional actor. The second is not.

women's lib

So I've been reading some controversial feminist writing from that radical decade that finally achieved women's liberation, the 60's! - Specifically '67. Here's an excerpt:

"Know this most certainly, that a woman who does not avoid the protection of men will destroy either herself or another."

This written by an abbess to Radegund, a new monastic recruit in 567A.D.

A woman entering a Medieval monastary would be free from the extreme dangers of childbirth, would learn to read and write Latin, was expected to have all 150 Psalms memorized, was in general completely free from male control, and would often have serious political and social influence.

Rediscovering these Medieval women is a hot topic in academia right now (thus the class I'm taking on the subject), and the best of it is available in one volume.

It used to be that one-man-bands had to look like this:

No more! My friend and colleague Mike, from the comfort of his apartment, played guitar, bass, percussion, and banjo for this song that he wrote (he also sung lead vocal and harmonies). It was for our class on Hebrews, so maybe you can catch some of the words of that epistle in the lyrics. Mike would prefer that someone else sang - but then he wouldn't have qualified as a one-man-band - and, I think you'll agree, it's a pretty good band.