http://www.facebook.com/pages/Let-Constance-Take-Her-Girlfriend-to-Prom/357686784817?ref=mf
This is the link to the ACLU page of a girl who wanted to go to the prom. With her girlfriend. In a tux. In Mississippi. Her fatal mistake was ASKING PERMISSION!! Which from personal experience I have learned it's just best to do what you want and apologize later since the answer is probably going to be an unreasonable N O no matter how far in the right you are. I decided to post this even though I read of at least 3 or 4 civil rights violations a month because it reminded me of something similar that I myself have experienced (only less severe) while at point loma. Constance is a high school senior who wanted to go to the prom with her girlfriend... a very normal thing for a high school senior/lesbian to want. What’s the big deal This needs no freaking out or gasping. Girl just wants to get her hair did and have a night on the town with someone special to her and go to that dance that we all look forward to at that age and remember for the rest of our lives (well not me, I never went to prom, but all of everyone else hahahahah)! So she decides to be polite give the principle of that prestigious institution a heads up about her girlfriend coming and con permisio of the school administrators they would simply go together for a nice night; she in a tux and she in a dress. She didn't ask to film a gay porn on the dance floor. She didn't ask to tackle other women and make out with them. She asked to have a nice night with her lady friend. So the school says no because surprise surprise, the great progressive and forward thinking state of Mississippi seemed to take issue with a pair of girls lezzing out on their twice lacquered rented dance floors from the partyshack usa in the strip-mall next to the pizza joint. So Constance does what anyone would do in her spot and thats shine a light in the sky and shadow puppet someone being discriminated against and BOOOOM the ACLU shows up like Adam West and Burt fucken Ward and basically waved their finger at the school that they are violating this girl's constitutional rights by not allowing her go to the prom (they filed no lawsuit but simply informed through a strongly written letter). The school says fine. Then the school says, prom... CANCELLED. No more prom, to the lament of their students, because of Constance. "That's right school full of angry pubescent tweens who wanted to get it on but now can't. Y'all got c--- blocked because of that girl over there, so direct all of your tweeny tweeny anger at her." (its a paraphrase in progress). So they name the girl, they cancel the prom, the whole school is PISSED at Constance, and basically shifted all of the blame and pressure and aggression and hate from the administration onto her by her peers, and the school's parting little nugget was that "they hope some private group could host the prom for their students." Because, of course, a private group wouldn't have to give a flying rats ass about Constance-the-prom-destroy
er and they could allow or block anyone from attending, such as a lesbian who wants to bring her girlfriend and wear a tux. So now this whole mess is in the court system and the ACLU has gone into full swing to stop the injustice at Hickville Mississippi because of course this is all about letting a big ole scary lesbian come to prom and not "educational distractions" which was the school's official reason for coincidentally canceling the prom right after the ACLU told them they are violating the constitution.
It reminds me about this one time my Junior year at Point Loma when everyone used the TV to watch movies. Most of these movies were rated R. Most of them had violence, sex, nudity, drug use, and profanity; you know, the things that get a movie the rated R status. And pretty much everyone used the TV in the common room because it had tons of couches so all your friends could hang out and the snack store was like 3 feet away so you had direct access to munchies. It was very popular. So one evening on a particularly slow night up at the snack area I ask an RA if he wanted to watch Brokeback Mountain (which will go down on the list of the top 25 westerns of all time as number 13 maybe). The RD gets wind of this and says absolutely not. When I asked why he said because there is gay sex in the movie (there isn't) and that nudity isn't allowed at the box (area with the snacks and tv and couches and shit). So I asked him if he saw the movie. he said no. Then I asked him how he knows there is gay sex in the movie since he hadn't seen it. He said it was really controversial. I informed him that I had seen it and there is no gay sex in Brokeback Mountain. There is a tent scene where you see them get started but seriously. There is no gay sex scene in Brokeback Mountain. So he says the movie is still REALLY controversial and there should be no controversial movies in the box. He also said that it is rated R and he won't allow it (even though he had been letting everyone else watch their dumb action sex flicks all year). That night he sent a letter to the dean of students and asked if his actions were uncouth. The dean replied that they could not discriminate based on movie politics because that is a form of real discrimination but they could raise the MPAA standard. So magically and totally coincidentally, right after I tried to watch brokeback mountain and faced light discrimination the MPAA standards changed and a new sign appeared below the TV saying "no rated R movies" word got around, and people were mad for about a week I think before midterms showed up to screw us all in the ass. Does this compare to Constance's struggle? not really. But the similar rhetoric and reasoning and shifting just reminded me of my time at loma and how formulaic the tactics of delaying social progress are.
Constance should go to the prom and I should go watch Brokeback Mountain in the common area. But I'm lazy and I've already graduated so I prolly won't.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6292187n&tag=api%20
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Conspiracies Theories and the Illiterate
In 2003 a best selling novel, second in a series, titled: The Da Vinci Code was released to the masses in a chart-topping feat of literature. I was in high school. Now, it probably wouldn’t surprise anyone to know that I was never the most popular guy at the time. I was pretty quiet and when I made any noise at all it was only to get attention from those around me. But for the most part I seemed to fall into the background of whatever crowd I was in. Youth group was one such place. And while I didn’t seem to find my voice until college, even being in the background of the action, I still noticed and had a watcful part in the climate around me; namely, the disappearance of a young man without provocation or incident.
In the summer of 2004 I was set to ship off to Point Loma to take part in a program where I would be made into “college material.” Before leaving I found that red headed young man and asked him the most obvious question anyone would have asked:
“Where did you go?”
“I don’t go to church anymore.” He answered
“Why don’t you go to church anymore?”
“Because I read the Da Vinci Code.” he replied.
“You mean the fictional novel?”
“It may be fictional but Dan Brown says at the beginning that he based the book on history”
Not the most advanced dialogue I have ever had but I was perplexed nonetheless. What could this book contain that so thoroughly debunked Christianity for him? I put The Da Vinci Code out of my mind until the spring semester of 2006 came around when a movie trailer for The Da Vinci code was released on apple announcing the live action cover of Dan Brown’s bestseller. The church FLIPPED. Being an art major at the time, I knew my art history prof, Eugene Harris, had made a killing before the release of the blockbuster movie. He had gone on a speaking tour at churches all over southern California debunking The Da Vinci Code by pulling from his encyclopedic knowledge of the artist himself and outlining the film’s discrepancies. The movie was released summer of 2006 and grossed hundreds of millions to the protest of the American evangelical church.
A year later I finally watched the movie which was trumped up as the greatest media threat to the church in years. To my utter surprise I realized the movie was literally nothing more than a really really really good movie. I went and confronted my professor who held fast to his belief that the movie was denouncing Christianity and promoting paganism. To no avail, he repeated that Dan Brown wrote in his forward that the book is based on historical events and, therefore, was debunking Christianity through twisting history. I was left to watch, during department chapel, as my professor gave his 30-minute stump speech against the Dan Brown novel turned film to the entire art department. The charged words Eugine used to describe Dan Brown’s personal character still rang in my ears as I ate my dinner that afternoon. The second major ideological encounter I had had in my life over this fictional work left me wondering, again, “why?”.
Last night my mom and I were watching TV and we came across the Da Vinci Code on TNT and I asked her if she had seen it. She had never heard of it. I was floored. The movie, which held a place of such controversy, had never even wandered into her field of vision before!
I told her about the whole controversy surrounding it and how I thought the public had drastically misunderstood the intention of the writer. It told her about Eugene Harris’ speaking tour. I told her about the church flipping out and staging protests and denouncing filmmakers and the writer (some condemning them to hell). I told her of the young man who left the church after reading the novel. Nothing. She hadn’t heard of any of it. So I asked her if she wanted to watch as I point out the implicit point of the movie. She did and I did.
The beginning of the movie starts with a classic literary Marken sandwich in which the main character is giving a monologue while the catalyst for the adventure is taking place. The Dr. in symbology Robert Langdon is speaking to an audience on the study of symbols and how they both have been distorted over time and define our lives. He concludes his speech by posing a question: “How do we find truth through the layers of historical distortion?” The church mistakenly interpreted this movie as a treatise against faith. It read the movie as an illiterate. Dr. Langdon meets a young and beautiful cryptologist named Sophie. As they adventure together to find the secrets of Da Vinci he is revisited by the pain and trauma of his past. Sophie works to calm him down by employing a technique that her mother had done for her just before her parents died. In effect she enters into pain and suffering to alleviate the suffering of the Dr. She assumes a messianic role suffering on his behalf.
Eventually they meet a self-described cripple who is a conspiracy theorist with a PhD. A man who goes by a clandestine code name “teacher.” Now Dan Brown is very intentional about the imagery he chooses (since his book is circling around symbolism). This “teacher” who is a cripple paints the church’s history in a very different light than it is normally discussed in. In his description the teacher talks about the Gnostic gospels as being suppressed by the church. Dan Brown’s overall outline of church history was correct. However, Brown fails to accurately describe the Gnostic gospels. Brown has the teacher describe them as works that deny Jesus’ divinity. In actuality, the Gnostics, for the most part, deny Jesus’ personhood. They deny Jesus’ body.
The cripple is ultimately exposed as the teacher who has been feeding the church information so that he can play them to their own demise. He was using the church to set a group of guardians (who are keeping track of Jesus’ bloodline) into motion. By guiding the church the teacher was really causing them to accidentally expose the identity of the heir of Christ and thus destroying the violent church that he saw proceeding from her history. In essence, he was trying to unearth the truth from the depths of historical distortion to free people from faith. The cripple’s physical handicap reflects Browns portrayal of his inner handicap.
Now Sophie and Dr. Langdon are being chased by both the Roman Catholic Church and the French police. They hide in a darkened French park, a place of sin where people seem to go to indulge in their vices. They find a man about to indulge the heroine crack pipe. They pay him for his belongings so they can utilize his lighter and he leaves while they find their next clue. The Catholic Church, which is partially being manipulated to it’s own demise by the teacher, is also motivated by the prospect of being able to cover up it’s grave sin. The church is represented in this movie by a bishop and a monk which share a connection in their past by the monk’s sin and guilt. The bishop’s pardoning of the monk exacerbates this motif by employing him to repeat the church’s historical sins. The monk is sent out to do the bishop’s bidding by assassinating the priori guardians.
Now Dan Brown had been using male female imagery all along in this movie. The male imagery, or the blade, represents the church of Peter that isn’t the true church; the female imagery, or the chalice/holy-grail, represents the true church that Christ descends through the bloodline. The monk (male) is confronted while destroying church property by a nun (female) who was originally ignorant of his sinister nature but becomes wise before her demise. This serves as a foreshadowing sub plot to illustrate the male church confronting the female church.
Dr. Langdon and Sophie discover the true identity of the cripple. He states his true intentions as he threatens them with their lives. While they both believe in the truth of the grail they do not agree on the necessity of it’s downfall (an important point the American church missed when watching this movie). Langdon bests the cripple mentally and the teacher is sent to jail. Langdon and Sophie come to find that she is the last heir of Christ. They have no physical proof of this since they never found the grail. But they are aware of the bloodline, which is proof enough for them. Before Sophie is whisked away to meet her new family they share a moment of reflection about faith and the importance of faith. She asks him what he would do if he were the embodiment of the case against the church. Dr. Langdon goes into a monologue about the importance of faith. He notes that while Sophie can perform no miracles there’s a chance that the man in the park may never touch a crack pipe again; and ever since he first met here he doesn’t experience panic at being in confined places anymore. He expounds upon the idea that the historical truth isn’t really relevant when someone is recovering from drug addictions. Faith seems to help people cope with loss or helps them recover from addiction which is, indeed, a good thing.
The movie ends with Robert Langdon realizing in a moment of FAITH that he knows where the grail is hidden. He finds the final resting place of the grail in the Louvre. He NEVER gets to see the grail, but kneels at the spot in FAITH.
The American church didn’t understand this movie at all. The American church did dialogue math. In dialogue math, if a character makes a negative statement more than once about the church, the movie (in this equation) is anti-Christian. Since this movie had a lot of anti Christian statements made by the villain the movie went from being anti-Christian to being a threat to the church. Because of their illiteracy they missed the much more crucial and nuanced point that the movie was trying to make. A point that was actually, in a certain way, pro-Christian. In fact, I’m surprised that the church didn’t realize that the majority of extreme anti-Christian lines were given to the villain! The church was illiterate and because of its ignorance it’s actions and repercussions of those actions were extreme. I’m reminded of my art professor who went on grand speaking tours and how he characterize Dan Brown as such an evil man. All because he was illiterate. I’m also reminded of the young man who used to go to my youth group. Someone who thought that the story was based on real historical facts. Someone who didn’t pay attention either the fact that the book was a work of fiction, nor did he pay attention to the fact that the book was taking a pro-Christian stance. This because he also was illiterate.
Plato once said the greatest statement of wisdom is to admit ones own ignorance. A large number of people didn’t take their own ignorance, their illiteracy, into account. Because of this a pretty harmless book and movie was exacerbated into a cultural event with far more efficacy than it ever would have been otherwise. Now I don’t really agree with the point this movie was trying to make but I wonder what effect this movie would have had on people’s lives if people had treated this as nothing more than a fun summer blockbuster. I also wonder what events lie in our future because of similar cultural illiteracy.
In the summer of 2004 I was set to ship off to Point Loma to take part in a program where I would be made into “college material.” Before leaving I found that red headed young man and asked him the most obvious question anyone would have asked:
“Where did you go?”
“I don’t go to church anymore.” He answered
“Why don’t you go to church anymore?”
“Because I read the Da Vinci Code.” he replied.
“You mean the fictional novel?”
“It may be fictional but Dan Brown says at the beginning that he based the book on history”
Not the most advanced dialogue I have ever had but I was perplexed nonetheless. What could this book contain that so thoroughly debunked Christianity for him? I put The Da Vinci Code out of my mind until the spring semester of 2006 came around when a movie trailer for The Da Vinci code was released on apple announcing the live action cover of Dan Brown’s bestseller. The church FLIPPED. Being an art major at the time, I knew my art history prof, Eugene Harris, had made a killing before the release of the blockbuster movie. He had gone on a speaking tour at churches all over southern California debunking The Da Vinci Code by pulling from his encyclopedic knowledge of the artist himself and outlining the film’s discrepancies. The movie was released summer of 2006 and grossed hundreds of millions to the protest of the American evangelical church.
A year later I finally watched the movie which was trumped up as the greatest media threat to the church in years. To my utter surprise I realized the movie was literally nothing more than a really really really good movie. I went and confronted my professor who held fast to his belief that the movie was denouncing Christianity and promoting paganism. To no avail, he repeated that Dan Brown wrote in his forward that the book is based on historical events and, therefore, was debunking Christianity through twisting history. I was left to watch, during department chapel, as my professor gave his 30-minute stump speech against the Dan Brown novel turned film to the entire art department. The charged words Eugine used to describe Dan Brown’s personal character still rang in my ears as I ate my dinner that afternoon. The second major ideological encounter I had had in my life over this fictional work left me wondering, again, “why?”.
Last night my mom and I were watching TV and we came across the Da Vinci Code on TNT and I asked her if she had seen it. She had never heard of it. I was floored. The movie, which held a place of such controversy, had never even wandered into her field of vision before!
I told her about the whole controversy surrounding it and how I thought the public had drastically misunderstood the intention of the writer. It told her about Eugene Harris’ speaking tour. I told her about the church flipping out and staging protests and denouncing filmmakers and the writer (some condemning them to hell). I told her of the young man who left the church after reading the novel. Nothing. She hadn’t heard of any of it. So I asked her if she wanted to watch as I point out the implicit point of the movie. She did and I did.
The beginning of the movie starts with a classic literary Marken sandwich in which the main character is giving a monologue while the catalyst for the adventure is taking place. The Dr. in symbology Robert Langdon is speaking to an audience on the study of symbols and how they both have been distorted over time and define our lives. He concludes his speech by posing a question: “How do we find truth through the layers of historical distortion?” The church mistakenly interpreted this movie as a treatise against faith. It read the movie as an illiterate. Dr. Langdon meets a young and beautiful cryptologist named Sophie. As they adventure together to find the secrets of Da Vinci he is revisited by the pain and trauma of his past. Sophie works to calm him down by employing a technique that her mother had done for her just before her parents died. In effect she enters into pain and suffering to alleviate the suffering of the Dr. She assumes a messianic role suffering on his behalf.
Eventually they meet a self-described cripple who is a conspiracy theorist with a PhD. A man who goes by a clandestine code name “teacher.” Now Dan Brown is very intentional about the imagery he chooses (since his book is circling around symbolism). This “teacher” who is a cripple paints the church’s history in a very different light than it is normally discussed in. In his description the teacher talks about the Gnostic gospels as being suppressed by the church. Dan Brown’s overall outline of church history was correct. However, Brown fails to accurately describe the Gnostic gospels. Brown has the teacher describe them as works that deny Jesus’ divinity. In actuality, the Gnostics, for the most part, deny Jesus’ personhood. They deny Jesus’ body.
The cripple is ultimately exposed as the teacher who has been feeding the church information so that he can play them to their own demise. He was using the church to set a group of guardians (who are keeping track of Jesus’ bloodline) into motion. By guiding the church the teacher was really causing them to accidentally expose the identity of the heir of Christ and thus destroying the violent church that he saw proceeding from her history. In essence, he was trying to unearth the truth from the depths of historical distortion to free people from faith. The cripple’s physical handicap reflects Browns portrayal of his inner handicap.
Now Sophie and Dr. Langdon are being chased by both the Roman Catholic Church and the French police. They hide in a darkened French park, a place of sin where people seem to go to indulge in their vices. They find a man about to indulge the heroine crack pipe. They pay him for his belongings so they can utilize his lighter and he leaves while they find their next clue. The Catholic Church, which is partially being manipulated to it’s own demise by the teacher, is also motivated by the prospect of being able to cover up it’s grave sin. The church is represented in this movie by a bishop and a monk which share a connection in their past by the monk’s sin and guilt. The bishop’s pardoning of the monk exacerbates this motif by employing him to repeat the church’s historical sins. The monk is sent out to do the bishop’s bidding by assassinating the priori guardians.
Now Dan Brown had been using male female imagery all along in this movie. The male imagery, or the blade, represents the church of Peter that isn’t the true church; the female imagery, or the chalice/holy-grail, represents the true church that Christ descends through the bloodline. The monk (male) is confronted while destroying church property by a nun (female) who was originally ignorant of his sinister nature but becomes wise before her demise. This serves as a foreshadowing sub plot to illustrate the male church confronting the female church.
Dr. Langdon and Sophie discover the true identity of the cripple. He states his true intentions as he threatens them with their lives. While they both believe in the truth of the grail they do not agree on the necessity of it’s downfall (an important point the American church missed when watching this movie). Langdon bests the cripple mentally and the teacher is sent to jail. Langdon and Sophie come to find that she is the last heir of Christ. They have no physical proof of this since they never found the grail. But they are aware of the bloodline, which is proof enough for them. Before Sophie is whisked away to meet her new family they share a moment of reflection about faith and the importance of faith. She asks him what he would do if he were the embodiment of the case against the church. Dr. Langdon goes into a monologue about the importance of faith. He notes that while Sophie can perform no miracles there’s a chance that the man in the park may never touch a crack pipe again; and ever since he first met here he doesn’t experience panic at being in confined places anymore. He expounds upon the idea that the historical truth isn’t really relevant when someone is recovering from drug addictions. Faith seems to help people cope with loss or helps them recover from addiction which is, indeed, a good thing.
The movie ends with Robert Langdon realizing in a moment of FAITH that he knows where the grail is hidden. He finds the final resting place of the grail in the Louvre. He NEVER gets to see the grail, but kneels at the spot in FAITH.
The American church didn’t understand this movie at all. The American church did dialogue math. In dialogue math, if a character makes a negative statement more than once about the church, the movie (in this equation) is anti-Christian. Since this movie had a lot of anti Christian statements made by the villain the movie went from being anti-Christian to being a threat to the church. Because of their illiteracy they missed the much more crucial and nuanced point that the movie was trying to make. A point that was actually, in a certain way, pro-Christian. In fact, I’m surprised that the church didn’t realize that the majority of extreme anti-Christian lines were given to the villain! The church was illiterate and because of its ignorance it’s actions and repercussions of those actions were extreme. I’m reminded of my art professor who went on grand speaking tours and how he characterize Dan Brown as such an evil man. All because he was illiterate. I’m also reminded of the young man who used to go to my youth group. Someone who thought that the story was based on real historical facts. Someone who didn’t pay attention either the fact that the book was a work of fiction, nor did he pay attention to the fact that the book was taking a pro-Christian stance. This because he also was illiterate.
Plato once said the greatest statement of wisdom is to admit ones own ignorance. A large number of people didn’t take their own ignorance, their illiteracy, into account. Because of this a pretty harmless book and movie was exacerbated into a cultural event with far more efficacy than it ever would have been otherwise. Now I don’t really agree with the point this movie was trying to make but I wonder what effect this movie would have had on people’s lives if people had treated this as nothing more than a fun summer blockbuster. I also wonder what events lie in our future because of similar cultural illiteracy.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
New Nicea: Embracing Conjecture.
Historically the church has undergone tumultuous battles with competing theological movements. The Gnostics Christians (and the individual communities which had different Gnostic gospels as their rallying point), Marcionist Christians, Arian Christians, Origenistic Christians, et al., are all fine examples of this point. In fact, one of my college professors made the point that we have the anachronistic temptation to read Christianity as originally having a generally synonymous theological milieu the ancient churches.
This would stand in stark contrast to the “fallen” foes of Christianity. While this same professor does go on to argue against the early church’s utilization of apostolic succession as a mean for maintaining power over her parishioners, one can see through examination of the socioeconomic class of these foes (the Gnostics for instance) that the messianic affinity and extremely high Christologies serve as a means to claim the status of Christian while disembarking from the normal responsibilities that Christians undertook. Just harass John Wright for two minutes on Thomas and the Gnostic Christians; I am sure you could get a nice lecture on the matter.
The Christians took on creeds and doctrines as polemic to counteract these perceived Christian foes even though the schismatic nature of their own theology was still, to a relevant degree, extant. The Johanine, Petrine, Jamesian, and Pauline Christians seemed to win out over the other Christians at the conversion of Constantine because of the dialogue that took place between these schools. While there was at least some hostility there also seemed to be a considerable exchange of ideas. Theoretically, surmised this professor, this would seem to suggest that after the death of Jesus Christ there was not a significant amount of stable theology that had developed by the church (though technically they would still be Jews at this point in time). The death of Jesus Christ would be a theologically EXPLOSIVE event of contemplation, extrapolation, and shear conjecture.
But as the foes of the church mounted theological arms the battle of the thinkers began (the biblical codification of which is seen most explicitly in the John’s writings in the NT). But the problem that this poses for me is stated thusly: if the theological formations were codified based on a large degree of conjecture to combat Christianity’s foes instead of empirically visible data that the church was exposed to, what are the implications for the modern church which has expanded upon these ideas/doctrines/creeds in much more broad strokes.
For instance, The Nicean creed has its trinity listed in each of the component parts. However, like the earliest Christian thought it doesn’t elaborate very much at all upon the Holy Spirit except to acknowledge it’s existence. In fact, one could even make a good historical case for a period of time in the earliest stages of church thought where there is only Binitarian ontology instead of Trinitarian ontology. One could argue that Trinitarian thought is one thing that progressed as an interpolation of the accounts in the early apostolic writings. But whatever one thinks about the earliest Christian ideas of the Holy Spirit, One has to at least concede that that part of the trinity was grossly un developed when the Nicean creed was settled. Subsequently, the council of Constantinople was convened in 381 and purposely didn’t call delegates from the Eastern Church. At this council the famous theological word “Filioque” was employed meaning “and from the son” in which they pretty much waved the biggest theological middle finger in the history of the church at the eastern Christians, to say nothing of the fact that the Holy Spirit was, historically, a theologically dubious concept to begin with. This reigned in the infamous distain the eastern and western churches held for each other and still do. To this day they both cling to their altered version of the original creed and their mutual distain for each other.
All this to say, a huge schism still lay within the church catholic based upon an age old conflict that was predicated upon a probable interpolation to begin with. Furthermore, the schism has grown through the expansion of the theological doctrines of each church. As I look at this trend of the continual fragmentation of the church I can foresee a second trend that is heading on an intersecting trajectory. The modern world is quickly loosing it’s interest in the Christian church because of it’s lack of realistic answers or even utter relevance to modern issues.
A great instance of this is the plight of women in America. A theological summation is made by “Paul” in 1 Timothy 2:11 about women’s role in the church based upon a semi- accurate recounting of the events in the first chapters in genesis. Since then the church on a whole has taken on a very sexist stance towards women. Society at large is increasingly finding this kind of sexism unacceptable. Now the church has rebutted in a variety of ways. Frequently it employs hermeneutics to try to cut the legs out from under “paul.” But what if Christians were to admit that significant extrapolation and interpolation had taken place that was already predicated upon significant conjecture in the first place? Well then they would have to admit that other theological conclusions and expansions that they have drawn upon Genesis were based on conjecture as well! And wouldn’t it be disastrous for everyone involved if we had to admit when we don’t know something for sure?! We wouldn’t be able to chastise each other for doctrinal differences, which were never meant to criticize our own in the first place!
Stanley Hauerwas made an important point in unleashing scripture: just as important for Christianity was the protestant revolution’s distribution of bibles to take power out of the hands of the magistrate, is now equally important to take those bibles back. Just as important for the survival of Christianity against her wealthy elitist foes was the formation of the creeds and doctrines, is redacting those that have an extreme historical likelihood of being expanded upon conjecture. The livelihood of the church may depend on it.
This would stand in stark contrast to the “fallen” foes of Christianity. While this same professor does go on to argue against the early church’s utilization of apostolic succession as a mean for maintaining power over her parishioners, one can see through examination of the socioeconomic class of these foes (the Gnostics for instance) that the messianic affinity and extremely high Christologies serve as a means to claim the status of Christian while disembarking from the normal responsibilities that Christians undertook. Just harass John Wright for two minutes on Thomas and the Gnostic Christians; I am sure you could get a nice lecture on the matter.
The Christians took on creeds and doctrines as polemic to counteract these perceived Christian foes even though the schismatic nature of their own theology was still, to a relevant degree, extant. The Johanine, Petrine, Jamesian, and Pauline Christians seemed to win out over the other Christians at the conversion of Constantine because of the dialogue that took place between these schools. While there was at least some hostility there also seemed to be a considerable exchange of ideas. Theoretically, surmised this professor, this would seem to suggest that after the death of Jesus Christ there was not a significant amount of stable theology that had developed by the church (though technically they would still be Jews at this point in time). The death of Jesus Christ would be a theologically EXPLOSIVE event of contemplation, extrapolation, and shear conjecture.
But as the foes of the church mounted theological arms the battle of the thinkers began (the biblical codification of which is seen most explicitly in the John’s writings in the NT). But the problem that this poses for me is stated thusly: if the theological formations were codified based on a large degree of conjecture to combat Christianity’s foes instead of empirically visible data that the church was exposed to, what are the implications for the modern church which has expanded upon these ideas/doctrines/creeds in much more broad strokes.
For instance, The Nicean creed has its trinity listed in each of the component parts. However, like the earliest Christian thought it doesn’t elaborate very much at all upon the Holy Spirit except to acknowledge it’s existence. In fact, one could even make a good historical case for a period of time in the earliest stages of church thought where there is only Binitarian ontology instead of Trinitarian ontology. One could argue that Trinitarian thought is one thing that progressed as an interpolation of the accounts in the early apostolic writings. But whatever one thinks about the earliest Christian ideas of the Holy Spirit, One has to at least concede that that part of the trinity was grossly un developed when the Nicean creed was settled. Subsequently, the council of Constantinople was convened in 381 and purposely didn’t call delegates from the Eastern Church. At this council the famous theological word “Filioque” was employed meaning “and from the son” in which they pretty much waved the biggest theological middle finger in the history of the church at the eastern Christians, to say nothing of the fact that the Holy Spirit was, historically, a theologically dubious concept to begin with. This reigned in the infamous distain the eastern and western churches held for each other and still do. To this day they both cling to their altered version of the original creed and their mutual distain for each other.
All this to say, a huge schism still lay within the church catholic based upon an age old conflict that was predicated upon a probable interpolation to begin with. Furthermore, the schism has grown through the expansion of the theological doctrines of each church. As I look at this trend of the continual fragmentation of the church I can foresee a second trend that is heading on an intersecting trajectory. The modern world is quickly loosing it’s interest in the Christian church because of it’s lack of realistic answers or even utter relevance to modern issues.
A great instance of this is the plight of women in America. A theological summation is made by “Paul” in 1 Timothy 2:11 about women’s role in the church based upon a semi- accurate recounting of the events in the first chapters in genesis. Since then the church on a whole has taken on a very sexist stance towards women. Society at large is increasingly finding this kind of sexism unacceptable. Now the church has rebutted in a variety of ways. Frequently it employs hermeneutics to try to cut the legs out from under “paul.” But what if Christians were to admit that significant extrapolation and interpolation had taken place that was already predicated upon significant conjecture in the first place? Well then they would have to admit that other theological conclusions and expansions that they have drawn upon Genesis were based on conjecture as well! And wouldn’t it be disastrous for everyone involved if we had to admit when we don’t know something for sure?! We wouldn’t be able to chastise each other for doctrinal differences, which were never meant to criticize our own in the first place!
Stanley Hauerwas made an important point in unleashing scripture: just as important for Christianity was the protestant revolution’s distribution of bibles to take power out of the hands of the magistrate, is now equally important to take those bibles back. Just as important for the survival of Christianity against her wealthy elitist foes was the formation of the creeds and doctrines, is redacting those that have an extreme historical likelihood of being expanded upon conjecture. The livelihood of the church may depend on it.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Modern Christian Ethics, a Social Darwinism?
A year ago I had a conversation with my uncle Scott Hubbard, who is a pastor, about the direction (dare I say progression?) of the modern church on issues surrounding the lives of homosexuals. I proposed something then that I still stand by, that the church’s ethical stance is completely irrelevant because it has given itself over to a Social Darwinism and therefore will run mostly parallel to society’s ethical demands.
The modern American church finds itself descended in many ways from the social gospel movement in which the church decidedly took it upon itself to “build” the kingdom of god. When one tasks one’s self with the premise that they are responsible for building the kingdom questions of pragmatic method become important; methods such as what kind of music genre is engendered in the worship segment, what kind of speaking style is used in the sermon, whether or not women are ordained, et al.
This Christian praxis accelerates coming into the 19th and 20th centuries, as consumer business practices become the model for building the modern mega church. The idea that is crystallized in George Barna’s Habits of Highly Effective Churches is that in which the consumer entertainment model is superimposed onto the message and practices of the church towards the end of "putting people in the pews".
But, when ideological content is stripped to capitulate to consumer demands while conversely being replaced by the entertainment value of music and theatrical speaking, consumerism becomes the end. It creates a Darwinian structure where churches live and die based on their ability meet the demands of consumers. Having up-to-date video, audio, lighting, and most importantly theatre, puts people in the pews. Furthermore, basic societal presuppositions become a factor for an individual who is “shopping” for a new church.
There are scarcely any churches remaining that support slavery. In fact the same can be said about churches that support segregation (unless you find yourself in the deep south). At some point in time society changed. Churches that didn’t change with it died off because consumers refused to buy the product. Pastors going to seminaries, in turn, shopped for those that aligned with their progressive values and eventually planted more progressive churches which exploded while their conservative counterparts atrophied. The same took place with the ordination of women. More and more churches recognize the ordination of women all the time. While this battle, for women, is not over its trajectory provides a vital clue for the church on current homosexual issues.
This belies the Darwinistic social structures that the church conforms itself to. Society is slowly but surely moving towards siding with Gays as it did with Blacks and Mexicans and Women. I believe very strongly that this will eventually force churches to either side with society or become an endangered species. Since the church has already relegated itself to conforming to consumer demands, I believe that the endgame will play itself out in two ways. Churches will either side with society and re-examine their stances on Gay issues or take a very hard line endorsing a public polemic and eventually collapse from a lack of support.
The crux of this issue that really put my uncle Scott into a state of trepidation was the fact that the church would change for reasons that had nothing to do with its moral fiber. And as I contemplate it, when I look at the church today which gladly accepts Blacks and Mexicans into their fold without reserve, it doesn’t make any kind of amends or even really acknowledge the church’s dirty past in race issues when it overwhelmingly supported segregation. To think eventually the church would open it’s arms to homosexuals while simultaneously (and conveniently) forgetting it’s past promulgating bigotry and hate towards homosexuals, leaves me with a stomach churning feeling. At which point I wonder whether I would even be able to stomach it's new found "progression" since it will not be a change from within but defeated from without.
The modern American church finds itself descended in many ways from the social gospel movement in which the church decidedly took it upon itself to “build” the kingdom of god. When one tasks one’s self with the premise that they are responsible for building the kingdom questions of pragmatic method become important; methods such as what kind of music genre is engendered in the worship segment, what kind of speaking style is used in the sermon, whether or not women are ordained, et al.
This Christian praxis accelerates coming into the 19th and 20th centuries, as consumer business practices become the model for building the modern mega church. The idea that is crystallized in George Barna’s Habits of Highly Effective Churches is that in which the consumer entertainment model is superimposed onto the message and practices of the church towards the end of "putting people in the pews".
But, when ideological content is stripped to capitulate to consumer demands while conversely being replaced by the entertainment value of music and theatrical speaking, consumerism becomes the end. It creates a Darwinian structure where churches live and die based on their ability meet the demands of consumers. Having up-to-date video, audio, lighting, and most importantly theatre, puts people in the pews. Furthermore, basic societal presuppositions become a factor for an individual who is “shopping” for a new church.
There are scarcely any churches remaining that support slavery. In fact the same can be said about churches that support segregation (unless you find yourself in the deep south). At some point in time society changed. Churches that didn’t change with it died off because consumers refused to buy the product. Pastors going to seminaries, in turn, shopped for those that aligned with their progressive values and eventually planted more progressive churches which exploded while their conservative counterparts atrophied. The same took place with the ordination of women. More and more churches recognize the ordination of women all the time. While this battle, for women, is not over its trajectory provides a vital clue for the church on current homosexual issues.
This belies the Darwinistic social structures that the church conforms itself to. Society is slowly but surely moving towards siding with Gays as it did with Blacks and Mexicans and Women. I believe very strongly that this will eventually force churches to either side with society or become an endangered species. Since the church has already relegated itself to conforming to consumer demands, I believe that the endgame will play itself out in two ways. Churches will either side with society and re-examine their stances on Gay issues or take a very hard line endorsing a public polemic and eventually collapse from a lack of support.
The crux of this issue that really put my uncle Scott into a state of trepidation was the fact that the church would change for reasons that had nothing to do with its moral fiber. And as I contemplate it, when I look at the church today which gladly accepts Blacks and Mexicans into their fold without reserve, it doesn’t make any kind of amends or even really acknowledge the church’s dirty past in race issues when it overwhelmingly supported segregation. To think eventually the church would open it’s arms to homosexuals while simultaneously (and conveniently) forgetting it’s past promulgating bigotry and hate towards homosexuals, leaves me with a stomach churning feeling. At which point I wonder whether I would even be able to stomach it's new found "progression" since it will not be a change from within but defeated from without.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Obama, Warren, and the Prop 8 Aftermath
There’s a lot of talk about the fact that Barack Obama has selected Rick Warren to deliver the inauguration address. This decision doesn’t surprise me much; although it is, as one activist put it, a kick in the gut to gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender people everywhere. Lets face it, with the official Democratic platform on Gay rights narrowing and the push in the Obama administration to grab the support of the, now, disenfranchised moral majority, what’s to stop him from making such a move? Could it be his support for Gay marriage? Oh wait a minute – his stance on gay marriage is the absence thereof.
The thing that’s really ironic about this whole situation is that the disparity between the perspectives is only spawned in their attempts to get each other to “understand.” You have the people on the right crying that the definition of marriage has been changed against the will of the people and legal recourse was taken to change that; which subsequently does not affect GLBT’s since it was never a civil rights issue. Conversely, the left believes it was a civil rights issue because the GLBT comunity is a form of minority and therefore equal treatment was denied utilizing legal processes that did not follow state prescribed procedures for creating constitutional amendments.
These fundamental assertions stem from a priori mantra on what it really means to be a homosexual i.e.: choice. Leaving the choice debate aside, it seems that all other debates of “what really happened” and “getting them to see the other side” should theoretically arrest at the fact that neither share the same a priori. At which point the discussion should be redacted to first address the intrinsic disparity in the a priory.
Obama’s inauguration pick isn’t the only thing that lies within the scope of attention for the GLBT community. The GLBT community has marched and is marching and while most have remained peaceful to the concerns of an ardent pacifist some have resorted to measures almost as extreme as the one exercised in the creation of a state proposition. Cause a slightly new debate to arise in which both sides claim to be “minorities” and victims by the hands of the other the “majority”. The Christian “minorities” must be referring to the centuries of being systematically burnt at the stake. Or maybe they are referring to being publicly defamed and dehumanized. Maybe they are referring to being moved from one room to another in fear and suspicion.
As a Pacifist (or really a Christian) I feel somewhat caught in the middle here. On the one hand I definitely sympathize with wanting to smash everything that has a cross on it; on the other I feel that resorting to violence means stooping to the very level of action that I would admonish. Well, in more ways than one, we will see how this pans out.
The thing that’s really ironic about this whole situation is that the disparity between the perspectives is only spawned in their attempts to get each other to “understand.” You have the people on the right crying that the definition of marriage has been changed against the will of the people and legal recourse was taken to change that; which subsequently does not affect GLBT’s since it was never a civil rights issue. Conversely, the left believes it was a civil rights issue because the GLBT comunity is a form of minority and therefore equal treatment was denied utilizing legal processes that did not follow state prescribed procedures for creating constitutional amendments.
These fundamental assertions stem from a priori mantra on what it really means to be a homosexual i.e.: choice. Leaving the choice debate aside, it seems that all other debates of “what really happened” and “getting them to see the other side” should theoretically arrest at the fact that neither share the same a priori. At which point the discussion should be redacted to first address the intrinsic disparity in the a priory.
Obama’s inauguration pick isn’t the only thing that lies within the scope of attention for the GLBT community. The GLBT community has marched and is marching and while most have remained peaceful to the concerns of an ardent pacifist some have resorted to measures almost as extreme as the one exercised in the creation of a state proposition. Cause a slightly new debate to arise in which both sides claim to be “minorities” and victims by the hands of the other the “majority”. The Christian “minorities” must be referring to the centuries of being systematically burnt at the stake. Or maybe they are referring to being publicly defamed and dehumanized. Maybe they are referring to being moved from one room to another in fear and suspicion.
As a Pacifist (or really a Christian) I feel somewhat caught in the middle here. On the one hand I definitely sympathize with wanting to smash everything that has a cross on it; on the other I feel that resorting to violence means stooping to the very level of action that I would admonish. Well, in more ways than one, we will see how this pans out.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Lexicon
Facebook has posted a new feature section. You can find it at: www.facebook.com/lexicon/
This is Facebook's attempt at taking a sample in quantity of every word that is used on its site for every day of the year. you can search any word and it will give you a graph for a whole year of how much that word has been used. so naturally I thought "Jesus."
The graph shows a peak on December 25 and a general high during the Christmas season; it also show a peak at about half the size of the first on the 23rd of march 08 (Easter) and a general high during the Easter season.
More interesting to observe on this than the highs, were the lows. My next thought was "Theology"
The three lowest spikes seem to be, again, in the Christmas season (with the 25th completely dropping off the chart); the Easter season with a smaller drop, November and thanksgiving, and the second lowest drop (next to Christmas) goes to July 4th! This basically means that the chatter on this site about Jesus peaks at a point where chatter about theology seems to drop off the charts, or holds steady when the conversation about theology dies. heheheheNow if your wondering about the state of the moral depravity of facebookers ok I also discovered that you can compare two words and apparently the lack of theology when discussing Jesus is a normal activity for Facebook.
This is of course not a formal study or a comprehensive sample. I just found it interesting and humorous. So if this ever becomes a chain email then you know where it was said first.
-Scott
This is of course not a formal study or a comprehensive sample. I just found it interesting and humorous. So if this ever becomes a chain email then you know where it was said first.-Scott
Monday, November 17, 2008
The Call 2
Well the election is over. The first African American President elect was welcomed by the tears of both adoring fans and McCain supporters. On the local stage, the ever-controversial Proposition 8 passed 52% to 48% reserving marriage strictly for any heterosexual couple that should want one. The passing of this measure took the statewide collaborative efforts of more than a hundred churches of considerable size and means with thousands of other smaller churches following closely in toe. This Sunday Miles McPherson, leader of The Rock mega church announced that a little over 40 million dollars had been raised through and around such venues as The Call, a gathering of tens of thousands of Christians in prayer and fasting for 24 hours, to help further the controversial proposition. This trumping the some 30 million raised by the opposition, he continued. So what now?
All I can say is I am extremely excited. I mean I voted no on Prop 8 and I’m frightened at what homosexual couples face in the wake of its passing. But when I think about it I just can’t wait for what’s next! Could you? Think about it, they were able to coordinate the funding of a 40 million dollar campaign. They were able to reserve the use of an entire sports stadium for a 24-hour period. Then they were able to utilize Television, Print, the Internet and various other communication mediums to gather people to that stadium and they kept it filled for the entire 24-hour period. So why am I excited? Because, if they were able to do all that to reverse a Supreme Court decision think of all they are sure to do for the real problems in the world!
Seriously, if they really spent 40 million dollars to keep Gays and Lesbians from entering into nuptial vows just think of how much money they have already raised to alleviate poverty in California. If they were able to rent the space in Qualcomm Stadium to house tens of thousands of people I’m sure they are gearing up to lease low cost housing for a couple thousand local homeless persons. If they were able to keep the very same legions of Christians praying for a 24 hour period I am certain that they are busy arranging the prayer vigil right now to take place in Qualcomm Stadium for those trapped in local sweat shops. I am just certain that those who are sick and cannot pay for their medical expenses are daily on the hearts and minds of those pastors and church leaders that prayed and fasted continually (some up to 40 full days) for the end of Gay marriage. I am most certain above anything else that after the vigil is over they are planning to go work and serve amongst the poor, naked, sick, widowed, and abused. As Christ said “whatever you did unto one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did unto me.”
Why in their infinite wisdom they chose to tackle homosexual rights first I do not know. Maybe it was a matter of expediency, but what I do know is that The Call 2 will be better backed with a bigger budget; better attended with greater support from more Churches statewide. How do I know this? Because if it is mitigated in the slightest; if this sequel never comes to fruition it means that the leaders and laypeople of these churches are inhumane on such a level that they care more about two men kissing than someone starving to death on the street. I simply refuse to think that such an evil exists. Again as Christ reminds: “whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.” So check your church bulletin next Sunday! Scan your TV for commercials! Google The Call 2! I have yet to find anything, but I have no doubt that it will happen.
All I can say is I am extremely excited. I mean I voted no on Prop 8 and I’m frightened at what homosexual couples face in the wake of its passing. But when I think about it I just can’t wait for what’s next! Could you? Think about it, they were able to coordinate the funding of a 40 million dollar campaign. They were able to reserve the use of an entire sports stadium for a 24-hour period. Then they were able to utilize Television, Print, the Internet and various other communication mediums to gather people to that stadium and they kept it filled for the entire 24-hour period. So why am I excited? Because, if they were able to do all that to reverse a Supreme Court decision think of all they are sure to do for the real problems in the world!
Seriously, if they really spent 40 million dollars to keep Gays and Lesbians from entering into nuptial vows just think of how much money they have already raised to alleviate poverty in California. If they were able to rent the space in Qualcomm Stadium to house tens of thousands of people I’m sure they are gearing up to lease low cost housing for a couple thousand local homeless persons. If they were able to keep the very same legions of Christians praying for a 24 hour period I am certain that they are busy arranging the prayer vigil right now to take place in Qualcomm Stadium for those trapped in local sweat shops. I am just certain that those who are sick and cannot pay for their medical expenses are daily on the hearts and minds of those pastors and church leaders that prayed and fasted continually (some up to 40 full days) for the end of Gay marriage. I am most certain above anything else that after the vigil is over they are planning to go work and serve amongst the poor, naked, sick, widowed, and abused. As Christ said “whatever you did unto one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did unto me.”
Why in their infinite wisdom they chose to tackle homosexual rights first I do not know. Maybe it was a matter of expediency, but what I do know is that The Call 2 will be better backed with a bigger budget; better attended with greater support from more Churches statewide. How do I know this? Because if it is mitigated in the slightest; if this sequel never comes to fruition it means that the leaders and laypeople of these churches are inhumane on such a level that they care more about two men kissing than someone starving to death on the street. I simply refuse to think that such an evil exists. Again as Christ reminds: “whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.” So check your church bulletin next Sunday! Scan your TV for commercials! Google The Call 2! I have yet to find anything, but I have no doubt that it will happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)