Glue

This week, Duncan and I started an art project (which we will fully document and blog about in the near future). For this project we needed glue to bind glass and other objects to wood. The day before we started this project was a hard day for me. It was one of those days where my emotions boiled over, everything seemed to have fallen apart and I could not imagine anything that could hold me together. It was one of those days when my body ached from holding stress and tension in every muscle, when a headache formed from dehydration caused by endless tears and bottomless cups of coffee. While holding the bottle of glue in the hardware store I thought that I could really use some glue in my life. I could really use some glue to put back together the pieces of my shattered identity, my broken heart and my God. Experience has broken these things down and all I need is some glue. I feel like Humpty Dumpty, irreparably damaged after a fall and abandoned. Like a cracked raw egg, my contents have been spilled, and are exposed without a shell. I can’t pick myself up. I am wondering where God is and what role he plays in brokenness and in healing because he and I seem to have different expectations.

I thought being in covenant with God looked something like this:

But as it turns out, it is more like this:

CYOA-Judges 11:30-34 Devastating

^29-31 God's Spirit came upon Jephthah. He went across Gilead and Manasseh, went through Mizpah of Gilead, and from there approached the Ammonites. Jephthah made a vow before God: "If you give me a clear victory over the Ammonites, then I'll give to God whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in one piece from among the Ammonites—I'll offer it up in a sacrificial burnt offering."

^32-33 Then Jephthah was off to fight the Ammonites. And God gave them to him. He beat them soundly, all the way from Aroer to the area around Minnith as far as Abel Keramim—twenty cities! A massacre! Ammonites brought to their knees by the People of Israel.
^34-35 Jephthah came home to Mizpah. His daughter ran from the house to welcome him home—dancing to tambourines! She was his only child. He had no son or daughter except her. When he realized who it was, he ripped his clothes, saying, "Ah, dearest daughter—I'm dirt. I'm despicable. My heart is torn to shreds. I made a vow to God and I can't take it back!"

Dwelling on this passage was an emotional experience for me – so much so that I quit writing and cried myself to sleep. In the message version, verse 35 reads, "Ah, dearest daughter—I'm dirt. I'm despicable. My heart is torn to shreds. I made a vow to God and I can't take it back!" I want to know where God was when Jephthah’s heart was being torn to shreds. Where is God when our feelings erupt and nothing can hold us together because that is when I want him most. That is when I want God to make good his promise of comfort. But where was he? On a mighty cloud ensuring that Jephthah held up his end of the vow. This passage states that the spirit of God was with Jephthah when he traveled over the land (v. 29). And that it was the Lord who delivered the Ammonites into his hand (v. 32). But where did God go in verses 34-40? Where is he when Jephthah’s daughter is lamenting? Where is he when the women of Israel lament this event? Why are feelings and emotion such a strong part of our being when they seem to be disregarded by God? So what if Jephthah’s vow was selfish, I don’t care about the circumstances or who did what, I care about God’s regard for emotional weakness and I found this passage devastating.

CYOA - To Deny or Explain?

Daughter of Jephthah

Judges 11
 ^29-31 God's Spirit came upon Jephthah. He went across Gilead and Manasseh, went through Mizpah of Gilead, and from there approached the Ammonites. Jephthah made a vow before God: "If you give me a clear victory over the Ammonites, then I'll give to God whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in one piece from among the Ammonites—I'll offer it up in a sacrificial burnt offering."

 ^32-33 Then Jephthah was off to fight the Ammonites. And God gave them to him. He beat them soundly, all the way from Aroer to the area around Minnith as far as Abel Keramim—twenty cities! A massacre! Ammonites brought to their knees by the People of Israel.

 ^34-35 Jephthah came home to Mizpah. His daughter ran from the house to welcome him home—dancing to tambourines! She was his only child. He had no son or daughter except her. When he realized who it was, he ripped his clothes, saying, "Ah, dearest daughter—I'm dirt. I'm despicable. My heart is torn to shreds. I made a vow to God and I can't take it back!"

This passage sucks because either you deny child sacrifice, which is good but are perceived to be hand waving or you don't and you have to deal with the ramifications of child sacrifice, which are horrific.

One angle I have heard is that this is a lesson against legalism and that Jephthah should have asked to be released from his vow... for which to some degree there are specifications for in Leviticus 27.

I would be happier with that explanation if we didn't have the story of Abraham being called to sacrifice Isaac as a burnt offering, although clearly no issue of a vow in that case.

So people may ask what was he expecting to come out of a house? The implication appears to be an animal, which is plausible given that animals often lived in the house with the family as they contributed to the heat as well as were too valuable to keep outside without being tended. However, I think it is a fair statement that this is a bad vow to begin with... But it seems initially to be a vow full of faith and trust in God... or is it a vow bent on manipulating God? hmmm... Why does Jephthah need to make a vow? After his long diplomatic speech about God's victory over Balak and Israel's respect of Ammon in the preceding verses, the vow seems to actually betray a lack of faith rather than great faith.

There is something distinctly and spectacularly pagan about this whole story. Our bastard hero is exiled but then returns and and saves the day winning a great battle and the cost of his victory is his only virgin daughter. I would be reasonably happy to say that this is a pagan story attempted to be revised to fit Yahwehism...

But again I would be happier with that explanation if their wasn't this odd theme of child/self sacrifice that runs from Abraham and Isaac and is culminated in Jesus, another "bastard" child and if Jephthah wasn't celebrated as a hero of faith in Hebrew's 11.

39-40 It became a custom in Israel that for four days every year the young women of Israel went out to mourn for the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite.

These final verses of the story seem to indicate that it is some sort of explanation for a social tradition.

Some commentators note that the passage ends focused on virginity not death and there is the suggestion that the daughter was not killed but devoted to a life of service as virgin, similar to nuns. This is argued  further based on the fact that the context of the situation does not fit a literal, levitical burnt offering. While clearly, a life of service, similar to Samuel, is preferable to filicide it seems possible to me that the concern with virginity rather than death is actually one and the same given that the Old Testament view is that one lives on through their children. Therefore, being Jephthah's only virgin daughter, her virginity represents the destruction of the entire family.

Sorry everybody I see all of the problems and I don't like it or any of the solutions, I welcome further thoughts...

You reached a dead end and were trapped inside the Pharoah's tomb.

Turn to page 47 if you don't like this ending...

"Pulling a Jephthah"

Judges 11:30-34
30 And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD: “If you give the Ammonites into my hands, 31 whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the LORD’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.”
32 Then Jephthah went over to fight the Ammonites, and the LORD gave them into his hands. 33 He devastated twenty towns from Aroer to the vicinity of Minnith, as far as Abel Keramim. Thus Israel subdued Ammon.
34 When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of timbrels! She was an only child. Except for her he had neither son nor daughter.
This qualifies as an uncomfortable passage. I thought for while about what I actually wanted to say about this passage and I did not come up with much so here is a smattering. I will state a few things that run through my head when thinking about this passage.
First, Judges and Joshua compliment one another. So set this passage in its greater context and it makes a great case for the slide into chaos in the time of the judges. It also is then descriptive not prescriptive. (I think more of the Bible is to be learned from then actually replicated, that is my bias, and I think we can learn not to be rash because our gut instinct with this passage is probably the correct one.)
Second, there is an interesting play between the individual and the community (or nation in this case). The individual is given up for the “greater good” (yes that was a Harry Potter reference for those who caught it).
Third, I think the reader is meant to see the connection to the Ten Commandments, specifically do not swear. Swearing is not to be understood as vulgar language or even the use of God’s name, which it later did become and hence the loss of use of God’s name. Swearing is to take an oath upon something greater, thereby to swear by God is binding and one sees the ramifications, in that, as Jephthah is forced to break another commandment by killing. I think this gives weight to a hallowing and reverence to God, who ought not to be seen as malice in this as it is the folly of Jephthah, which causes the problem because God did not ask for this. This then hits a pet peeve where people proclaim all kinds of things “God said” to them. To do this, date that, go here, work there. I find this such crap because unless God actually said this or that one is in the same danger as Jephthah was. I think people who speak in this way pull their own Jephthah’s and I wonder if their circumstances don’t turn out the same as it did for Jephthah. For example, one prematurely states “God told us to get married”, and now 15 years down the road one is lying in the bed he/she made, an uncomfortably bed of marital strife, fighting, regret, and unhappiness. I think I have witness people “pull a Jephthah”.

Confirmation Bias

The discussion of biases, lenses and confirmation bias on Silas' post: Extremist Religion has inspired me. The confirmation bias: most notably displayed in a psychological experiment in which people deliberately check themselves into psych wards and acted normal but found everything they did was interpreted through the lens of illness by the attending physicians and anylysts. 


The problem of finding what one is looking for... 


 In this video Zizek says that the best things we find are the ones we weren't looking for - accidental discoveries; we were looking for one thing and found something else. Perhaps we went to Bible college to find certainty or a job and instead found uncertainty and a few friends... maybe that's better. Anyway, the inescapable personal bias leads me to this song: The Stand by Mother Mother. As usual if you are easily offended you probably shouldn't watch it. 

Extremist Religion

Norway attacks suspect admits responsibility - Europe - Al Jazeera English

This is so disconcerting I had to share it. Many who know me well know that I disdain right-wing fundamentalism, but usually the conversation leads to the south, addressing my American neighbors. Sometimes the topic is nearer to home where there is a growing right-wing extremism in Canada, especially in some of the evangelical churches that are drifting into fundamentalism. A year ago I was confronted by extremism on two fronts, both of which where while I was in East Africa. As many may remember Al-Shabab (Somali Islamic extremist group) bombed a world cup party in Uganda, which was rather "close to home" as I was in neighboring Tanzania at a very similar world cup party. There was also the grenade attacks in Nairobi while I was a few blocks away. That was a double sided attack. The rally was for what I would consider extremist right wing Christians, and soon after the grenades went off fingers were being pointed at extremist Islamic groups as well. The disconcerting part for me is not the dissimilarity between the two "religions" but the similarity that both choose to become highly intolerant. The similarity that both become driven in a right-wing direction. The similarities are endless, but they stop being religions and end up becoming radicalized groups with religious rhetoric. I find myself shocked today because the one place on earth I continued to hold as the Mecca for free and open discourse appears to be crumbling. I guess I had chosen to not read the signs, to blissfully ignore the trends of a growing extremism, to live in a fairy tale that the nations that stood for social discourse and tolerance were being infiltrated from the inside by right-wing extremism. The reason I find this nearly unimaginable is that I am forced to question my belief in whether or not there can be an apolitical state that allows for tolerance and civil discourse. It is moments like this where I have an incredible affinity to people such as Christopher Hitchens, who view religion as the problem and humanism as the solution...moments like this one make me ponder whether people such as this are correct.

Real and Sureal

It began with Woody Allen a few weeks ago now. The theme of real and not real in my life. What occurs and who makes up the rules for what can and cannot be. This is beautifully depicted by Woody Allen's asides in his movies. I followed up two weeks ago with more Woody Allen as I saw "Midnight in Paris" which was fantastic, so if you have not seen it you should. The lines of reality and fiction, blur in a surreal way, and the surreal is the real (which probably only makes sense if you have seen it). Today I listened to a short story by Woody Allen, where he pretends he is Socrates in a dream, it is real in the sense it is story, but highly unreal as well. I think I am talking in circles and repeating myself...good, such is life and the contemplations about reality, friction, real, and surreal.

I have been attempting to escape recently, not because of lack of employment but because of it. I got a job doing manuel labour in Vancouver for 8 hours a day, and I commute for about 4 more. It is mindless work and mindless driving. I have attempted to turn myself into a drone and jokingly said to my friends "lets pretend I wake up at 5:30 pm, because the rest of the day is not worth mentioning". I attempt to escape into a surreal time portal at 5am that will spit me out 12 hours later so I can continue my life. It is as "real" as anything can be, but for me that "real" is 'surreal".

This post, however, was prompted by the one and only Lady Gaga. She, being her brilliant self, offers an intriguing perspective into this dialogue. Read about it here. Please read it, because all of what I said was shared because I read this. I think it is because I longed for my life to be unified in the way she describes the blurry lines. I am not there because I am attempting to escape part of it. .

CYOA - Avoidance - John 20:1-10

John 20 (The Message)
Resurrection!

1-2 Early in the morning on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and saw that the stone was moved away from the entrance. She ran at once to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, breathlessly panting, "They took the Master from the tomb. We don't know where they've put him."

3-10Peter and the other disciple left immediately for the tomb. They ran, neck and neck. The other disciple got to the tomb first, outrunning Peter. Stooping to look in, he saw the pieces of linen cloth lying there, but he didn't go in. Simon Peter arrived after him, entered the tomb, observed the linen cloths lying there, and the kerchief used to cover his head not lying with the linen cloths but separate, neatly folded by itself. Then the other disciple, the one who had gotten there first, went into the tomb, took one look at the evidence, and believed. No one yet knew from the Scripture that he had to rise from the dead. The disciples then went back home.

Last week we all wrote our articles without reading each others'. This week I have read both other articles before writing this. I feel pressure to present a different adventure for you to choose as that is in part the point of this exercise. When I read scripture, I try and ask good or at least useful questions, so I will list my questions:

What is the first day of the week?
Who is the unnamed disciple?
What were the first century rules for moving bodies?
Why does the unnamed disciple not enter immediately but only Simon Peter does?
What did Simon Peter think?
What Scripture is being referred to?
Where is "home"?

Now allow me to leave these questions to you and avoid them entirely. What I want to write about is theology. What happens theologically in the resurrection of Jesus? Obviously this is a huge and defining moment in the Christian faith - perhaps the moment. One thing that occurs is that death is defeated. Where as previously people had been raised from the dead but died later and we have a couple examples of people who didn't die (Enoch and Elijah), Jesus is the only case where death both occurs and is then fully defeated. This is the only story in which death has a say but not the last say; the grave is not the final word; the story doesn't end in the tomb. This is then my understanding of the Christian hope: that the grave is not the end, that God has the last word, and the God's word creates life.

I would now like to draw a connection I was made aware of on our recent trip to Israel. 

Gates of Hell - Caesera Phillipi

Matthew 16:18
I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it 


In this passage Jesus makes this famous declaration. The word for hell is the Greek 'hades' and is the place of the dead, Sheol, or the grave. Therefore, our instructor suggested, a better understanding is to understand Jesus to be declaring victory over death rather than demonic hordes. What is it that the gates of hell do? Well they keep people in of course! Nobody comes back from the dead! Nobody escapes hades! There is no way back after crossing the river Styx! Jesus' church will not be stopped by death but triumph over and beyond it.


It is also interesting to note that the Gates of hell was also a physical place as depicted above and the location of pagan worship including, more specifically, the emperor cult. Therefore, one could also understand this to be a reference to the Roman empire, and the emperor in particular, not prevailing against Jesus building his church (which is certainly true in retrospect). 


In either case, Jesus' resurrection is  the down payment of power, the deposit of new life, the game changer, the final twist, the surprise ending. God's word brings new life, Jesus defeats Empire, Jesus defeats death, defeat is swallowed up in victory... 

CYOA - John 20:1-10 - Iconic

John 20:1-10

¹ Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. ² So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!”

³ So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. ⁴ Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. ⁵ He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. ⁶ Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, ⁷as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen. ⁸ Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed. ⁹ (They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.) ¹⁰ Then the disciples went back to where they were staying.

I stood in the line up one morning, in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in the old city of Jerusalem, to enter the tomb of Jesus. I was in line with nuns, orthodox Christians holding candles, and tourists. Three people were allowed into the tiny space at a time. I crouched to fit through the small stone archway. Inside was a nun kneeling on the floor with her cheek pressed against the stone where Jesus’ body was once buried. She was clutching the cross on her rosary. Iconic pictures of Jesus covered the wall space. The stone was sloped towards the floor, no longer even but worn away by the hands of pilgrims. I pressed my check against the stone also and felt like I was somehow connected to all the believers who had touched that stone before. In the moment, their belief strengthened my belief.

On one of our study excursions in Israel, I was asked by our professor to be her volunteer as she spoke about burial. We found a site where there were tombs carved into the senonian chalk hillside with preparations tables before them. The professor had me lay on the preparation table as she spoke about they way bodies would be wrapped in cloth and spread with spices and fragrant oils. Then she asked me to lie in the tomb, where I stayed for the remainder of the dialogue on family bones. The tomb was narrow and shallow. My clothes became covered in chalk residue and I breathed in the disturbed dust where so many others had been laid to rest.

Silas’ posted the question “do you truly believe in the resurrection?” Only six weeks after my Israel experience, upon my first reading of this passage I thought to myself, so what, big deal. I was there, I saw, I felt, and yet I deny. Currently it is the belief that others hold in this event that has me mystified. I am shaken by Mary Magdalene’s concern for the whereabouts of her Lord, the rush of the disciples to the scene and the endless line-up in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher daily from morning till night. People want to see, but I would rather close my eyes. I want to close my eyes as we deny the resurrection.

I Deny the Resurrection

John 20:1-10

¹ Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. ² So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!”

³ So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. ⁴ Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. ⁵ He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. ⁶ Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, ⁷ as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen. ⁸ Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed. ⁹ (They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.) ¹⁰ Then the disciples went back to where they were staying.

Let us cut to the chase. This Choose Your Own Adventure is a check on our orthodoxy. The resurrection passages in the past fifteen years have been the standard to draw the line between the liberal and the “orthodox”, the difference between the Marcus Borg’s vs. the NT Wright’s. So I picked up my Borg book just to stir the pot a little bit. I am not going to tell you Jesus’ body was eaten by rabid dogs (although some believe this). I am not even going to say that I am fully in the “liberal” camp on this one. But before I begin I want to say some things I really like about this passage John 20:1-10.

1) I like that a woman is the first witness, it makes the egalitarian in me grin uncontrollably. 1.1) I like that it is Mary Magdalene, she is a great character and I always enjoy the events that occur when she is around. 2) I like to think John is writing himself into the story without his name, just like earlier where he lays his head on Jesus’ bosom, during the final meal. 3) I like that Peter has a moment of doubt and hesitancy at the entrance, probably because I would have too. 4) I like the self-justification “we really didn’t know…” I think it adds a lot of humanity to the text.

But the question I assume people want answered is: Did it happen historically? I’ll throw my hat in with Wright and say it did, because I think it shows a continued investment on God’s part into the tangible physical world. But I’ll also throw my hat in with Borg that there are many ways to understand this text. One of which is reading it as a truthful parable; and a really good understanding of this a parable, as he may argue, would bring about the same conclusions about God as a historical, God acting in time, reading and interpretation of this text. (I know I may get flack for saying that but I think our conceptions of truth are often too small). However one perceives this text, specifically the mystery surrounding death and resurrection, possibly the only certainty is that of uncertainty. Therefore, I agree with Borg when he states that epistemological humility and ontological humility are called for.

History or Parable? It is an age old question…well at least I think so. I think back to the time of allegory (which served the church quite well and ought not to be made light of too quickly), therefore parable may be the next in a long line of ever-wrong interpretive methods. As wrong as it might be, there are benefits to parable as it reveals dimensions of a text not comprehended previously, this works for the book of Jonah, the creation accounts, and even the exodus. Thus, if I read all of those as parable/story/truthful myth then an examination of the resurrection as such may be a beneficial perspective I have yet to examine.

So as much as I believe Jesus as a human individual in time and space did rise from the dead, I do not believe this because of a literal reading of the text. I am not a Biblical literalist by any means, I think reading the Bible literally is flat, uninspired and creates mindless “yes men” Christians, something I think God would despair over, having chosen from the beginning to give us free choice and intellect to think through choices. So I am not going to say that you must read a passage, such as this one, as literal history in order to be a Christian. I refuse to be pinned down in literalism because it is in that strain of literalism that one runs into CS Lewis thinking of “EITHER Jesus was who he said he was OR he was a lunatic”. I think once you are here you are stuck, you have laid all your cards on the table, not resting on what the bible says, in full commitment to ones cognitive constructed framework. One is then stuck in a thought framework because “The persuasiveness of this statement depends upon a literal-factual reading of the gospels. Its logic works only within this framework” (Borg’s book “Jesus” p 19). Thus you rest your entire belief on your individual cognitive makeup, which is almost certainly wrong (see “I am wrong” blog). Thus having stated my refusal to be pinned down into a specific mode of thought and regarding literalism as uninspired and highly unimaginative, I refuse to set up camp as a literalist. So where does that then land me if I am not picking either camp to sit in permanently?

I think it lands me in the best possible spot. I end up asking what is the entire point of landing in either camp? To put oneself against another who is in the opposing camp? Hopefully not! It is at this point that part of the pragmatic in me screams that I have reached a point where it is all conjecture (I don’t really believe it is all speculation I think the dialogue over biblical interpretation in valid, but there are other/better questions to be asked). I think one of these better questions is: What does it mean to believe the resurrection? As it relates to “do you truly believe the resurrection”.

For my answer to this question I am going to defer to someone who I think has said it well. Peter Rollins, who may say “I deny the resurrection all the time”.

Belief truly needs to be more than mental assent (to parable or literal interpretations) and I think he captures it. So my final reflection on John 20:1-10 is that recently I find myself denying the resurrection quite often, but I hardly think I am alone in doing so (my own little justification just like verse 9) .

No Parking Fire Lane

OK, birthed out of our cumulative experience of unemployment, I/we have created a short film. This film explicitly brings to bear our previous musings on both censorship and meaninglessness. Censorship in that it contains explicit language, such that it definitively would not make it through the fearsome church filter. If you are offended by the word F#%k, please do not watch this video unless you desire to be offended. Please note that the word is not directed at the audience but rather shared with the audience as an evaluation of the meaninglessness of the monotony and repetition of life. While in the film this is depicted in the form of unemployment, it is my definitive experience that employment can be both just as monotonous, repetitious, and meaningless. I think that it is not too much of a stretch to consider this film a modern paraphrase of Ecclesiastes 1:2. It has been an interesting and worthwhile process to step into the void of unemployment and not find myself scooped up into the safety of employment immediately. According to Ernie Zelinski (The Joy of Not Working, 2003) employment often provides, by default, three things that we crave as humans: structure, purpose, and community. I think this is an accurate assessment and I would like to add that our identity is directly related to two of those three and perhaps not entirely disconnected from the third. It can be easy for people either unemployed or retired to lose track of their identity because without their job, which society reinforces defines you, one can lose self identity entirely. It has therefore been crucial in our journey of self discovery and reassertion of identity to build structure, purpose, and a sense of community into our lives outside of work and beyond school. I think that I have learned the importance of having one's identity rooted in something larger and more stable than employment.

The title "No Parking Fire Lane" makes reference to both the sign in the hallway as well as a reference to the socially unacceptable nature of unemployment. While on the one hand we are plugged into the machine with dreams and promises of "retirement" a carefree time of leisure "later". On the other hand, those who are unemployed are often berated with accusations of laziness and forced to struggle with issues of self worth along with the obvious financial challenges. Part of the challenge in the midst of this is that we evaluate everything in dollars and so, without income, it is easy to internalize the idea that one's time is worthless. In a job one is paid in some fashion for one's time, in school one pays large sums to spend time learning. In both cases time is valued highly. However, for the unemployed or retired, time becomes socially meaningless because it is no longer evaluated financially. Minutes, hours, days blend together. Time can be measured in books, cups of coffee, or Farmville crops harvested, resumes sent, or cover letters written...

This film is a comment on life and gives voice to a particular perspective. It should not be interpreted as an absolute perceptive or as Silas's perspective, rather it is a piece of art attempting to make social comment based on a single interpretation of a certain experience.

Harry Potter Hermeneutics

I have been thinking about Harry Potter and the Bible, the intersection, and their likeness (there is a full blown Christian atonement theory presented in the last book and movie, and I am really hoping Duncan jumps on that and blogs it, because he was all excited at the end of the movie Friday night). I also would like to throw a few thoughts at the conversation happening between these books/movies, our culture, and the Bible. My generation, in particular, has been defined by this series (although I continue to find people who have never actually read the books). But no matter how ignorant people are, the culture around them has been shaped by the series and the collective memory/identity/self-understanding of the global west has been changed forever. One can no longer go through life without some working knowledge of Harry Potter. Everyone knows, at least, that he is a wizard in some books or movies. We as a society have been marked by this phenomenon and there is not really a way to detach from it, so we might as well engage it to find out what can be learn, glean, and perceive from this epic narrative.

Friday marked the end of an era for me. It all began when I first read Prisoner of Azkaban on a plane to England in early August 2000... It was my first Harry Potter book, bought by my mother for the plane ride - at this point in my life I had given up reading and this was one of my mother's attempts to get me to read something worthwhile... or really anything. It worked. I remember being confused by the book, and it was only a short while later that I acquired books one and two and then things began to make sense. Soon after book four came out, I was also in possession of it. The year I lived in England I read and re-read those books. It came to be that these were the only books I read from the age of 12, when I started, until 18, when I entered university. Harry was an absolute obsession, such that, for the final three books of the series, I would read them as soon as they came out. I didn't just read them, I locked myself in my house and read the newly released book between Friday at midnight, when they were released, and church on Sunday morning. This way, no one could ruin them for me by telling me a spoiler (it was a system I was forced into after a most unfortunate incident involving a little asian boy telling me Sirius dies at the end of book five before I had reached that part). But beyond my own obsession, these books shaped how I think, and I do not doubt that they did the same for others.

After seeing the movie on Friday, I stood around with friends. We hashed over the best parts and the differences from the book. As I stood there silently listening, I realized that some major part of my life was finally done. There was a feeling of loss as well as a feeling of completion, an altogether unique sensation, despite having just graduated from college. I had poured into my obsession over the past six weeks since finishing school. I read all of Harry Potter again, finishing with a full day of book 7 on Friday as preparation for the movie. It was with this final surge of enjoyment in reading Harry Potter that I realized how much of myself I had put into this series. So when my friend Caitlin said that Harry, Ron, and Hermione were Patron Saints of our generation, I found myself in full agreement. Those three have taught me a lot about friendship, struggling to do right in a world where all options appear to be tainted with evil, and learning to journey together (lessons that in Christianeese we might call 'discipleship'). Given the ambiguity of history, personhood, existence, and identity, one often falls back on relationship as the common denominator used to define ones existence. This being so, if time spent giving and being given into determines a relationship I would definitely say I have a relationship with Harry, Ron, and Hermione. That being said, they are as much saints to me as any saint I know. They have taught me ways to think and perceive my existence.

Re-reading the series after graduating from Bible College I realized how many of the skills that were useful for me in Biblical studies... I learned from Harry Potter. One of these was the needing to know the beginning to understand the end; I think back to being confused about book three until I read books one and two. In my more recent reading, this became evident in the many conversations with Albus in the books, as they require a keen memory of earlier material for comprehension. Or things such as the Findelius Charm, which once explained ought to be retained in ones memory for a successful reading of the rest of the series. I find this the same skills needed to read texts like Revelation, which utilize the morning star out of the Pentatuch, lamps and oil from Zachariah, and seven spirits out of Isaiah.

But that is, perhaps, simple to see: remember the past to understand the future. However, I think there are more complex concepts articulated in Harry Potter that have also served me well as I ponder my existence. For example: the discussion between Albus and Harry at the end of book 6, where they discuss prophecy and how to understand it as being foretold, but not negating error, and also existing within the realm of the predetermined yet not negating free choice. Or things such as: the existence of evil, which caused me to posses an openess to broader perspectives of evil than Sunday school answers of humanity born into original sin, such as evil also being choice in congruency with its ever-present reality.

Finally, Harry Potter helped me become a sceptic, in the best sense of the word. I can no longer read a narrative and assume that the perspective of the protagonist is always correct or even that the narrator is always truthful (much to one of my Bible professors dismay during a conversation about narrative criticism. Harry is sometimes mistaken (although usually right) and his actions, therefore, cannot be taken as prescriptive. Thus, one reads sceptically, knowing that the way presented is not always the correct or right way. The narrator lies, as Snape is ever an enigma, good? bad? good again? resulting in ambiguity around the "correctness" of the narrator. It is these skeptical tendencies that have brought me to find some of my most significant insights into the Biblical text. Therefore, for me, I read Harry Potter as if the Bible depends on it. I make no excuses for my methods or the approaches that Saint Harry, Saint Ron, and the Holy Hermione Granger have taught me.

CYOA - John 20:1-10

We have drawn lots and the winner is John 20!

John 20

1 Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. 2 So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!”

3 So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. 4 Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. 5 He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. 6 Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, 7 as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen. 8 Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed. 9 (They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.) 10 Then the disciples went back to where they were staying.

Hope you enjoyed last Wednesday and are prepared another terrific edition of CYOA (Choose Your Own Adventure) next Wednesday!

Even More on Censorship

Recently, I applied for a job with a filtration company. What kind of filtration you ask? Commercial filtration for all liquids – marketed to a national and international audience. What do I know about filtration? Well I’ve used a Brita filter, I know my car has some filters and someone once deemed the content of a speech I wrote as inappropriate using their “church filter”. The phone interview for this position went well despite my lack of filtration knowledge and my neglect to take physics and chemistry in high school. Since the time of application, I have browsed the company website trying to absorb all the information I can possibly glean about filters.

It was then that I began to think of filtration as censorship rather than simply the purification of liquids. It donned on me that I use various “filters” to strain my speech, behaviour and personality to become acceptable for various settings or social circles. We may have been taught by parents and teachers to be ourselves, be unique and be anything we want; but, we were also conditioned to filter ones uninhibited self because nobody really wants you to be yourself all the time. For example, I snort when I laugh, I snort when I am startled, I snort when others and I are in danger and sometimes I snort when I breathe. When I was a child, someone told me that snorting was the most revolting and unattractive thing a young girl could do and that I should stop doing it right away. From this point on I tried my best to stifle the snort, thus stifling laughter. Every time I met new people I would be sure not to laugh in front of them until I knew that they liked me and that I would not lose a friend if I let out a snort. Including my snort filter, I can think of a number of other filters that I currently use: the ultra fine ‘public appearance filter’, the loose ‘friends filter’, the medium grade ‘dinner with the parents filter’, and the ‘outrageous blog which may prohibit you from getting a job’ filter.

Since returning from a short stint in Africa, where I lived with a host family, I have acquired a new filter, which I call my ‘Africa filter’. This filter comes out mostly when I notice bizarre North American customs or odd aspects of Canadian culture and pause to think about how I would possibly explain the situation or circumstance to my African host family. For instance, making purchases with a credit card when there does not even appear to be an exchange going on. You give your card to the shopkeeper; they hold it for a while and then hand it back to you. Or the moving sidewalks in the airports - Canadians are in such a hurry that walking at a natural speed is a waste of time. This would be a funny one to explain because anyone walking at speeds faster than a stroll in their culture is considered a thief with something to hide. Or showers. Water is always in the house; we never have to carry buckets full of it on our heads and the wells that you cannot see never run dry. Or why we keep so much more food in the house and complain that there is nothing to eat when there is clearly enough to feed us for a week. How do you explain that we can live in the same place for ten years and not know the names of our neighbours? How do you explain that everyone here receives medical care even if they cannot pay? How do you explain why people rioted in Vancouver and caused so much destruction for no apparent reason? These are some of the things that pass through my Africa filter which keep me wondering and remembering that I will never fit, here nor there, I will never be fully accepted.

Further Thoughts on Censorship

At my bible college there was a bulletin board that is mostly meaningless at this point - thanks to me. I apologize. The bulletin board is called the Wittenburg door and was supposed to be a location of free and challenging dialogue. In my first year a member of student council posted a page criticizing the student body for apathy and non-participation. I was unimpressed, not only with what I read as an unhelpful and self righteous article but also with student council, who I experienced to be disconnected, unavailable, and irrelevant. I posted a scathing rebuttle to the page which definitively crossed the line to personal and was a very public and specific criticism, full of exaggerated rhetorical flourish, of not only student council but individual people, who I didn't really know. The results were a nuclear melt down of emails and meetings and apologies and defense and discussion and rules. The rules, which I helped write will ensure that posts will probably never again challenge the powers that be and to that degree, the door has been destroyed...

What did I learn? I learned the importance of relationships and the priority of people over power-politics and rhetoric. That was a good lesson. I also learned that when you stick it to "the man" there will always be hell to pay and also usually an invitation into the establishment. I navigated the remainder of my bible college career without incident. I learned how to influence through friendships and relationships rather than very public and negative criticism and I learned how to ask questions rather than make accusations and to discuss rather than argue. These were all very good and important lessons. I also learned that churches have gatekeepers who will let you know in no uncertain terms if you cross their imaginary lines of orthodoxy.

I have for 4 years been clever with language and questions in order to create enough ambiguity to maintain relational acceptance. I have held my tongue when I want to disagree, or criticize, or argue. I have lost arguments in order to actually listen, which often leaves no time for a rebuttal. But I'm tired. I'm tired of always being concerned about what you will hear despite what I am saying. I am tired of being afraid of what you will think of me if I just tell you what I think. I am tired of valuing relationships with people who might reject me if I was open, authentic, and honest. We talk about integrity but encourage hypocrisy and social christian fakeness in order to maintain relationships, the status quo, and "future opportunities." I have decided I should probably take my mission statement seriously.

To challenge the cultural status quo, corruption, stagnation and apathy both within and outside the church, as a teacher and artist in North America.

To pursue passionately faith, learning and creativity seeking to experience God’s transformation in myself and others.

If you are a defender of status quo you have hereby been warned. Do not threaten my future, do not try and intimidate me. I am no longer having any of it.

CYOA - Psalm 137 - Minor Miracles

Alongside Babylon's rivers we sat on the banks; we cried and cried,
remembering the good old days in Zion.
Alongside the quaking aspens
we stacked our unplayed harps;
That's where our captors demanded songs,
sarcastic and mocking:
"Sing us a happy Zion song!"

^4-6 Oh, how could we ever sing God's song
in this wasteland?
If I ever forget you, Jerusalem,
let my fingers wither and fall off like leaves.
Let my tongue swell and turn black
if I fail to remember you,If I fail, O dear Jerusalem,
to honor you as my greatest.

^7-9 God, remember those Edomites,
and remember the ruin of Jerusalem,
That day they yelled out,
"Wreck it, smash it to bits!"
And you, Babylonians—ravagers!
A reward to whoever gets back at you
for all you've done to us;
Yes, a reward to the one who grabs your babies
and smashes their heads on the rocks!

Although I’m tempted to write an exegetical essay on this short passage, I will refrain. I contemplated writing all the comments I would normally censor from a school paper in this article, but I will also refrain. Reading the bible is something that I have avoided since graduation, even while I was studying at Jerusalem University College shortly after. I admit I was rather nervous about what I might discover in this study: a lifejacket or a hammer or worse, something meaningless. Regardless of what I discovered in this adventure, it is a minor miracle that this endeavor caused me to pull my bible out of the box in which it has been packed for over a month and that it will now remain on a reachable shelf because I am committed to reading it at least once a week while I participate in CYOA.

Reading the bible should be a good thing so I read and re-read Psalm 137 and three thoughts crossed my mind which are worth fleshing out: 1) identity and being in a foreign land 2) justice and retaliation and 3) honesty in poetry and prayer.

1) When I chose to live in a foreign land I often thought about home. I compared everything that I saw, tasted, touched and smelt with home. I saw similarities and differences and dwelt on each. I too wept. As time passed and I pursued assimilation, the similarities and differences slightly faded. My likes and dislikes changed, as did myself description. In the transition from being known at home to being unknown in a new setting, my cultural and spiritual identity changed. The question “How shall we sing the Lord’s song in a foreign land?” is familiar to me. The mocking carried out by the cultural majority is also familiar to me. How do you practice what is familiar in a place where it is unacceptable? How do you praise a God who “provides” when you are hungry and the mockers are full? How do you praise a God with whom others are unfamiliar? How do you praise God in the midst of other gods? In this psalm, Israelreflects on the loss of home as a result of captivity and exile and expresses deep desire to remember where they came from.

2) Israel’s emotional response to captivity and exile is a cry for retaliation and justice. This is eye for eye, retributive justice - a cry for equality in the face of devastation. Crime deserves punishment. The anger, hurt and frustration Israel must have felt at this time reveals their deeply human desire to want those who have wronged them to suffer an equally great fate. Is this an appropriate response? It is a human response. How does one deal with devastation and suffering?

3) This leads me to my third point: honesty in poetry and prayer. The genre of this psalm confuses me slightly. It seems to be a lament/curse/complaint psalm yet does not follow the typical lament structure, which includes a petition for divine intervention and a song of thanksgiving. This psalm is simply a curse. The honest, raw, straightforward gut-response. So why include this in Israel’s hymnbook? Is it a model for prayer? Does God want to hear our truthful reactions to our circumstances?

If this is prayer, if this is worship, I have been doing a lot of it, by accident. What I appreciate most about this passage is that it is not psalm 136.

CYOA - Psalm 137 - Positive Ethnocentrism

Psalm 137

1 By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept

when we remembered Zion.

2 There on the poplars

we hung our harps,

3 for there our captors asked us for songs,

our tormentors demanded songs of joy;

they said, “Sing us one of the songs of Zion!”

4 How can we sing the songs of the LORD

while in a foreign land?

5 If I forget you, Jerusalem,

may my right hand forget its skill.

6 May my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth

if I do not remember you,

if I do not consider Jerusalem

my highest joy.

7 Remember, LORD, what the Edomites did

on the day Jerusalem fell.

“Tear it down,” they cried,

“tear it down to its foundations!”

8 Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction,

happy is the one who repays you

according to what you have done to us.

9 Happy is the one who seizes your infants

and dashes them against the rocks.

This choose your own adventure begins with Bob Marley. I cannot read this psalm without thinking about Bob, and "by the rivers of Babylon". It also triggers of memories my high school days when I went through a fad of listening to a lot of Bob and ended my sentences with "no worries" or "relax". Oh to be young and believe that everything would just work out if everyone chilled out and took the world a little less seriously.

Now, however, I longer know this psalm by the first verse, but by the last. Dashing infants on rocks, it is infamous for projecting an angry wrathful God who would be pleased with this. There is much that can and has been said about this psalm of lament. One could focus on the understanding of God, the cycle of call and answer that one finds in the Psalms, or the historicity of the exile. I, however, would like to comment on the ethnocentrism of this Psalm. Before one gets his or her panties in a bunch about saying things like this about the Bible, please step back and attempt to view this as objectively as you can, with as little emotion as possible (this being the complete opposite of how I believe one is to read psalms, as they are inherently emotional and illogical), by taking this approach one may see things in this Psalm that are often taken for granted.

I would like to point out the Jerusalem centrism in this psalm. It is all over, Jerusalem, Zion, and "you" are all used to represent the ethnocentric home of the exiled Jews who presumably wrote this psalm. I find that this nears humorous proportions when we sing the popular praise song "God of this City" in churches. If one were to read this psalm and then critically look at that song one would instantly recognize the inherent dissonance between them. If taking them literally, the Lord in this psalm cannot be the God of this city, as the Lord of the Psalm is for Jerusalem and implicitly against the other cities, "Babylon". So it only takes the a little comparison between our contemporary theology of praise music and the literal writing of a past age to see that at all time the God one is calling upon is inherently ethnocentric.

To take the first point a little further. I find verse 3 and 4 incredibly enlightening as the request is to sign a song of Zion (a mountain) and the response is about singing songs of the Lord. I find this intriguing as it reveals the tendency of God to be described tangibly as human, or as concepts humans readily understand such as mountains. Whatever one believe about the Bible being the word of God or not, and how one understand to read it, the stories in the Bible reveal a God that always works through humans. This is extremely comforting to some as it raises the status and responsibility of humanity as image bearers of God. Others, however, see the same evidence as humanity simply projecting itself as God. Too be honest, this might be closer to how I am currently understanding it, especially when one takes seriously the last verse of this psalm. This I do not think is all bad though. If everyone is projecting a God from his or her own point of view there will certainly be discrepancies, but there will also be overlap. Right now I am finding solace in some of the overlap after being confronted by a lot of the discrepancies, specifically my own personal projections of God and how they come into conflict or result in dissonance when confronting reality. The great thing I find when I read the Bible through this lens is the personalities that collide in their testimony and projection about God, they seem to be all over the map. A bunch of raging Jews in exile here is in Psalm 137 are contradicted a page later by the praises of David. It is incredibly humbling and also uplifting to understand that my own raging in life is adding to this dialogue that has been going on for thousands of years. What I say can be completely true in its moment and clash violently with something someone else says in the next moment which is also completely true. Then in that space, that bit of chaos, where something is said that neither of the two voices might have said. What might be being said as we are all raging or praising God is that there is something that is being raged about, and even through it might have just been projections to begin with there is something in that moment that exists outside of either person.

So I am quite happy to say that there are infants dashed against rocks, because it for me is a moment of emotion caught out of time and recorded, so that when others clash with it in our generation and generations to come there will be moments and glimpses of synergy where things exist by multiple witnesses. I am also happy this is included because it permits me to engage in culture widely. There are moments of dashing infants against rocks all around us in the world, real and perceived injustice occur leading to laments that near the cries of dashing infants. If these laments are not yours currently don't write them off to quickly. It might be the lack of these moments that have resulted in our inability to understand a dialogue from multiple witnesses as recorded in the text. I find these many voices helpful as it enables me to engage culture actively. I understand that there are many voices adding to the dialogue and that some of them may look harsh but as we see here there are equally harsh voices within the text as well. So when Lady Gaga proclaims pop music is our religion I can affirm and disagree with the truth she is stating. When her voice is dealing with issues the church is too afraid to dialogue about she may come off sounding like she is about to smash infants, but it is probably a voice we then need to pay all the more attention to. There will always be many voices from many sides, all equally ethnocentric, one must deal with them or revert to ignorant hypocrisy of pretending ones own ethnocentric position is the correct position, something the Bible does not even claim. Even though much of the Bible was indeed compiled within Palestine to be considered legitimate, there are other voices from the diaspora such as Esther or Daniel, or in the NT the Epistles or John's writing from Patmos. The Bible is one great mess of relativity and conflicting ethnocentric perspectives, and that is why it is endlessly intriguing to study as those perspectives will continue to clash and dialogue with our own ethnocentrism.

CYOA - Presidential Devo?

Psalm 137 (ESV)

¹By the waters of Babylon,
   there we sat down and wept,
   when we remembered Zion.
²On the willows there
   we hung up our lyres.
³For there our captors
   required of us songs,
and our tormentors, mirth, saying,
   "Sing us one of the songs of Zion!"

 ⁴ How shall we sing the LORD’s song
   in a foreign land?
⁵If I forget you, O Jerusalem,
    let my right hand forget its skill!
⁶Let my tongue stick to the roof of my mouth,
   if I do not remember you,
if I do not set Jerusalem
   above my highest joy!

 ⁷Remember, O LORD, against the Edomites
    the day of Jerusalem,
how they said, "Lay it bare, lay it bare,
   down to its foundations!"
⁸O daughter of Babylon, doomed to be destroyed,
   blessed shall he be who repays you
   with what you have done to us!
⁹Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones
   and dashes them against the rock!

 

Ok, the primary question I have when I read this psalm is: what idiot put it the Devotional Book that George W. Bush was reading in 2003? If you would like to claim the War in Iraq as a fulfillment of this prophecy, please make note in the comment section. I disagree. And while I am sure that George W. was not making war decisions based on this psalm, I would not be at all surprised if there are people who supported the war because of verses like this. I am anti-war and using biblical justification for modern war makes me want to vomit, so let’s talk about it...

The psalms should be read as prayers, something like a hymn book with a variety of types and themes. This is what is called an imprecatory psalm, which means a psalm which calls down judgment or curses on one's enemies or those perceived as God's enemies… I love the psalms because of the raw emotion poured out before God, from spectacular joy and praise, to total misery, to rage and anger like in this one. I think that this is permission to be honest about our experience with God. 　

However, it is in "The Bible." Everything now becomes complicated because it is in "The Bible" - because Christians believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. Now there are a number of ways of understanding what inspired means, which may or may not include the word inerrency. However, for those who like the word inerrency and may even want to add the word verbal and plenary I think this psalm poses a problem. We talk about the authors of scripture being inspired by God. Some people believe that every word of scripture was dictated by God. But if we take these words out of the psalmist's mouth, that places them in God's mouth and now we suddenly have God declaring blessing, or happiness, on people killing children, which I hope is more than even those double predestinationists can handle. I think that one of many things to ponder when reading the bible is the nature of inspiration and how one understands it... and then based on that particular understanding, what does one expect from the text? Does the bible deliver on those expectations? Are the expectations fair? Is the understanding fair? Is it accurate? How does one determine accuracy? 　

This is an exilic psalm (written during the Babylonian exile) and asks the question, "How do we worship God when everything is shitty?" How do we worship God after bible college? How do we worship God when we're unemployed? How do we worship God when we're in debt? How do we worship God when we're sick? When friends die? When we are far from home and all alone? When we have been laid bare to our foundations? I know that theoretically we are supposed to and that some people do (while some just seem to) - but how? I praise God for this psalm because its existence acknowledges that it is difficult and something to wrestle with. And that wrestling can look like weeping and cursing and complaining but God can handle it and hopefully, with some time, bring us through to a place where we can not only tolerate difference but love our enemies. And if we love our enemies, how can we go to war?

If you choose to go to war go to page 109...
If you choose to eat donuts go to page 32...

Voyeurism and Censorship

I would like to let you all in on a discussion that is ongoing behind the surface of this blog. Duncan touched on it here. Right now I am keenly aware that I am being watched. I had no idea how powerful this notion of being watched would be over my willingness to be transparent and live up to the goal we set for this blog, an uncensored place of free thought. I have to admit that I have begun to think in blogs, everything I think I shape into a blog with no restraints, yet it is incredible how many of these I am censoring. I find myself censoring because it is incredibly unnerving knowing that about 150 people a day, at the moment, will be reading what I write, I feel like a little bit of a spectacle, or as Duncan so adequately put it when we last met, "we are pastoring a small un-church" (or something like that). I feel a little bit like Miley Cyrus and Lady Gaga. This is a new experience for me as I enter into what feels like a one-sided relationship. I permit all of the internet a window into my existence every few days and there is surprisingly little feed back. Beside the few comments, a conversation, or a "like" on facebook, I have absolutely no idea who is "watching". Now to toss this back on you, because if I am using the concept of voyeurism to best explain how I am perceiving this blogging thing...that makes you the peeping tom :0 which is ok as long as we are all aware of the roles we are playing in this one-sided relationship :)

Having no idea who is reading this blog is trilling and disconcerting all at the same time. It is because of this that we as a group of bloggers are running into the constraints of censorship. How much is too much. How much honesty can the internet really handle? Censorship is not my expertise, I am usually overly blunt, I'll say what I think and ask for forgiveness later. Because of this I have a few requests. First, if we offend...Respond, post in the comment section. We are all more than willing to open a two or more way dialogue, and then I at least know who to ask forgiveness from. Second, if you are a regular reader follow us, it is really nice to know who is reading.

Censorship is complicated. It is nearly impossible to determine what people find offensive, as Duncan puts it "I always think its funny what people find offensive or a "big deal" its like swear words... which ones are really bad? I think my mom is probably more offended by cigarettes than by "losing faith". I say "damn" all the time without thinking. Other people love the word "fuck" but think "damn" is crossing the line... some people think "crap" is ok but not "shit," other people the reverse. Some of this is cultural both locally and globally but to me it is a reminder of the ambiguity of language and the inherent risks one takes when speaking. It is not surprising that public speaking is something that many people fear more than death - speech acts both spoken and written take enormous courage." (from our private ongoing conversation). I find that we are in a particularly interesting spot when dealing with censorship. We all have Christian educations which was four years of tip toeing around censorship issues, how much could one say, what would be too far, "if I say what I actually think will i be considered a heretic?" Sometimes all three of us through caution to the wind and said as we pleased, but i think for the majority of the time we played the censorship game quite well. The thing is the game is not over. As we pursue higher education and jobs it is likely people will find this blog. The thought then becomes will I loose job opportunities because of what I post here? Or maybe more significantly, will something I say here offend a person to such an extent that they stop being in relationship with me in the real world, outside of the intertubes? As our virtual and internet lives mesh I find things become more hazy, more uncertain. Hopefully as we pursue academia and careers we will land ourselves in positions that value freedom of thought, freedom to think without fear. Hopefully when perfect love casts out fear the absence of fear is presence in the intellectual realm as well, so we do not slip into divisive tribalism of fundamentalism.

I often find it helpful to communicate my ideas through other mediums people have already created and published. I ran across a music video this spring (one that did not get as much play as I think it deserved) which had some interesting thoughts about censorship tied in. I found it extremely enlightening when the same music video came out with a directors cut it was much more disturbing. Specifically enlightening is the contrast between the two videos. Many people will find the first offensive, but the message I believe is more apparent in the second. The song is Natalia Kills -Wonderland and here is the directors cut. I hope you enjoy the difference in the movies. For now I think I will be treading/blogging towards the official version, my posts at least will attempt to convey what I mean without becoming too over the top. But if you think I am not being fully transparent call me out in the comments section if you would prefer the directors cut on a certain post.