Hidden & Revealed

This is a post which contemplates identity, self and personhood...

I think it relates to previous posts of mine such as: Remember, Censorship, Out on a Limb, and Anxiety & Irresponsibility among others
And also Silas post Stories Collide Pt.1
And Danielle's Shake it like you mean it!

we are mixtures of light and shadow 

the hidden and revealed

both to ourselves and to others

we are both exposed and concealed

I was struck tonight by the vast number of ways I identify myself. Some of these identities are in conflict or at least seem to be. Many of the nuances of reality are simplified for various reasons. For example I am both proud and ashamed to identify as Scottish, part of my family heritage for which I am named and have since tatooed onto my body forcing the issue into conversation more than I really intended. I am in reality much more dominantly Dutch. However, when I did not receive the tall genes of my father and opa this became a sore point more than a source of pride or identity. I am defined precisely in paradox. 

What makes up our identity? We are a blender of nature, nurture, context, culture, history, tradition, narrative, and genetics... We are simultaneously unique and deeply connected. The book Beauty of the Lillies by John Updike, which I just finished reading highlights the intergenerational quality of the story of our lives. We are born into a story, continue it and pass it on... I think the Bible also highlights this intergenerational narrative of our lives of faith. "I am the God of you forefathers: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" declares Yahweh... 

I try and situate myself in a intergenerational narrative: I am the fourth generation of film maker/photographer, following my father, opa and my opa's father. I am the fourth generation of my mother's family to worship God on the west coast of BC, following my mother, grandmother and great grandparents. It is this point that is interesting because it highlights the way we shape and mould our stories and identity. The way we edit. What we choose to reveal or hide, either by omission or intentional concealment. I rarely share my family's west coast history. This is at least in part because I am only minimally familiar with it and those who held this piece of my heritage died when I was young. My mother grew up in Sarnia and moved "home" to Victoria in her teens. My dad was born in Vancouver, but grew up all across America and in Holland, moving back to BC for University. British Columbia holds a gravity for my family that I tend to deny and have been trying to shake my whole life. I barely consider myself Canadian, identifying rather as European immigrant, having grown up on my Opa's stories of the Old Country, my Dad's stories of moped vacations in France, and my parents 6 month honeymoon of European travels. Stories held life and depth in contrast to the plastic and stick frame life of suburbia... My mother's father was born English and fought with the RAF in WWII. How I promote or demote these various facets of my life and many others deeply impact how I view myself and the story I find myself in. My dad's parents being still alive to participate and tell stories. This part of my history, therefore, has been in a bright spotlight for most of my life. This however, has cast into much deeper shadow, my mother's parents and family, shrouded in the silence of death. I find myself moving amongst the light and shadows of my own life desiring to explore and reveal parts and pasts hidden and to shade brighter spots. I am trying to both to understand and find my role in the intergenerational drama into which I have been born. Am I the heir to leap from amateur to professional in the photographic arts? I continue to try. Am I the exiled or prodigal son destined to return home to Europe? Or is escape to Europe merely another prodigal journey? Am I scholarly vindication of my frustrated grandfather, who didn't complete his Ph.D? With a family heritage of university education and teachers, education has been a value I was slow to embrace but now find that I love. Am I the white, educated, christian, suburban BC boy required to repent and and do penance for the sins of those before me responsible for residential schools and destruction of First Nations culture? Culture and history I share by direct family line and not only group association (I have at least one relative who taught in a school and my great grand father who worked for the government on reserves...)

I am unable to be seen completely by human eyes. Dark unknown spots and sins and shame merely shine brighter when revealed overpowering the rest. I experience my life as a frustrating puzzle with so many pieces I believe connect but I have lost the lid and cannot see the whole. I have moved more and more toward a desire for integration. All the jumbled pieces need to connect and as I search I find both connections and also more pieces... I feel like a tourist with amnesia searching through my suitcase trying to determine where I was supposed to go. 

i cannot hide but with revealing 

my revelation explicitly concealing

In my hiddenness I am most exposed

and in my nakedness remain unknown

Ok and now the theological question: How does God reveal himself in absence? Can God's presence be made known in absence? How? Why? etc.

You And I, by Gaga – My reading of this text

Brilliance, as always. Maybe I am not critical enough of Gaga but I am always astounded at her level of insight into life, her creativity, and musical genius. Her latest video “You And I”, released on Tuesday, is no exception.

At a first glance, you might notice…country music? Yup, a brave attempt to cross musical boundaries, I think she accomplishes it successfully. You also might notice that the video is highly sexual, I think there is a Freudian influence in understanding existence through sex, the lack there of sex, and developmental stages of sexual maturity. One will also notice Gaga’s fashion statements. Personally, I like what she has done with the Mugler shoulders, specifically the frilly outfit. But beyond these things I think in this video she is making a more major statement, a statement about relationship.

For those of you who do not follow Gaga religiously there is something you ought to know, as of her latest album, “Born this Way”, she embarked on a narrative of “Pop Culture is our religion”. She tweeted this before the album released and it has been evident in the videos “Born this way” and “Judas”. It is an interesting narrative as this religion has moved from “The fame” (her first album – the creation), to “Fame Monster” (her second album – the deconstruction), and now the recreation in “Born This Way” (her third major album). So whenever she releases a new video I am excited by what she is going to say through it. The video for “You And I” at first confused me as I could not find the tie into the narrative she has been building. Is she taking a break from the discussion of pop culture as our religion? No, I think she has moved on to her Epistles. After watching the video a few more times I think she is moving into virtue as defined relationally and the virtue of relationship, very similar to the movement Paul makes in his Epistles. Thus, I conclude “You And I” is a look into the interpersonal relational aspects of religious existence.

The whole video is quite confusing. Gaga even acknowledges this, "The video is quite complex in the way that the story is told, and it's meant to be slightly linear and slightly twisted and confusing, which is the way that love is." Her Facebook statuses referring to this movie include “Love is a Result. We bare an Unbearable Human Inability: to just be.” and “You must love all + every part of me, as must I, for this complex + incomprehensible force to be true.” Interesting insights into relationship.

Here is my reading of the video. The journey begins with an acknowledgement of the pain and grotesqueness of the journey. Often the “cushy” depiction of Christianity, or any other religion, is misleading. There is pain, angst, emotional bleeding, maybe even physical bleeding, all of which usually find their roots in the others one co-journeys with, because religious experience necessitates relationship with others. This pain is exhibited in abandonment by friends, shortcomings of others, intentional self-serving at the cost of the other, or even cheap answers intended for good that end up being severely painful. Therefore, the opening of Gaga’s video is a blatant acknowledgement of pain caused by being in relationship with others. I find this to be an honest warning about the potential harm one opens himself or herself to when embarking on the journey.

The video also contains an interesting interplay of gender roles (as per normal for Gaga). As she plays both people in the piano scenes, she continues to facilitate a dialogue of sexual identity and journey. This is one of her ongoing conversations within her videos, which all contemporary religions need to discuss in order to be relevant. This is her major discussion in her video “Born this way”, it is because of her willingness to participate in the conversation openly that her religion is growing while timid Christianity continues to wallow in its inability to have the conversation. This journey and conversation is implicitly relational, as we are not defined in isolation but by relationships with others. Religion must be functional, so when Christianity (here I make a big generalization) is too afraid to facilitate the conversation everyone is having the forum is taken elsewhere. These difficult, but necessary, conversations often end up being facilitated by the prophets of the time, who are only later recognized for what they are and the value they have given by facilitating the conversation, in this case, she is a prophetess. A final note on gender and sexuality in this video is the scene where she kisses herself, as it is an interesting statement about self-love, which is central to her religion. This is very similar to Christianity, specifically the statement in the gospels to love others as yourself. Self-love is necessary as it is a precondition to altruism and empathy.

Relationships are inherently full of violence and chaos; this is exhibited in Gaga’s depiction of the love and relationship in this video. The act of binding to another is a destructive event, as it requires some change of self-identity in order to bind to another. Love is also inherently violent and evil (see the Zizek video in Duncan’s “Wandering the Wilderness” post). Gaga captures the violence and destruction inherent in relationships through the violent imagery in this video.

Relationship, however, is worth the violence and chaos. I see this in the video as there is a movement from depictions of being bound to scenes of freedom. These are the Frankenstein scene and the leather-strap dance scene that progress into the mermaid scenes, the arrival of legs, and acceptance of self within relationship; all of which come near the end of the video.

The other aspect of relationships that Gaga tells of is the virtue of flexibility. The video moves from a mechanical nature of relationship (metal prosthetics), which is then contrasted to the mythical nature of relationships (mermaid). I think this shift speaks to the need for structure when entering into relationship but the need for increasing flexibility and creativity to further relationships.

Beyond relationship being explored within the video, this video is a new level of vulnerability for Gaga herself, in her relationship with her little monsters (fans). This occurs as she shows a very “normal” shot of herself at the piano (which is abnormal for Gaga). In doing so, she continues to reinvent and creatively redefine the mother monster relationship building a depth, which is not accomplished by stagnant personas.

The line that probably stands out to a first time watcher is, “There are only three men I will serve my whole life, My Daddy, Nebraska, and Jesus Christ”. This offers a threefold articulation of the relational nature of life. There are family (already existent relationships), friends/coupling/environment – Nebraska (new relationships, discovery – Nebraska most likely is a euphemism for Gaga’s on again, off again relationship with her male partner), and Jesus Christ articulates a spiritual side to relationships that defies objective understanding.

This whole movie then finishes with the final scenes of companionship of two very different individuals. Despite all of the angst, chaos, differences, pain, and struggle, relationship overcomes and there is final companionship that overcomes seemingly insurmountable barriers – mermaid sex.

CYOA: Genesis 1 - Dupes and Troglodytes

OK, I have held almost every view of Genesis 1 at one point or another. I was for a while during my youth a zealous young earth creationist. I have also been of the "it doesn't matter" perspective. And I currently hold that a literary approach to the Bible, and Genesis one in particular, is the best in determining meaning. One of the problems with Genesis 1 is that the question is rarely Genesis 1 but rather your view of scripture, and culture and science etc. This quote from Rick Watts of Regent College sums it up well:

"how one reads Genesis 1 has in some circles become a litmus test of Christian orthodoxy, whether conservative or liberal. Hold the "wrong" view and one is either a dupe of secular critical theory or a troglodyte literalist" - Rick Watts, Making Sense of Genesis 1

Having not held the literal view for sometime, I am always surprised at how difficult it is for most people to change positions from a literal perspective. In my first semester at CBC in Ken Esau's Old Testament survey a 30 minute lecture on the different Christian perspectives of Genesis 1 easily convinced me that my dogmatic literalism on the topic was foolish. I, for some reason, found it very easy to change positions at that time and in that context. Perhaps in my conversations with people on this topic I have done a bad job of explaining myself or for some other reason it has been the wrong time or context for them. In my Timothy and Titus class I presented dogmatic Genesis 1 literalism as a false teaching which I had been delivered from.

The most interesting suggestion I have heard recently via N.T. Wright, during his talk at Christian Life Assembly -Langley, that an Ancient Near Eastern person hearing Genesis 1 would immediately understand it as the building of a temple. Rick Watts, in his article linked above, also touches on this and much of my post will be a condensed and paraphrased version of his amazing scholarship. Therefore if you just want to skip the middle man you can go directly to "page 42" and read the full article, it's not really that long. Here's another tantalising quote:

the essential first step to knowledge, even and perhaps especially in that highest and holiest of all modern callings, science. All of us, Christians and scientists together, simply have to take a great deal on trust, to assume much, if we are ever to get started on the path to knowing. The saying is sure, without assuming something no one shall know anything. But having said that, it is important regularly to reassess those assumptions in the light of our growing knowledge and in doing so to recognize that truth in this kind of historical and literary endeavour is much more a matter of coherence than of certainty. - Rick Watts

A literary approach demands that we take the text very seriously and on its own terms, therefore the issue of genre becomes the opening question. Three things are significant to note: the large amount of repetition, the structure of forming and filling - following the description of the earth as formless and empty, and finally there is a progression from heaven to earth in the creative acts. So the problem is that within the Bible this particular style is utterly unique. It does not look or read like either Hebrew poetry or standard historical prose. I agree with Watts that the highly structured and stylized form indicates a "poetic character" to the text and we should be alert to the possibility of hyperbole, metaphor, and symbol rather than expecting literal concrete history.

When looking across various ancient cultural origin stories it is easy to realize that they all agree that a God brought order out of chaos what they disagree about is which God. Therefore Genesis 1 cannot and is not trying to answer the question "Is there a God?" (a very modern question) but rather "Which God ordered creation into existence out of chaos?"

Creation is an act of speech, highlighting Elohim's supreme kingly power. However, creation through speech is not unique. The Hopi say that Spider Woman sang the world into existence, Ethiopians believe God created both the world and himself by saying his own name, Australian Aboriginals also have an account of creation being sung into existence (Cameron, 43), and the Egyptian God Atum creates animal life by command (Watts). Watts highlights some of the very interesting similarities and differences between other origin stories and Genesis 1. I think that this is a much more profitable approach to determining the truth intended by the text. Context, Context, Context!

Ok, so why the days if we're not talking about literal days? In the Canaanite story of Baal's destruction of Yam (which may or may not be a creation story) after Baal's victory there is a 7 day building program that results in a house/temple for Baal. Similarly in the Bible Yahweh's temple as built by Solomon is built in 7 years (1 Kings 6:37-38). The Bible is filled with architectural imagery when describing creation (Ps 18:15; 82:5; 102:25; 104:5; Prov 8:29; Isa 51:13,16; 2 Sam 22:8,16; Zech 12:1; cf. 2 Sam 22:8).

"Heaven is my throne, and the earth my footstool" Isaiah 66:1 i.e. All of creation is God's palace/temple.

Furthermore, on day six when the temple/palace is nearly complete the final creative act is to place God's image (humanity) into the temple.

Finally, I would like to point out that Genesis 1 moves from dark, formless and empty to shalom (peace/rest). This is a salvation story because it promises God's ability to ultimately bring shalom, which becomes the primary plot of the Bible. The story culminates in Revelation with the New Jerusalem, a global temple/city, coming down to earth and the full unification of heaven and earth and Sabbath rest is enjoyed forever.

Genesis 1 does not answer the question "is there a God" or "how did God create" (in the scientific sense), Genesis 1 speaks to "who is God?" "why did God create?" "who are we?" and "why were we created?" These questions are of the utmost importance in defining identity and relationships: to God and creation and each other. The lack of science, or scientific interest in this account makes it's truth claims no less powerful nor does scientific discovery diminish it's importance in value.

To limit our definition of truth to the material and concrete is to diminish existence to such a degree as to make it into something else entirely.

Works Cited: Rick Watts, Making sense of Genesis 1 ; Julia Cameron, The Vein of Gold

Wandering in the wilderness...

As we have wandered the wilderness of the intertubes we have found many awful and wonderful things. Here are some highlights:


Jesus Potter Harry Christ - A new book about the similarities between the Characters but coming to a much different conclusion than we have but the book has a great cover!


Fixing the American Economy - Scott Adams to the rescue with the power of imagination


In case you haven't watch any Zizek yet here is a couple videos:


This one is amazing (1 hr and 30 min)

This one is on ecology (11 minutes)

This one is on love (2 minutes)

HIV cures cancers! - New leukemia treatment exceeds 'wildest expectations' So much for people clinging to plague theory. Brilliant! - Thanks Adam.


Taylor Mali - On teachers vs lawyers...

George Watsky - On starting his own church...

Harry Potter Cartoon - about Harry not doing homework

And one last piece of spoken word as linked in a comment on CYOA - Look to the Snake

CYOA - Look to the Snake

4 They traveled from Mount Hor along the route to the Red Sea, to go around Edom. But the people grew impatient on the way; 5 they spoke against God and against Moses, and said, “Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? There is no bread! There is no water! And we detest this miserable food!”

6 Then the LORD sent venomous snakes among them; they bit the people and many Israelites died. 7 The people came to Moses and said, “We sinned when we spoke against the LORD and against you. Pray that the LORD will take the snakes away from us.” So Moses prayed for the people.

8 The LORD said to Moses, “Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live.” 9 So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, they lived.

I was so excited to write on this passage because it is so bizarre! I mean the snakes are obviously no fun but then the bronze snake blows my mind!!!??? I mean why not have Moses' staff turn into a snake again and eat all the other snakes or maybe stick the ten commandments on a pole... or a bronze replica of the ten commandments... or a statue of Moses... But no, a bronze snake. Literally, looking to the snake was to receive God's salvation... Reflect on that statement for a moment. Does it creep anyone else out? That one looked to God by looking at the snake... Ok but maybe it makes sense because they are being attacked by snakes. So by having the symbol of salvation be a snake, no one will get confused and think God is a snake... they will remember Yahweh and the his deliverance from the snakes... Maybe? Nope: by 2 Kings 18:4, Israel is offering incense to the thing.

I did a word search on snake and serpent and it is a surprising common way of talking about something bad, being used mostly in a negative sense. However, the bronze snake is a weird kind of exception/non exception. There is also Gen 49:17 which is a prophecy about Dan in which snake imagery is kind of used as a positive negative and the staff into a snake trick in Exodus. In Matthew 10:16 we have Jesus command to be as shrewd as snakes. And you have Jesus' statement in John 3:14-15 directly referencing Numbers 21:

Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.

And that is it.

Ok, now I want to give you the part that really freaks me out. Perhaps you have heard of Asclepius. The Greek God of medicine and healing.... Symbolized as a snake entwined on a staff... Still the common symbol for medicine/medical stuff...

So the Israelites are dying from snake bites and they need healing and they look to a bronze snake on a pole, i.e. Asclepius and they are healed. Except that Yahweh instructs this action and timeline-wise the connection must be from Israel to Greece and not the other way around if a real connection exists at all. To push this just a bit further, Asclepius is killed by Zeus for... raising people from the dead!!! Early church father Justin Martyr presented Asclepius as explicitly foreshadowing Jesus' ability to heal for the Greeks and is used as an example to show how Jesus' resurrection and ascension was not in any way unbelievable because this is already what Greeks believed about Asclepius!

OK. So we have the bronze serpent, to Asclepius, to Jesus. Furthermore, there is some scholarship and strong archaeological evidence to suggest that the Bathesda healing (John 5:1-15) was a confrontation with the pagan cult of Asclepius. So the question then... is this all part of God's glorious plan to save people in confusing ways that wind up getting people side tracked but eventually somehow lead to Jesus? Is the story of the snake which gives/offers life but ultimately leads people astray merely an extension of Eden? How do we reconcile the snake as both a symbol of judgement/punishment and salvation? Are we doomed to a story of redemptive violence? Are we supposed to not notice the phallic undertone in the descriptions of snakes and poles being lifted into the air?

Harry Potter is Jesus - Part 1 (spoiler alert)

Ok, I am one of the ignorant masses that Silas is disappointed in for having not actually read the Harry Potter books. So unfortunately my comment can only extend definitively to the movies, which I have watched. However, it is my assumption that what is true of the movies is only more so and better in the books, for that is the nature of books.

Harry Potter is a phenomenon that has occurred as I have grown up and I have witnessed the back lash and debates regarding witchcraft and wizardry and the appropriate response of a Christian parent to these black magic books, which have bewitched the world... With that being said, I never shared that perspective. A child reading Harry Potter and becoming involved in the occult is as much Harry Potter's fault as someone reading the Bible and becoming a nudist, or attacking animals with a jawbone, trying to walk on water at Niagra Falls, or killing someone because of sexual orientation, or bombing an abortion clinic... damn those last two hit kinda close to home don't they? Maybe we should boycott the Bible? NO! This is the whole point: books and what you read are not responsible for what you do - that's your responsibility. Do they have influence? Yes, but you are in control of that influence as I believe my Bible example highlights. Two people can read the same book and have wildly different reactions and wildly different lives... So what can we conclude? That clearly the book is in no way definitively responsible for a person's actions. Furthermore, of all of the dangers of influence in Harry Potter, my father has concluded that far and away the worst one is that Harry and Ron never really do any homework and don't take school seriously. That's right my dad has read Harry Potter and I haven't.

The reason that I have not read Harry Potter is because I am skeptical of cultural phenomena and don't like getting swept away in hype. The TV series "Lost" is another example of this occurring where I regret not becoming and avid and devoted fan. I was just a touch too old for Harry Potter; it was the book that the kids I was babysitting were reading and dressing up as for Halloween and I wrote it off as a kids book and never really got over that. I knew that people loved the books, including my wife Amy, for whom I bought the sixth or seventh book the day it came out at a 7-11 the summer we started dating. But now having seen the last movie, I get it. Harry Potter is Jesus. The whole series is possibly more Christian than Lord of the Rings. Not only does Harry die a sacrificial death but it is an anticipated and planned sacrificial death. "Now you tell me you have been raising him like a pig for slaughter" Snape says this to Dumbledore in the final film. All one needs to do is change the word pig to lamb and it could be straight out of the Bible. The themes of reconciliation, redemption, self saacrifice and good triumphing over evil are primary themes in the final movie and series as a whole. What we have is not merely a story, and not merely good vs evil but a full blown atonement theory - Christus Victor with a twist...

What do you think? Does Harry Potter offer an alternative perspective on atonement that is compatible with Christianity? What are the key nuances?

Just in case you weren't convinced... Harry Potter - "The boy who lives"... yeah he dies in the last film but he comes back to life too.


Read Harry Potter is Jesus Pt. 2

"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”.

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.

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) .

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.

Thoughts of Grandeur

Thoughts of Grandeur

This blog is probably best read while listening to Charlotte Gainsbourg, IRM CD

Am I really satisfied? What do I want? Or maybe more truthfully...To what extent am I socially constructed?

As I sit here typing this blog post I am making macaroni and cheese for dinner, the meal of champions. There is nothing that levels the playing field like Mac and Cheese, and what does it have at all to do with being a champion? I imagine that no matter how rich or famous one becomes Mac and Cheese will always be a part of life. It has to be the great equalizer of western society, well at least North America. I have been pondering life again (which is really not beneficial for anyone) and it has led me once again to the realization that sparked the name of this blog. Smoke, Mirrors and Cigarettes, drew upon meaningless, vanity, and vapours in the wind. Ecclesiastes 1:2 "Meaningless! Meaningless! Says the teacher. Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless." To be honest as much as this causes me to despair and wallow, I find incredible solace in this monologue, it proves to me that the writers of the Bible were not modernists which is comforting as there is then room to simply be in a state of ambiguity. Everything is nothing and nothing is better off enjoyed than wasted so after I finish writing this I am going to go out enjoy the fresh air, and enjoy a cigarette which so perfectly pollutes it.

I began this most recent contemplation as I drove back from Whistler. After being re-immersed in outdoor culture, I found myself driving back to interview at a bike shop of all places. I found myself again thinking that working in a bike shop was not the ideal place to find oneself after spending way too much money to get a degree. I was going to interview for an entry-level position as a sales associate making chump change, and paying off the student debt will be a slow go if this is where I end up. I had a lot of time to think as I drove all the way to Abbotsford to grab respectable clothes and shower, then drive back to Langley to interview, which turned out to be a wapping 5 minute interview (totally worth the 4 hours in my car today). Is this really how life is going to turn out? Is this really what I have to look forward to in the next ____ years of my life?

On the return trip from the interview I could not help but think I wanted something more. But when I came to question of why I wanted more, I was dumbfounded. I had no good explanation of why I wanted more. I had just spent 5 days with awesome people in Whistler who were choosing to live there, make little money, just enough to live and do as they pleased with regards to biking and skiing. Why did I have this complex of grandeur? I found myself realizing I was terribly pretentious to think that my life should not turn out that way. Not that I am after some six figure job, but I might as well have been as I sat there having distain for a life of 9-14$ an hour. It is not like I have a family, or pay child support, I live reasonably cheaply so it could work.

After a while I came to a realization that my desire for grandeur was a socially constructed desire. The concept of being satisfied or what I want was all socially constructed. It must be, if at one moment in Whistler I can think to myself, this is all I want to do with my life, and then the moment I am on the highway and see a BMW and I think that what I want is a high paying job. Or when I am in school all I want is to be the best and to teach. The root of all of these I found out today is a socially constructed complex of being unique.

We watch movies of famous lives, we have contests to be the best, we read incredible biographies, and even the fiction of our lives tells us to be the best or to be unique. Slowly I am coming to the realization that for the majority of us, those are not the cards we have been dealt in this big confusing game of chance. The danger I see is that there is not any area of life that this prevalent social construct does not pervade as dominant, in our work, school, play, and even religion (which is most disconcerting to me). We all pursue after being the best and being unique, it is one big advertising campaign that worked better than all the rest (even better than De Beers convincing everyone that you need a diamond to be engaged, and that was a duzy of an ad campaign).

Well with those thoughts, a dinner of Mac and Cheese (the great equalizer) was in order (and for those who are wondering it was delicious). Now off to be meaningless with a Cigarette, and a book of Harry Potter (the ultimate propaganda fiction of being unique). But best to live enjoying the nothing. Until next time, Wallow well.