Examining the Apparatus

New Year: New Me

2012-02-02T05:30:00.006-06:00

Reality is a mixture of math and literature--circumstance should determine the discipline. The formulas won't work with complicated matters. But with some matters, it's simple math:

What if I was wrong and you had never questioned it?
What if it was true, that all we thought was right, was wrong?
Simple math, the truth cannot be fractioned (Manchester Orchestra: "Simple Math").

Love lasts forever. No One Would Riot for Less! (HT: Bright Eyes)

We all want to be known, but in order to be known, we must wait until they want to know us. Do unto others...

Seek to know, then you will be known.

Thanks, Donald Miller, for giving me the language to express my latest vow: to work harder building my character instead of building my reputation.
-------------------------------------
All images courtesy of the Internet.

Knowing Nothing about Bar Graphs

2011-12-20T12:05:00.004-06:00

A few of the English teachers at my workplace are raising questions about the value of some of the content on our district's quarterly standardized tests. I don't care to comment on the pros and cons of standardized tests, but I did want to weigh in on the content under review. Here's the questions up for examination: Why should English teachers teach their students to read bar graphs? Does this skill belong in an English class? Why should we bother trusting the "eggheads" who create these graphs?

Here's my take: The ability to proficiently read a bar graph, or any other type of graph, is a research skill. I think research skills are vital for students, especially English students. Charts and bar graphs are great primary sources to use when trying to support an argument. Learning to interpret charts and bar graphs will help students be able to understand the evidence they'll need when writing an argumentative or research essay.

The language for information is constantly evolving, and English teachers would do their students a great service by teaching them to read and speak these various languages. Here's a couple of suggestions: The Gale Group's Opposing Viewpoints in Context electronic database has a great "Statistics" section covering every currently important social issue ... with many charts and graphs that students (and scholars) can use to draw conclusions in their research. Also, USA TODAY became popular for being one of the first newspapers to appeal to our image-driven culture (i.e. those raised on television as their primary information medium). If reading (English) teachers don't teach students to read the "visual texts" in this "visual world," I'm afraid the level of critical thinking in our society would decrease.

Concerning the reliability of current research findings from the "eggheads," sure, they could be erroneous, but current research findings, though not infallible, are some of the most reliable sources we have at any given period in history. These Ph.D.'s may chart or graph their findings, but they're usually very careful when drawing concrete conclusions from their research. Most findings acknowledge variables and provide qualified conclusions. And, yes, research findings are often proved wrong, but isn't this why English teachers teach their students to research the most current information? Like many, I'm often tempted to throw out the baby with the bathwater, wring my disillusioned hands at the epistemological sky, and make the agnostic proclamation, but then I realize that KNOWING is not the only goal. THINKING is the goal, which leads to KNOWING, and when our students accept the wisdom (guised as humility) of Socrates ("I know one thing, that I know nothing"), only then can they truly THINK ... and KNOW!

My job is to carefully pry open the minds of my students ... in a delicate manner so their brains don't fall out (HT: G.K. Chesterton) ... and bar graphs are one of the many tools the lobotomist should consider.

Book Review - David Freeman Hawkes: EVERYDAY LIFE IN EARLY AMERICA (1988)

2011-11-26T00:01:00.000-06:00

Everyday Life in Early America by David Freeman Hawke

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

I'm not sure how I should review a book like this. I'm not educated enough to make an offhand evaluation of the writer's arguments, and I don't want to spend the time needed to make this evaluation. I took exhaustive notes because I wanted to record each new fact I learned and each previously-held question Hawke answered for me. So if the amount of notes one takes translates into a letter grade, I would give this book a B; A's are reserved for only the most mind-blowing works of nonfiction, and this book wasn't exactly mind-blowing--it was simply informative. Hawke basically explores every aspect of the early American colonists' life and culture. His approach is objective: he usually shares the various positions of differing historians. Hawke seems to be a tertiary voice in historical studies (at least in this book ... if there's a such thing as a "tertiary" voice)--he mostly uses secondary source material--even his primary sources are usually quoted from secondary sources. I was also disappointed that instead of a footnotes or citations, Hawke instead provides a "Selected Bibliography," which makes evaluating his arguments, if so inclined to, more difficult. But in all, I know this book will inform my American literature course, especially Chapter 12: "Wonders of the Invisible World," in which Hawke discusses the colonists' pre-enlightenment beliefs (i.e. superstitions) and the Salem Witch Trials.

View all my reviews

Why I Love Horror Films: Overcoming the Fear of the Painted Devils

2011-11-21T09:42:00.000-06:00

The sleeping and the dead
Are but as pictures. 'Tis the eye of childhood
That fears a painted devil. --Lady Macbeth, Act 2.2.53-55, Shakespeare's MACBETH

One blogger asks, "Do you like horror movies? I don't. It surprises me that people would want to watch something that makes themselves feel scared" ("Horror Movies" from Don't Convert Me).

I love horror films because they once epitomized my childhood fears. I hold my dad somewhat responsible for instigating this fear. He was never a fan of horror films, but he did force me to go to haunted houses each Halloween, a yearly tradition that filled me with dread each October. My dad also loved to tell wild tales to horrify my brother and me, and more often than not, the veracity of these tales was left up in the air. To this day, my dad has never told me that he was only joking about that tractor beam pulling him into a UFO ship late one night in Chauvin, LA--which, incidentally, occurred within a week after a night of quality family programming--i.e. a "documentary" about alien encounters. When I was in first grade, I remember watching JAWS III with my dad, and I also remember bolting from the room after some dude's severed head floated across the screen. Another reason I associate childhood fears with my father is because of a night in second grade. I remember lying on the couch with him as he flipped through the channels (an exhaustive number since we had just bought a satellite dish). He stopped flipping on a backyard scene. A teenaged girl was walking through her yard wearing a white nightgown. A hatted silhouette appeared on a boarded fence. Suddenly, a monstrous, disfigured face filled the screen; he then chopped off one of his own fingers! That was all I could handle. My dad laughed a little as I struggled to escape his grip and the grip of the scary man wearing the fedora. Another vivid experience I remember was hearing the voices of my neighbors crying for help during a sleepless night after watching Stephen King's CAT'S EYE. In fourth grade, the first scene of King's CHILDREN OF THE CORN caused me to flee to my room, and two years later, I spent another sleepless night mulling over scenes from King's PET SEMATARY. These moments with the "painted devils" of the screen etched the names of both Freddy Krueger and Stephen King into my mind.

It wasn't until the summer after my parents' divorce that I found the strength to face my fears and watch some of the horror movies that I had, for years, cowered from. Before the divorce, I remember peeking at the grotesque VHS boxes in the video store horror section, from a safe distance, hoping my dad wouldn't see me. I was afraid he would rent one and make me watch it, just like he made me go to haunted houses for all those years. But now, I was ready. That summer my brother and I watched the NIGHTMARE ON ELM ST series (five films had been released by that time), all eight FRIDAY THE 13th films, both FRIGHT NIGHT films, several PUPPET MASTER movies, and countless others. I checked out my first adult book at the local library--Stephen King's NIGHT SHIFT--and within the next few years I had consumed IT, NEEDFUL THINGS, PET SEMATARY, and THE STAND. So, I spent the following years watching and reading horror. I even gained a friend in the deal: I noticed a guy on my bus reading one of the books in King's DARK TOWER series, and eventually he became my best friend, and for the next decade we watched and read horror together, making it through some of the worst (most of the Full Moon pantheon, BOARDINGHOUSE, etc.) and the best (HALLOWEEN, EVENT HORIZON, SCREAM, THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, etc.).

To this day, I try to watch the major horror releases or buzz films, and I'm still working on reading the entire Stephen King library (32 down and 35 to go). Since my wife hates horror, I don't get to watch as many as I would like (married guys might be able to understand this predicament). Furthermore, few adults in my social circle watch horror (I've counted one in the last five years of living in B.R.). Horror films, in addition to countless other pubescent fixations, let me know that I belong where I'm at--in a high school. It's the only place where I can have a good conversation about this genre. Nowadays, I've grown desensitized, not only to the gore and terror, but to the victory over fear that these films once represented. My adolescent obsession and pride has become an intellectual pursuit lately (as have most subjects of interest since studying literature in college)--I'm fascinated with finding the inciting force of societal fears reflected in popular horror--but, after reading the blog of a random person who commented on my previous post, I guess I just felt the need to explain why I would want to watch something of this nature.

This Bog of ... [Temporary] Stench

2011-11-09T00:01:00.000-06:00

Viewing my life in the midst of this five-day sickness is horribly depressing. I tried to go back to school yesterday. After vomiting into two cups before school started, I tried to guide my students through their persuasive essays. I found myself despairing at their illogical, non-explicit attempts to persuade their audiences. What am I doing wrong? Why don’t they get it? I give up. During my conference/planning period, I balled up an old pullover and used it as a pillow. After five minutes of lying on the floor in my classroom, I decided to check myself out, go home, and lie in my bed for twenty-four hours.

Fairy tales have kept me company in this sweaty, stinking bedroom, this Bog of Eternal Stench. I’m sympathizing with Jennifer Connelly’s character in LABYRINTH (1986). Like her, I take so much for granted as I travel through the labyrinth that is life—namely, my health. The days when I agonize over the minute pale in comparison to these last few days, and they make me want to appreciate and savor each day—without nausea, headaches, and stomach cramps—patiently teach my students, and lovingly nourish my family.

Since Netflix stopped working an hour into LABYRINTH, I went to Hulu and began watching the new ABC series ONCE UPON A TIME. It got me thinking about “our world.” In order to defeat Snow White, the Evil Queen kills her own father and uses his heart to unleash the curse of all curses on the fairytale world. The curse enslaves characters like Jiminy Cricket, Little Red Riding Hood & her grandmother, Geppetto & Pinocchio, and Snow White, transporting them to the town of Storybrook in “our world,” with no memory of their happy lives in fairytale land, to live in a place where there are no “happy endings.” Like the curse, this virus (or whatever it is) muddles my perspective, making me forget that each night I go to sleep loved by my family, respected by my students, and satisfied with who I am and who I’m becoming. I’m sure as the season unfolds, these fairytale characters will learn to find happiness in “our world.” They’ll begin to remember their true selves and live out their fairytale amidst the paralyzing forces of human existence, proving that, even in a land perceived as the worst by the Evil Queen and her cohorts, “happy endings” can exist!

I’m thankful to have Ludo, Sir Didymus, and Hoggle by my side during these cumbersome days to help me fight off the creatures … and David Bowie, who keeps singing these sour keyboard-driven, kiddified, new wave tunes in my ear. “Shut up! … and stop prancing about and saying ‘babes’ like a goblin pedophile!!” Love brings me medicine, soup, and crackers, and expresses their worries each time I relapse. (No bulging tights or molesting, high-pitched guitar solos!) And Henry, I believe you! I saw what happened to fairytale land! Emma Swan didn’t get the privilege I had of seeing all the flashback material. But she’s coming around! Once she comes to full terms with the supernatural evil afoot, she’ll be able to fight those forces with confidence! And after today, I’ll get off these pillows and stand by your side as well, embracing my health and the loved ones by my side, and we’ll rid this town of all its cursed 80’s rock stars and poisonous politicians who try to convince us to turn our backs on others and accept an unhappy ending to the story we live!

Theme Analysis: Stephen King's RAGE (1977)

2011-10-19T00:01:00.000-05:00

Rage by Stephen King

My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Because this book, according to several teenage school shooters, inspired them to commit their violent acts, Stephen King asked his publisher to take it out of print. Taking a book out of print may decrease the readership a bit, but it can’t stop a seasoned King reader like myself from picking up a worn copy for 25¢ at Goodwill. I loved RAGE. I thought I was about to read a plot-driven, suspenseful tale of a troubled youth, but I was pleased when I realized this early novel was actually a more “literary,” Freudian exploration of a troubled teen’s psychological experiment (and it still had enough page-turning suspense to hasten my reading).

MEANING [Spoilers Ahead]: King seems to argue that the secrets we keep help us to cling to our humanity, and in order to remain sane, we should discuss those secrets with those we trust, as opposed to those who get paid to ask questions and listen (e.g., school counselors, clinical psychiatrists). It’s when we channel those secrets through built-up rage that our insanity gets the best of us. Charles Decker chooses the latter, which results in him bludgeoning a teacher with a pipe wrench, murdering two other teachers, and holding a classroom hostage. The hostage situation, to Decker’s surprise, becomes more of a counseling session for both Decker and the teens in the classroom, who have hidden hostilities and frustrations of their own. During their few hours together, Decker is able to unravel the weave of his Oedipus complex. The students also reveal their own parental, peer, and sexual insecurities and experiences and some of the ways they’ve channeled them—all but Ted Jones, who prefers to deny his id and hide behind his ego, eventually becoming more insane than Decker, who, because of his hostage experiment, actually becomes more of what he considers a human being—while Jones ends up committed to an asylum. In a memo printed in the last few pages of RAGE, Jones’s doctor writes, “…I am not as hopeful for this boy [Jones] as I once was” (128). It’s Decker who seems to have made progress. He writes, “They [the asylum staff] give me custard and I hate it, but I eat it just the same. They think I like it. So I have a secret again. Finally I have a secret again….it’s only a little secret, but having a secret makes me feel better. Like a human being again” (131). I used these final words from Decker, as well as Jones’s prognosis, as a lens for the novel, but I think there’s much more to King’s meaning that would surely reveal itself in a second reading—a task I might perform if I wasn’t a solo literature geek (having no one to explore with), or if I was a troubled teen like Jeffrey Lynne Cox, who claimed reading RAGE over and over again (along with the Kuwait Airways Flight 422 hijacking in 1988) inspired him to hold hostage a humanities class of sixty. Stephen King’s response to this and other RAGE-inspired acts: “Now out of print, and a good thing.” I’m sure I’d better understand King’s decision to stop publishing RAGE if I was in his shoes, having access to the depths of the novel’s meaning from the troubled teen mind that wrote this book back during the early 1970s.

Source Material:
“RAGE (Stephen King Novel).” Wikipedia.org._King_novel%29>.

View all my reviews

Book Review - Kathryn Stockett: THE HELP (2009)

2011-10-15T00:01:00.000-05:00

The Help by Kathryn Stockett

My rating: 5 of 5 stars

THE HELP fostered and strengthened the emotional ties between me and some of the girls in my book club. We mixed our tea with tears of both joy and sorrow into the wee hours of the morning: "Minny Jackson baked what?" "Girl, you know she's crazy ... but no crazier than me!" "I heard that, girlfriend! ... I HEARD THAT!!" "That Hilly Holbrook needs a mouthful of broken glass, girlfriend!" "Hell yeah ... and an unhinged jaw from several of my powerful punches to the face!" "Uh huh! That's what I'm talking about!"

This machismo yearning for release has revealed me as a liar. As you know, I'm not a girl, and as you may have assumed, I am not part of a women's book club (Although I do envy their book clubs and secretly wish women would put down their books and get back in the kitchen in hopes that men everywhere would drop out of their Fantasy Football leagues and, with the femininity now back in the kitchen, redefine reading as a worthy masculine pursuit. Unfortunately, my decision to read THE HELP is probably not going to encourage any man to read a book, but it might encourage them to send a few gay jokes my way!). But THE HELP is one of those books that Oprah and her ladies would love. It may be an Oprah Book Club Selection for all I know. I don't imagine most men would enjoy it, but I loved reading it. If it weren't for my own insecurities regarding others' perceptions, I probably wouldn't even assign genders to books, but, just as I had feared, my perceptions proved to be just as accurate as my self-centered head told me they were. Before walking into CC's coffee shop Tuesday, I pondered whether or not I should read a marigold and lilac-colored book in public. I decided to be myself, so I sat there with my almond latte and enjoyed a story about women and segregation in 1960's Mississippi. And when that lady walked up to me and said, "I am so happy to see a man reading THE HELP! Good for you!," I proudly said, "Nah. This book's for my wife--she's in the bathroom. I wasn't writing notes in the margins; I was adding up yardage to see how many yards Brees and McFadden need for my team to be in the lead next Sunday. I'll tell you who needs THE real HELP: the Miami Dolphins and the St. Louis Rams. Both 0-4 this season." Not really. I couldn't have told her that--since I had to go to ESPN to find the name of a good running back AND find out which teams were sucking this season. I actually told her that I really liked the book and that I appreciated how the author developed the suspense in spite of the typically unsuspenseful nature of the topic (sort of like Sorkin and Fincher did in THE SOCIAL NETWORK)--and then I crossed my legs (because it's comfortable, people, and because gone are the days when men's pants were so tight that they WOULD crush their nuts if they crossed their legs), allowed my wrist to fall limp (because it's comfortable too, people, and because gone are the days of ... wait ... ignore this parenthetical aside...), and finished enjoying my third "girly" novel about racism in these four years (First, Morrison's BELOVED, and Second, Walker's THE COLOR PURPLE). Good for me!!

View all my reviews

The Chirp of the Individualist

2011-10-08T10:35:00.003-05:00

An old friend's thoughts on social identities sparked a few thoughts. She raises the following question: "Why wouldn't a person want to be 'real'?" Here's what I think:

Some people don't want to be "real" because, for them, the negative social consequences of being "real" outweigh the benefits of embracing their true identity. People are often hostile, insensitive, or snarky toward them, so they outwardly conform to avoid pain. Some people feel alone, and their only way of escaping is to put on a new identity. That people will like them a hell of a lot more if they be themselves does not ring true for everyone. You may like them a hell of a lot more if you THINK they're being themselves, but depending on the type of person they are, this may be not the case for everyone in their social circle. Also, according to sociologists and philosophers, it's quite normal for humans to project different personas depending on the social situation ("wearing a different hat"). People often emphasize some parts of their personalities and hide other parts, and even pretend when social demands must be met. I think this issue is more complicated than a black/white dichotomy between those who are "real" and those who are "posers." Researchers noticed a trend within young black males--their demographic has higher unemployment rates than other races in their bracket. Researchers found that they SO valued "being themselves," that they were unable to understand that code-switching is a normal and integral part of human success. These young black males fervently believed that wearing more formal clothes and using standard English (instead of their cultural dialect) was a form of "posing," or "being white" as they termed it. My point: "Posing" is a survival strategy in a socially threatening world. It helps people get what they want or need from the world jury. Just as many animals have the ability to blend into their surroundings to avoid an attack, the human species must do the same, and unfortunately, more often than not, when the grasshopper becomes boastful of his individuality and proclaims it from the black, shingled rooftop, the sparrow is the last one to enjoy the good intentions of his last individualistic chirp.

Magical Nights

2011-09-24T09:36:00.001-05:00

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone by J.K. Rowling

My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Nearly every Harry Potter fan I meet has read the series at least twice. As for me, I never pictured myself actually finishing the books for the FIRST time, and just as I’ve never considered converting to Islam, I’ve never given a first thought to re-reading the four Potter books I HAVE already read, and my desire to read the last three books was only half-hearted at the most. Then I watched HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS: PART II at the movie theater this summer! I was converted from a tepid fan (“I like the POTTER series. It’s pretty good. I think it’s a bit over-hyped though.”) to a speechless fan ( “...!!!!!"). I reread the first book with my children and wife and loved it more the second time around.

There’s no feeling like introducing your children to your own hobbies and interests and seeing their faces light up with enthusiasm. When little eight year olds in Baton Rouge utter their very first “That’s bullshit!” to a referee’s call against the Tigers, the glow from their beaming dads’ hearts pulsate with the potential to make the moon not so secure in his position with the company.
I’ve been brainwashing Caedmon for years now with STAR WARS, and I’m afraid I may have corrupted him. His enthusiasm for and knowledge of the STAR WARS universe has surpassed my own (He knows the names of every single machine to step foot on Hoth!). He’s played PS2’s STAR WARS LEGOS video game every week for nearly four year (We’re currently on our third copy of the same game, which Caedmon paid for with his own money!). I’m ready for a change, so I guess now it’s time to pack the U-haul, leave Mos Eisley for a while, and enroll at Hogwarts.

We have been reading HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER’S STONE aloud for the past few weeks. Each night Jess, Caedmon, Arwen, and I read about a chapter or so. Now, I’ve been reading books aloud to the kids for years now, but NO BOOK has captivated us as intensely as HARRY POTTER. I think the excitement I feel when looking forward to each night’s reading outreaches Caedmon’s on some nights. Reading this book out loud is SO much better than reading it by myself in my head. It's fun coming up with voices for each character, even though my English accents are quite rough and inconsistent, my Hagrid sounds more like my pirate impression, and my family thinks Professor McGonagall is Ron’s mom, Mrs. Weasley is the head of Gryffindor, and Harry and Ron are the same person. It’s even worse when I do Hagrid’s voice not realizing that Hermione is the one speaking.

We’re about ninety pages into THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS and hope to finish the entire series within two years. The kids haven’t seen the movies yet, so it’ll be an extra treat to watch each movie together after we finish each book. I also bought HARRY POTTER LEGOS YEARS 1-4 for Caedmon (for straight A's on his interim report), but I’m making him wait until we finish reading each year before he plays the video game version. Pretty soon, he’ll be able to put me to shame, for I’m sure, before long, his ability to recite the names of each spell and its effects will rival Hermione Granger’s.

View all my reviews

Alien Clones of the 21st Century

2011-09-17T06:20:00.004-05:00

The Ascension Parish School Board held a district-wide staff development meeting yesterday and invited the CEO of the International Center for Leadership in Education, Bill Daggett. Daggett addressed all 1,700 of us teachers during an engaging three-hour presentation. He mainly wanted to let us know that we should be preparing students for their future instead of preparing students for our own past. Daggett delivered these fine words with plenty of examples of the future our students will encounter (e.g. button-size computers, Wolfram Alpha's domination) and the past our educators can't or don't want to escape (e.g. agrarian school calendar, inefficient/outdated keyboard design, science curricula). He helped me to raise several significant questions that I hope to think through and discuss in the months and years to come.

Daggett is famous for coining the buzz words "Relevance and Rigor," both of which summarize his educational philosophy. He insists that if information presented in the classroom has no relevance to the students' reality, learning has no real meaning for them. He also believes in holding American students to high standards--not many high standards, as the current trend is to focus on breadth--but fewer high standards, as to make the new trend to focus on depth. I agree with Daggett here. The state/parish English curricula is heavy on assignments and even heavier on assumptions, assumptions about the skills/knowledge students should have when reaching the 11th/12th grades. I often feel pressured to break into the House of Usher by Week 6, so as to maintain adequate pacing, but I feel like I've trampled the art of persuasion to die alone back in the streets of Concord. The 11th/12th English curricula are organized around the writers, their historical contexts, and their works instead of around the communication and research skills that I could better help students to develop if the curricula approached these skills with a more systematic, in-depth approach. I am developing my own curriculum alongside the state/parish's to address these needs, but it just takes time and experience to perfect it, time that I wish the state/parish had already taken.

Regardless of my qualms with the curriculum, I'm noticing that Daggett's presentation has encouraged me to rethink some of the goals I've set for my students. I already feel my lesson plans becoming more relevant as I brainstorm ways to add more real-world application--something more than "Chaucer's pilgrims took a long trip. If you were to take a long trip, who would you bring along and why?" This question from the curriculum is fine for helping students relate to the story, but it doesn't address the skills needed to actually understand Chaucer's poetry, nor does it mention how the skills needed to understand Chaucer can be used in the real world.

When singer/guitarist John Mayer graduated high school, he found that there was no such thing as the "real world." He probably found that much of what he learned in high school did not relate to his real world. Maybe his teachers, like many of us today, never thought to question the conventional logic our teachers started feeding us in kindergarten: "You need to know this so that you'll be prepared for first grade." It turned into "You need to know this so that you'll be prepared for junior high ... for high school ... for college." We never believed all that talk about the real-world our teachers would mention every now and then because the curriculum of our schools prepared us for ... more school. Our schools prepared us for their world, not the "real world." So, Mayer is right to some degree. There's no such thing as the "real world" if that "real world" is the narrow world of academia--the place where Pythagoras and Chaucer sit on the legislature enacting the public policy of Shakespeare and Helen Keller, preparing us to live in a false reality divorced from the really real world where history, science, math, and communication have really real consequences and implications--all of which I can't detail for you, for my true citizenship is completely irrelevant. I'm hoping that Daggett's ideas will eventually make me a citizen of the really real world, that way I can help enfranchise the next generation before they turn into alien clones of the 21st century.

Review & Analysis - Stephen King: FULL DARK, NO STARS (2010)

2011-09-10T06:55:00.003-05:00

Full Dark, No Stars by Stephen King

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Review: All four novellas were interesting reads, and contrary to my former self, the two non-supernatural tales, “Big Driver” and “A Good Marriage,” were the most engaging of this set. The other two were good stories—-the appearance of Pennywise, the clown from IT, was a nice treat in “Fair Extension,” and the setting of “1922” was a nice change from the typical present-day setting of most King stories—-but these two were not as suspenseful as the former two tales of male oppression and the feminist response.

[SPOILERS AHEAD]

Analysis: King draws a distinct line between good and evil in these four novellas and assumes a basic Christian morality for the most part. Not that this book should be used as evidence to identify King’s religious persuasion, but that the cautionary elements in this book are enough evidence to identify the moral biases of the writer and/or the sympathies he’s targeting in his audience. All four tales feature a character committing brutal violence against another, and justice is served against three of the four offenders. King’s narrators quote the Bible’s teachings on the role of godly wives in all four stories, and although some of the narrators use the teachings to justify their own evils, the audience is supposed to be aware of the misuse and shouldn’t come to any anti-biblical conclusions. Now, God is not explicitly active in any of these stories (Although I think the argument could be made that He is in "1922"). He serves more as a representative of the Good—-sort of as the standard of moral truth in each story. The Devil, however, plays an explicit role in “Fair Extension” (Pennywise assumes the form of George Elvid—-the last name, as the narrator points out, would be obvious to anyone who’s played Scrabble a few times.). This is the one story where justice is not served as one would expect. But even though justice isn’t served as we would like, the story still clearly defines righteousness and wickedness, leaving the audience with an honest answer to old King David’s lament: “Why do the wicked prosper?” Why? Because, as the story of Job and the epistle of Peter suggest, the Devil is still walking to and fro upon the face of the earth, seeking whom he may devour—-and sometimes he eats a hearty meal. Not the type of hearty meal you find in typical morality tales about deals with the Devil, where the guy who makes the deal ends up paying dearly in the end; I’m talking about the type of hearty meal where the guy who makes the deal makes a FAIR deal—-no small print—- for a fair extension of his life. No Devil to come take away Tom Walker in the end (See Washington Irving). No semantical sleight of hand for being malicious enough to push the red button (See Richard Matheson). A fair deal from the Devil himself. But at the end of FULL DARK, NO STARS King calls “evil” evil and “good” good. And even though most would probably not consider King’s celebration of vengeance and retribution from the hands of ordinary citizens as a GOOD OR CHRISTIAN response to the wrath of a madman, they might find, after reading this book, that justice oftentimes parades itself as vengeance and retribution, and that sometimes the hands of ordinary citizens ARE the very hands of God.

View all my reviews

Book Review & Analysis: Mark Waid's KINGDOM COME (1996)

2011-09-03T00:01:00.000-05:00

Kingdom Come by Mark Waid

My rating: 5 of 5 stars

The Question Addressed
Does reliance upon God lead to human irresponsibility? Yes, says the Mankind Liberation Front, a humanistic enterprise supported by the U.N., headed by Lex Luthor, and populated with the likes of familiar DC villains like Catwoman, Riddler, and Captain Marvel. Superman has given up his role as a god—his role as a purveyor of justice and truth—and his great influence has trickled down, leaving humanity in the clutches of injustice, at the mercy of the meta-humans.

[SPOILERS BEGIN]

The Answer Provided
From what I can gather, the writers argue that full reliance upon God (allegorically represented by superheroes like Super-Man, Wonder Woman, and Flash) does lead to human irresponsibility, which then leads to human destruction. However, the blame doesn’t lie solely with humans. When God becomes too dominant, not allowing humanity its due sympathy and proper role, divine totalitarianism strips them of their humanity. But killing God is not the answer, nor is killing humans (or the meta-humans) the answer. Only when both God and creatures work together—only through mercy and grace—both fulfilling their proper roles—can justice and truth reign the universe.

[SPOILERS END]

The Audience Targeted
The protagonist is a pastor who leaves his pulpit, no longer able to provide hope to a crumbling world. He is visiting by an angel of sorts who takes him on a journey reminiscent of the prophets of old. If you’re a fan of religion and can stomach the awkward flight positions and aesthetics of the DC Universe, you’ll enjoy KINGDOM COME. And if you lean toward theological preterism, you’ll have to lay aside your understanding of the Revelation of St. John and entertain a more futurist presentation of “the end times.” If you’re monergistic in your convictions, the resolution might end up a bit too synergistic for your tastes.

View all my reviews

Analysis: Stephen King’s CARRIE (1974)

2011-08-31T00:01:00.001-05:00

Carrie by Stephen King

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

King builds CARRIE upon a mythological foundation. He alludes to the Greek Pygmalion myth, the tale of Cinderella, and the Bible's Revelation of John.

[WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD]

Carrie is Galatea: “You’re like Galatea” said Carrie White’s prom date Tommy, “[S]he turned from a drudge into a beautiful woman and nobody even knew her” (134). Pygmalion’s sculpture, Galatea, became the object of Pygmalion’s desire, and after he pleaded with the goddess Venus, she granted life to Galatea—-a life she spent bearing and raising Pygmalion’s children. Margaret White’s sculpture, which she describes as having “feet and hands like marble, like alabaster. White” (211), her daughter Carrie, became the object of Margaret White’s despisal (instead of desire). Years she spent, chipping away at Carrie’s identity, sanding smooth the slightest hints of rebellion and wickedness, shaving away her adolescence and sexuality, creating a rejected masterpiece. And instead of following in the ivory footsteps of Galatea and uniting as one flesh with Pygmalion, Carrie, the created, rips herself from her mother’s studio womb and declares her independence from her creator. After pleading with her God of the heavens, Margaret White decides to destroy once and for all the “demon” she had created by her own sin and hypocrisy.

Carrie is Cinderella: She’s the oppressed daughter under the foot of her wicked mother, not allowed to attend the ball. That is, until the magic arrives. Carrie’s telekinesis is the Fairy Godmother who, instead of singing with a mouse (or whatever the crap they do) and making a pumpkin carriage fall from the sky, hurls large objects through the house and threatens to make deadly stones fall from the sky on top of the wicked mother’s home and head. Carrie goes to the ball. Unlike Cinderella, Carrie doesn’t lose a slipper, and unlike Carrie, Cinderella doesn’t kill nearly everyone at the ball … or at the court … or in the kingdom for that matter.

Carrie is God’s Wrath: But it’s Margaret’s own god who destroys. The “Angel’s Fiery Sword” (224), the regretful and progressively unwilling instrument swaths through Chamberlain, Maine, unleashing violent judgment against the vile and wicked souls whose hands and mouths are stained with blood—-only a few manage to wash their hands and mouths clean of the menstrual blood in order to save their souls from death.

View all my reviews

Book Review - N.T. Wright: SURPRISED BY HOPE (2008)

2011-08-24T00:01:00.001-05:00

Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church by N.T. Wright

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Let’s say you’re an average Christian reader—not the type who reads heavyweight theology. You might read a couple of pages of Grudem from time to time. You read Rick Warren with your church, toughed through Tim Keller after you heard your pastor quote him a few times, and even picked up Platt when you heard someone tell you that you were called to the mission field … along with every other Christian you know and don’t know. If this is you, Wright's SURPRISED BY HOPE is for you. Here's what Wright might do for you if you read his book: He might convince you that Jesus has saved you FOR the world and set you apart to bring forth His Kingdom by valuing it as a the stage on which the last three acts will unfold. He might bother you when his idea of “heaven” doesn’t align with the alto part of that hymn you like so much. He might make you question that image of the Jigsaw God you used to and still worry about (before you decided to stop watching horror movies like the SAW franchise). He might even convince you to ask the same questions Rob Bell is asking—the ones your pastor told you not to read as part of his well-meaning duty to protect his flock from the goats that are trampling the Great Motivator and bleating the shofar around the Walls of Orthodoxy.

As for the scholarly pastor or the arm-chair theologian, you should probably skip out on this book (unless you want to steal some great analogies to share with your congregation or Sunday School class). Instead, you should read Wright’s unfinished magnum opus Christian Origins and the Question of God series, which includes THE NEW TESTAMENT AND THE PEOPLE OF GOD, JESUS AND THE VICTORY OF GOD and THE RESURRECTION OF THE SON OF GOD. These works feature the more detailed, footnoted arguments of the same information. As a matter of fact, most of what you’ll find in SURPRISED was taken straight from these three books—so if you’re the type to critically evaluate, I say go for the depth and get Wright’s series instead.

View all my reviews

Book Review - T.H. White: THE ONCE AND FUTURE KING (1958)

2011-08-20T00:01:00.001-05:00

The Once and Future King by T.H. White

My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Finally, I read White's classic retelling of the Arthurian legend. It started off slow, but I still wouldn't want the beginning to be any different, for the first hundred pages or so are vital for White to lay the foundation for the Tragedy. Regarding plot design, White is a genius. Had he not started slow cranking out the details in the way he did, the latter half would have not been so emotionally intense for me. My disappointment with the early half is more due to my dislike for the film version of the first book in this four-book composite. Disney based THE SWORD IN THE STONE on the first part of White's series--I was simply uninterested with Merlyn changing Wart (young Arthur) into various animals. However, the lessons Merlyn teaches (all of which I did not understand at the time) are vital to Arthur's plight, and, if time adheres to my desires, I would like to go back and reread the first part.

The fact that Merlyn, who lives backwards in time, could provide insight from the Enlightenment and WWII and the Holocaust gave the old legend an interesting twist. The story of Lancelot and Guinevere moved me. At points, I was on the verge of tears as I reflected on Lancelot's struggle, the human struggle with our pride and the balance between our love for self and others and our love for God. And although I've never pondered war from the perspective of a national leader, I was able to sympathize with Arthur's ideals and mourn alongside him as his past choices and inaction shattered the Round Table before his eyes (all of which, the Madman in Exile tells me, is allegorical of WWI or WWII--he couldn't remember which one).

Best of all, through Lancelot, I was able to experience pain from the viewpoint of an old family friend (in light of our recent revival) who once quested through cyberspace under the avatar and moniker of Chevalier Mal Fet, the Ill-Made Knight. I think my tears were for you, my friend, and I believe you made the right choice when you chose the Grail ... even though you've been cursed to roam the wilderness as the Madman.

View all my reviews

How Rock/Heavy Metal Music Bridges the Moat

2011-08-17T00:01:00.000-05:00

I thought it would be unfair to my true position on "the devil's music" to not add a clarifying PostScript to my previous post on Warrant. I took a more adolescent, rebellious tone in that post. When I get nostalgic, I have a tendency of romanticizing the past and forgetting about some of the more serious effects of music. While I am not the type to generalize genres of music as "the devil's music," I know that some of Lane's lyrics promote a foolish lifestyle, just as other Warrant lyrics name and denounce folly and evil. As we all know, the rock/heavy metal subculture often promotes folly and embraces an image of evil. For me, rock/heavy metal music has been a blessing at times and a curse at others. It has helped cultivate one of my most valued friendships for the past twenty years, but it has also led me to folly and corruption. Today, I still love rock/heavy metal, and I feel that now, more than ever, this type of music operates for the good in my life and the lives of those around me. As a teacher, shared musical interest with my students establishes instant emotional connections, and through these last few years, music has been the initial spark to weld these bonds. It may not make sense to everyone, but when I was in high school, if I had heard Nirvana's "Heart-Shaped Box" coming from my teacher's classroom, I would have immediately been drawn to this teacher. Music (not only rock/heavy metal) communicates ideas--all types--and has opened up discussions in my classroom (during class AND during my planning period, a.k.a. a class dubbed "Chillin' with Hughes 101")--discussions that open minds, build trust, and promote wisdom over folly and good over evil in a world where the right decision might make all the difference.

R.I.P. Jani Lane (1964-2011): A Reflection on Warrant's Role in My Musical Evolution

2011-08-13T06:45:00.006-05:00

The lead singer of Warrant, Jani Lane, died yesterday at age 47. Warrant was my first ever favorite hair metal band. One reporter describes Lane as one who "embodied the excess of 1980s 'hair metal' rock bands" (USA TODAY). I was a late arrival on the hair metal train, so at the time I didn't realize that the movement had reached the point of excess. My dad wouldn't let me listen to Poison and Guns N Roses. When I was in 5th grade, he heard me singing "Every Rose Has Its Thorn," and he immediately shut me down and forbade me to listen to that "devil music." He didn't mind me listening to Warrant because their hit single was called "Heaven," not "Talk Dirty To Me," plus, their album didn't have a post-rape scene in the cassette tape insert (i.e. APPETITE FOR DESTRUCTION). I was also able to listen to Motley Crue's "Without You," (I heard HIM singing it one day ... HA!) but he wouldn't let me buy the DR. FEELGOOD cassette. When the song "Cherry Pie" was released, I would watch MTV all day waiting for the video (while my dad was at work)--not only because that song was FREAKING AWESOME, but because Bobbi Brown, the model in the video, was THE hottest chick I had ever seen (until I met my wife!!). I wanted that CHERRY PIE cassette SO SO bad, but its "parental advisory" label posed a great obstacle (I later found out that the track "Ode to Tipper Gore," a series of curse words recorded from various concert outtakes, warranted the label.).

I was finally able to buy the CHERRY PIE cassette tape after my dad moved out. About a year after the divorce, my mom decided to let me buy whatever music I wanted. I immediately bought CHERRY PIE ... not the clean Walmart version--the one with the "parental advisory" label that the record stores sold. My dad's whole "devil music" thing was kind of ironic considering that he left my mom for another woman. I think cheating on your wife and abandoning your family is a little higher on the "things of the devil" list than listening to Warrant say a few curse words or Poison sing about a strained relationship. But to be fair, around that time my dad began dealing with real problems of his own. He fell from grace shortly after Jimmy Swaggart, his idol, infamously enjoyed Jessica Hahn's naked company, and I DO understand that fine line a parent walks, trying to protect his children's innocence while struggling with his own temptations. My mom tried to enforce my dad's music rules after he left. She made me trash my Vanilla Ice tape to avoid Mr. Van Winkle's heinous attempt at "killing my brain like a poisonous mushroom." But she finally gave in, and when she gave in, I went "parental advisory" label-crazy and bought the most vulgar music I could find (i.e. The Geto Boys' WE CAN'T BE STOPPED, Ice T's O.G. ORIGINAL GANGSTA, Naughty by Nature's self-titled album). Thankfully, my brother bought Metallica's black album and I met Lethaldose, Brett Michael's and C.C. Deville's biggest fan. My brother and Lethaldose saved me from becoming one of Saline's newest country gangstas (although I relapsed for a few months after watching MENACE II SOCIETY and listening to a copy of N.W.A.'s NIGGAZ4LIFE).

But my main point is that Warrant played a major part of my musical evolution. Before Warrant, my favorite band was D.J. Jazzy Jeff and the Fresh Prince (my very first favorite). Warrant reigned as my favorite band (with Firehouse on their right hand) from 1989 until 1992 (when Pearl Jam replaced them) and led the way to other rock bands who held the throne for a few years (e.g. Smashing Pumpkins, Pantera, Incubus, Korn, Project 86, Relient K, Death Cab for Cutie, and currently, Arcade Fire and Avenged Sevenfold).

So I have to give credit to Warrant for sparking my obsession with rock and metal. I still have Warrant's first three albums on cassette tape. They're packed away in a keepsake box in my attic. And since I no longer have my Sony Walkman to play those cassettes, I guess I'm about to download some of my favorite Warrant songs and pay homage to Jani Lane. I'll start with my very favorites: "Uncle Tom's Cabin," "Sad Theresa," "I Saw Red," and of course, "Heaven" and "Cherry Pie" (the latter of which, I just found out, was actually a joke song aimed at a record producer who told Lane he needed a catchy radio song for their new album--sort of like Weezer's "Pork 'n' Beans"--and to Lane's disappointment, became their biggest hit--and I imagine this song is the only Warrant song the latest generation actually recognizes, since I remember playing it on one of the GUITAR HERO games I consumed this summer).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This blog was revised for various reasons @ 12:20 p.m. on 8/13/11, which was around 4 or 5 hours after the original posting

Top 5 Family Films of 2010

2011-07-27T00:01:00.000-05:00

#5 - Despicable Me (2010): Pierre Coffin and Chris Renaud - B
I didn't laugh as much as everyone said I would, but I enjoyed the film. The characters were likable and I felt all gooey inside from time to time.

#4 - Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang (2010): Susanna White - B+
I love Emma Thompson in her role as Nanny McPhee. I hadn't seen the original film until this year. My wife, kids, and mother-in-law have talked about it since it came out, so I gave in. The sequel turned out better than its predecessor. It also had Maggie Gyllenhaal, which is always a plus.

#3 - Toy Story 3 (2010): Lee Unkrich - A
I thought the story was creatively well-written. It entertained the kids while providing the parents a sense of nostalgia. When I got home from the theater, I went into my own attic and dug out some of my old toys. I found old Clyde the Monkey and gave him to Arwen. She keeps trying to give Clyde back to me. After years of cleaning Baby Alive's pissy diapers, I guess she's not so impressed that Clyde can put his fingers in his nose...two fingers at the same time!

#2 - How to Train Your Dragon (2010): Dean DeBlois and Chris Sanders - A
Another beautifully animated thrill-ride filled with colorful characters. Though the plot was not as creative as Toy Story 3's (it had a more archetypal father/son conflict at its heart), the film itself was more engaging.

#1 - Tangled (2010): Nathan Greno and Byron Howard - A+
I seriously went into the theater with every intention of taking a $50 nap. I actually wanted to see Toy Story 3 and How to Train Your Dragon. I had no desire to see this one. But after about fifteen minutes, I was belly-laughing and falling in love with the characters. I even wiped away some moisture from my eye near the end (Damn Louisiana humidity!). Tangled follows the Disney formula that worked so well in films like Aladdin and The Little Mermaid, and I guess I had forgotten how much I liked those old films.

Top 5 Science-Fiction / Fantasy / Adventure Films of 2010

2011-07-20T00:00:00.001-05:00

#5 - ALICE IN WONDERLAND (2010): Tim Burton - A
I can think of a few Tim Burton films I didn’t like. One was ED WOOD, but I watched it long before I could actually appreciate it, so if I watched it again, I might love it. And strangely enough, I didn’t care for A NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS or THE CORPSE BRIDE—the first of which I feel guilty for disliking—since it became such a cult classic. But I may need to watch that one again as well. I watched it at the theater back in 8^th or 9^th grade, and I was disappointed when I realized it was a musical. I don’t hate musicals like I did back then, so I should give it another try. I'm one of the few who loved PLANET OF THE APES--I may count as one of Tim Burton's biggest fans--so I was thrilled when I found out he was tackling Lewis Carrol’s timeless story. Although I felt his contribution to the ALICE mythos was written to pander to Johnny Depp fans, I still loved Burton’s unique style on display in Wonderland.

#4 - PERCY JACKSON AND THE OLYMPIANS: THE LIGHTNING THIEF (2010): Chris Columbus – A+

Caedmon and I watched this one last summer during our stay at Jess’s aunt & uncle’s camp in Mississippi. I was surprised. I thought it was going to be another ERAGON (the very worst of the post-Potter fantasies). After watching the film, Caedmon and I read the second book in Rick Riordan’s series, SEA OF MONSTERS (THE LIGHTNING THIEF is the first book), and it was an okay read ... for what it is. And what is it? Riordan’s Percy book series is basically another Harry Potter in disguise, but the film was highly entertaining. I actually liked Chris Columbus’s film version of Percy Jackson better than his version of HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER’S STONE.

#3 - THE BOOK OF ELI (2010): Hughes Brothers – A+I didn’t hear much buzz about this one last year, which makes me think it went unnoticed. For the most part, THE BOOK OF ELI is kind of slow, but it had one of those endings that demands a rewatch. It’s the type of film Jesus would probably appreciate (in some regards), and I think He would gladly give Eli a high-five for not being on the wrong side of John 5.38.

#2 - SCOTT PILGRIM VS. THE WORLD (2010): Edgar Wright – A+

When I first heard about this film, I didn’t bother watching the trailer or giving it a moment’s thought. I thought it was just another film trying to make a little change before Michael Cera’s fifteen minute-timer alarmed. But Musumeche (my colleague and, as of late, my fishing buddy) couldn’t stop talking about it: “Trust me,” he said, “you’ll like it. It’s a movie that only our generation will understand.” He was right! If you grew up in the late ‘80’s and early ‘90’s and maintained a strict Nintendo and comic book diet, you won’t be scratching your head when Scott Pilgrim’s defeated enemies turn into coins, and it'll make perfect sense when the DEUS EX MACHINA shows up as a “free man.”

#1 – INCEPTION (2010): Christopher Nolan – A+

It’s rare for me to watch a film at the theater, and it’s even rarer for me to watch a film more than once at the theater. I watched THE WATERBOY twice at the theater because I knew my mom would LOVE it. I watched SERIES OF UNFORTUNATE EVENTS twice because it was the movie my friends chose (I don’t think I told them I had seen it already, not wanting to rock the boat). I think I watched WAYNES WORLD 2 twice, too. But INCEPTION was the first film I watched three times at the theater AND rented as soon as it hit DVD. Richard, Rick, AND my wife NEEDED to see it, and unlike the latter two repeat theater trips mentioned above, INCEPTION was equally engaging each time.

INCEPTION turned everyone else into people like Lethaldose and me. I’ve always LOVED watching and talking about movies, and I love it even more when the movie conversation moves beyond small talk. Lethaldose and I have watched and talked about movies for the past twenty years, and it’s perfectly normal for us to spend entire emails talking about what we’ve recently watched and to spend most of our time during my yearly summer visit to Natchitoches discussing the films we’ve seen during the year. Our conversations are the types of conversations most people roll their eyes at—we’re the guys who feel the need to mimic what we watched Siskel & Ebert do for all those years. Lethaldose is the type of guy who could defeat Kevin Bacon in a game of Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, and I’m the type of guy who thinks EVERYONE ELSE is crazy for not noticing the philosophical and political biases in nearly every film released. When we watched INGLORIOUS BASTERDS, our minds immediately started trying to find its rank within the Quentin Tarantino filmography; whereas, the typical person wouldn’t given a moment’s thought to a film’s director. INCEPTION was the first film in a while that gave average filmgoers something to talk about beyond the basic “Yeah, that movie was good” or “That movie sucked. It was boring.” Normal people everywhere suddenly became film critics, hashing out their theories and analyzing each detail. Their use of INCEPTION’s technical vocabulary made them sound like the Trekkies and all the other nerds (people like Lethaldose and me) they’ve scoffed at their entire life. Even football nerds were wearing Leonard Maltin’s underwear for a time. (I’m sorry, but football fans are bigger nerds than the sci-fi and fantasy geeks who dress up like Dumbledore or Vader. Football fans, especially the LSU Tiger cult here in B.R., go WAY beyond attending a midnight showing of STAR WARS or THE DARK KNIGHT. They dress themselves and their infants in incredibly loud purple and yellow outfits, cover their vehicles in LSU stickers and flags, spend thousands on season tickets (I'm counting multiple seasons), and actually take days off of work so that they can get on airplanes and attend games all across the country. Football fans get together to create imaginary football teams online and keep track of players’ stats so that they can pick a “winning” team. They don’t just wear their character garb at the games, they wear their jerseys as part of their NORMAL attire. Their Monday morning (and Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday…) football conversations have more analytical insight than most of the literary criticism I’ve read. The only difference between a football nerd and a sci-fi/fantasy nerd is numbers. The football nerds are more plenteous, and because they are the majority, they prove their lack of self-awareness when they mock the heroes and villains they encounter as they leave the movie theater, having just finished watching THE BLIND SIDE in their comfortable Drew Brees costume.)

So, Christopher Nolan, I thank you for giving sports nerds everywhere the opportunity to visit my Geekdom, a place where the merits of the NFL’s lockout decisions have no home, but a place where the merits of Nolan’s decision to hire two different sets of child actors to play Cobb’s kids makes all the difference as to whether or not Cobb is truly back home.

Jesus, Pull the Plug: Part II - The Merits of Judging Others

2011-07-16T09:13:00.005-05:00

The following post is a response to Byron and Lethaldose that I tried to post in the comment section. I kept getting an error message about the HTML, so I'm posting here. My original post and their comments are below.

Byron, you pretty much wrote what I was going to write. Thanks! You saved me some time! You got to my point! With pun in full force, it's the HEART of the matter that matters: selfishness. And more often than not, one's actions reveal one's selfish heart. I would describe selfishness as follows: when one provides pleasure for one's self at the expense or neglect of others, i.e., when want replaces ought.

Couples in need of alone time and working families in need of childcare wouldn't qualify as selfish deadbeats, as my diction in my post suggests (HT: Byron). I don't think anyone could remain sane without allotting time AWAY from their kids. We all need to unwind a bit in order to get our second, third, fourth, etc. winds. And many people couldn't make it financially without daycare centers and willing family members.

In my post, I was thinking more about the folks who abuse their babysitters as dumping grounds--like my neighbor several years back. The government paid her daycare expenses so she could work. On her days off, her child still spent the entire day at the daycare center. When she was "between jobs," guess where her child stayed? Sure, she may have needed some down time, but I think she went beyond down time since she preferred to "let someone else deal with them" (as Byron mentioned and as she may have told us)--on the taxpayer's dime.

But even on one's own dime, I think this type of parenting is shameful. I know high school teachers who, when school is in session, need daycare facilities since their spouses work, but when summer begins, they still send their kid to daycare each day so that they can "enjoy" their summer. Yes, people have the freedom to spend their money however they wish and raise (or not raise) their kids however they wish, but shameful parenting is still shameful, and I feel comfortable naming it.

Should I judge these parents? The better question is why shouldn't I judge these parents? To me, judging is when you call someone's actions wrong and deem them guilty of that wrong. Byron pointed out that wrong actions stem from a wrong heart. But sometimes wrong actions stem from a right heart (moral dilemmas make human judgments less trustworthy), but wouldn't that make the action right? Human perception would seem to be the faulty accuser in these cases, and this faulty accuser, without verification, often dismisses the judge. But this faulty accuser doesn't take judging others off the table. So in some ways, I think you're right, Lethaldose. It's difficult to judge when we are not privy to all the facts. I have difficulty ACCURATELY judging a person's heart--I'm often looking through a keyhole at others' lives--but with enough reliable information about someone (best gathered by talking to that person), I can more accurately judge a person's heart.

Lethaldose writes, "But it would seem that you are chastising moms for being judgmental against one parent and then making a judgment against them in the very next sentence." I think you're right ... to an extent. But I'm not chastising moms for simply being judgmental; I'm chastising moms for being judgmental while failing to recognize that they may be guilty of the same heart condition that the prosecution thought led Casey Anthony to kill her child: selfishness.

I don't see a problem with judging others' actions--calling wrong wrong and right right and assuming guilt or innocence on another's life is how we all do it. If someone says, "Them damn niggers are taking over!" I would judge them guilty of racism. Simply judging people wasn't the problem Jesus had; Jesus criticized the judges because they failed to see that they themselves were guilty of the very sins upon which they passed judgment.

Also, I think judging can have benefits for our own growth: our judgments upon others can help us to further separate OURSELVES from wrong. Proper judging requires an acknowledgment of one's OWN wrongs, especially in regard to the issue at hand; judgments have more merit when the judge has acknowledged his/her own guilt in the past (or even in the present) of the very wrongs on the docket. So when we judge, we must humbly judge, for our arrogance makes us liars unwilling to express the empathy others need to repent of wrong.

That's why my prayer includes myself. I'm guilty of hiring PBS to babysit my kids while I seek my own pleasure...for WAY too long. I'm guilty of letting my daughter stay at her grandmother's house when she doesn't deserve to stay there. Arwen has been throwing fits when we leave Nana's house because she wants to stay the night with her. The right thing to do would be to NOT allow Arwen to stay the night with Nana if Arwen throws a fit (even if Nana gives in ... and believe me, her tear-marked face is VERY convincing ... so is her shrill cry). The wrong thing to do would be to sacrifice this opportunity to teach Arwen a valuable lesson on how to appropriately seek what she desires--all in the name of not wanting to deal with my whining kid. After a few months of shameful parenting in this area, we're finally taking our stand, knowing that we don't want to train Arwen to be spoiled and ungrateful.

Lethaldose, I like the issue you raised when you wrote: "It would be easy if there was some kind of guide that told a person exactly what to do and not to do to raise a healthy, happy, productive child, then it would be easy to point the finger and that feeling of superiority wouldn't feel so hollow." The terrain here is difficult, especially when different parents hold different values. But don't you think that DOING SOMETHING as opposed to DOING NOTHING is a rudimentary principle of parenting? I'm sure many methods could produce a healthy, happy, productive child. But I want a healthy, happy, productive child who can identify my love for him/her by my actions toward him/her, and if my children turn out to be sickly, depressed, and lazy, at least they'll know beyond a shadow of a doubt that I love them--with a love that goes beyond sentiment and basic provisions we're supposed to supply. I just don't think true love and affection is communicated through a can of Chef Boyardee each day. I'm laughing as I think about what Chris Rock said back in the day, which I'll close with (Sermon language! Yay!). His comments are just as relevant to white people as they are to black people, or, as Rock prefers--"niggas":

[WARNING: EXPLICIT LANGUAGE]

You know the worst thing about niggas? Niggas always want credit for some shit they supposed to do. A nigga will brag about some shit a normal man just DOES. A nigga will say some shit like, 'I take care of my kids.' You're supposed to, you dumb motherfucker! What kind of ignorant shit is that? 'I ain't never been to jail!' What do you want, a cookie?! You're not supposed to go to jail, you low-expectation-having motherfucker! [from Chris Rock: BRING THE PAIN (1996)]

Keep the conversation going! If anyone else is following, what do you think? I'm claiming that judging others can be virtuous and beneficial. Should I reconsider this position?

Jesus, Pull the Plug! - Thoughts on the Casey Anthony Trial

2011-07-13T06:00:00.001-05:00

The news media found us a juicy story to sink our teeth into this summer. Nothing empowers us more than feeling like wise judges on the moral high ground, and the Casey Anthony trial has given us the voltage we crave.

You've heard the moms: "Well, I couldn't be out partying if I was truly mourning for my dead daughter! Shame! Shame!" Most of these moms are telling the god's honest truth. But I wonder how many of these moms are unknowingly riding the media's power surge. Sure, Mom, you would never party if you were mourning your dead or missing daughter. But how many times have you partied while your living daughter shuffled through various hands or sat alone at home taking care of the other children you've neglected all these years?

Misquoted Old English Jesus said it best: "Judge not, lest ye be judged." He might ask these moms, "Why do you look at the speck in your [sister's] eye but don't notice the log in your own eye?" (Matthew 7.3). Although the media has given the deadbeat moms of America a reason to feel good about themselves, I hope Jesus can give them a reason to feel bad about themselves, a reason to remove their plastic and duct tape disguises and recognize their own children rotting away, not in a wooded area less than half a mile from their home, but in their parents' and family members' homes, in the daycare facility down the street, and sometimes, in the worst cases, right before their eyes in their home.

May God forgive us all for ignoring our children---by not only dumping them off, but by occupying them in front of screens and monitors while we day in and day out seek our pleasure at the expense of our child's social and psychological needs, refusing to teach them ourselves and bring them up in the way they should go.

Top 5 Horror Films of 2010

2011-07-09T06:00:00.001-05:00

Every film released in 2010 has made it to DVD, which means I can officially create my “Year’s Best” lists. The folks who actually get paid for their reviews create their lists at the beginning of each year. They don’t have to wait until the DVD release to watch movies. They usually get to see review screenings or review copies, and by January they’ve seen everything from the previous year. It doesn’t make sense for a guy like me to think about the year’s best until mid-summer, after I’ve had a chance to see all the films from the previous year I plan to see.

I will post the top films from 2010 by genre, and in my final post, I’ll list my top five favorites from 2010. In my first post (the one you’re reading), I’ll cover the top five films from my favorite genre—-horror. Unfortunately, this has not been the best year for horror. Of the five films I chose, I only loved the first one. The others were good films that will be soon forgotten.

Top 5 Horror Films of 2010

#5: Predators (2010): Nimrod Antal – B

I guess some would oppose to classifying this one as a horror film and would prefer a science-fiction classification. It blends both genres, and since it relies more heavily on horror conventions, I'm categorizing it as horror. As for the film itself, I remember an action-packed film with creatures galore. I remember Adrian Brody taking the Schwarzenegger role and actually pulling it off. I remember fire, people dying off every fifteen minutes, a Predator being used as bait, and ... that's all I remember, so I can't comment much.

#4: Paranormal Activity 2 (2010): Tod Williams - B

This was the highest-grossing horror film in 2010 (I'm not counting ECLIPSE and SHUTTER ISLAND as horror films.). I heard that the trailer scared people out of theaters. It definitely freaked out my wife. It was a good sequel but inferior to the original. Other than its use of the cliche foreign housekeeper well-versed in the black arts, all was fine. Now, every time the pool cleaner hits my foot or blocks my path in my cousin-in-laws' pool, I think back to those scenes in the film. But the original film still makes me feel unsettled when I hear creaks and bumps in the night.

#3: Daybreakers (2010): Michael and Peter Spierig - A

I'm a sucker for dystopian plotlines (accidental pun). Each detail of the DAYBREAKER world, a world where vampires are the majority, fascinated me. Several scenes made me jump. The creature effects were convincing. This was one of the two films in my top five that carried weighty themes. Ethan Hawke plays a liberal-minded vampire working for a pharmaceutical corporation in seek of a human blood alternative. In some ways, DAYBREAKERS was THE FUGITIVE ... with vampires.

#2: A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010): Samuel Bayer - A

When I was in high school, I had a poster of Robert Englund's Freddy Krueger on my wall. I'm not sure why I thought it appropriate to hang the image of a maniacal serial killer on my wall (maybe because monsters are kind of cool?). But there's no way in hell I'd display the new Freddy's image on my wall for all to see. Logically, I can't tell you why adding child-molesting to Freddy's vices makes the new, more realistic Freddy less fit for my wall. Could it have been the old Freddy's humor? Maybe his corny jokes offset his gruesome murder sprees? The new Freddy is simply horrifying. He's not a funny guy. He's a serial-killing child molester in a film that makes you feel icky when you realize you fell for its "sympathy for the devil" plot scheme.

#1: Let Me In (2010): Matt Reeves – A+

It's a rare occasion to see such a well-made horror film. I would even call this one "art-sy" (probably because of the amazing musical score). This film is probably the scariest film of the year, not because of jump-scenes, monsters, and gore, but because of its theme (The second film on this list with weighty themes.). It beautifully explains why we often choose evil over good, and it makes you wonder if the pleasures gained outweigh the cost of the evil we're choosing at this very minute.

Of the films I've seen, these were the best. And though I have only seen a fraction of 2010's horror releases, I haven't heard many good reviews of the ones I opted against this year.

Review and Analysis - Brothers Strause: SKYLINE (2010)

2011-07-06T06:00:00.000-05:00

Rating: B

Entertainment Value
Although the plot drags a few times and the characters are mostly flat and uninteresting, the aliens looked cool and the battle scenes were fun. I would have liked to know more about the aliens' intentions--they seek human brains to create these strange creatures, but I didn't understand the role these creatures were supposed to serve in the dominated Earth. I guess they were planning to populate the planet or something.

Thematic Analysis
The film seems to say that taking risks is necessary, and even if we misunderstand risk-taking as merely a power play, it's best to allow others to take those risks, even if the consequences end up unsavory. The main character, Jarrod, seems to want to risk a move to L.A. to work for his buddy's special effects company, but his girlfriend Elaine, now pregnant, questions Jarrod's judgment, not wanting him to hold the power of this decision. The two characters are then placed in different circumstances (alien attacks) that require judgment calls, and Elaine has to decide whether to trust her boyfriend's judgment or the other characters' judgment. The "monster metaphor" is established by the aliens actions--they use a light that makes its victims feel powerful in order to lure them to some type of creature factory, a tool in their quest for dominance. They symbolize unrelenting power that corrupts, which seems to be Elaine's main concern about her boyfriend. However, Elaine sticks by Jarrod's decisions, even though his plans (the risk) fail. But the fact that the other characters' plans fail just as bad reveal Elaine's faithfulness to her boyfriend regardless of what happens. Jarrod is turned into a powerful creature, and despite his power, his humanity still operates in alien guise as he saves his girlfriend and unborn child from the clutches of the aliens.

I like the message here. Power may corrupt at times, but power does not necessarily lead to corruption. Sometimes we need to exercise our power to make decisions and take risks regardless of those who question our motives, especially in a committed relationship. When two committed people allow each other to act on their convictions, regardless of how things turn out, they will learn to respect each others' decisions. Jarrod and Elaine grow closer when Elaine respects her boyfriend's judgment, and I look forward to the planned sequel (if the negative reviews don't halt the Brothers Strause's plans) to see how their relationship develops. Will she get turned into a creature too? Will the Jarrod and Elaine creatures save Earth from domination?

Review and Analysis - Todd Phillips: DUE DATE (2010)

2011-07-02T06:00:00.000-05:00

Rating: C-

I'm learning that originality should not be the criteria used to evaluate some films. Some films intentionally use unoriginal plots for various reasons. For instance, James Cameron recycled elements from post-Colonial literature (versions of the Pocahontas story do the same thing: think DANCES WITH WOLVES) and made AVATAR in order to argue his opinion about the environment and American foreign policy. DUE DATE recycles the plot of PLANES, TRAINS, AND AUTOMOBILES* in order to (1) pair up two popular actors with great chemistry and (2) communicate a universal theme.

Entertainment Value
I don't remember laughing much--just a smile and chuckle here and there--which is not a big problem with DUE DATE. All comedies are not designed to keep us rolling in the aisles for ninety minutes (although the marketing for them usually sets up this expectation). Robert Downey Jr. and Zach Galifianakis worked great as foils. Though Galifianakis did his same routine, and I have a feeling he's about to end up suffering the fate of Jack Black.

Thematic Analysis
DUE DATE teaches us to love others no matter how annoying and stupid they are, but in order to truly love them and forgive their wrongs, we need to be able to see life from their perspective. I agree with the message, but I didn't like the way the film communicated it. Downey Jr.'s character gets high from Galifianakis's marijuana smoke after he wakes up in Galifianikis's "clam bake" (i.e. rolling up your car windows and filling the car with smoke). Downey Jr.'s uptight character is "chilled" during his high and learns to appreciate Galifianikis's personality. The drug is then romanticized several times, and any serious consequences from the drug use become the fodder for the duo's hijinks, which is the usual archetype in post-60's comedic films. Thanks, Cheech & Chong. The film does subtly satirize stoner culture--the drug dealer (Juliette Lewis as Galifianikis's "pharmacist") neglects her children, the drug use usually results in problems--however, any serious consideration of these real societal problems is contradicted and gets lost in the slapstick.

I do think it's important to empathize with the habits and quirks of society's "losers", but DUE DATE needs more "treatment" before it's message can be of any positive value in our culture.
------------------------------------------------------
* I have a feeling PLANE, TRAINS, AND AUTOMOBILES is not very original, but my knowledge of story-telling is not as comprehensive as I'd like.

Review and Analysis - J.J. Abrams: SUPER 8 (2011)

2011-06-29T06:00:00.000-05:00

Rating: B+

Entertainment Value
If you approach this film with expectations gathered from J.J. Abrams' previous works and Steven Spielberg's 1980's works, you won't leave disappointed. But if you approach it expecting a flaming Michael Bay coming down on clouds of dust and shrapnel, you might end up trying to stand in line to get your $8 back and then sitting in Chili's making fun of your super-cool buddy who thought it was a great, engaging movie (Yeah, Darren and Roonster, I'm mocking the both of you!). I am the super-cool buddy. Super 8 was a good movie.

SPOILERS AHEAD!!

Thematic Analysis: Film Homage
Abrams basically rehashes the plot the E.T. in this homage to Spielberg's early films (e.g. CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, THE GOONIES). But unlike the drunken, pasty, cross-dressing, candy-loving icon of my childhood, Abrams' alien is not the type to follow trails of Reece's Pieces; it prefers entrails of the human species. So all you have to do to recognize Abrams' allusions is to apply the question "What if E.T. had been more of a bad-ass?"

Thematic Analysis: Death and Mourning
When watching this type of film, it's best to remember that the monster is the metaphor. For post-WWII Japan, Godzilla was the Atomic Bomb. For imperialist and post-imperialist Westerners, King Kong was the oppressed native. However, Abrams doesn't take such a culturally-specific route in SUPER 8. He instead addresses a more universal problem. So, for post-modern humans coping with death, the SUPER 8 monster alien is a metaphor for the stress that destroys familial and community ties. 14-year-old Joe Lamb loses his mother in a factory accident. His anxiety and burden are symbolized by a locket his mother had given him when he was born. Joe's father, Jackson Lamb, clings to bitterness toward Louis Dainard, his wife's co-worker and the man who would have been killed instead had he shown up to work that fateful day. And Louis Dainard can't release the heavy guilt of the decision that spared him an untimely death.

Throughout the film, each character's behaviors prepare us for the climactic metaphor. Joe pours himself into making a zombie film with his little Goonies (using a Super 8 camera), and at one point, it's as though he's using the endeavor to bring his mother back from the dead, for his crush on Alice Dainard, Louis's daughter and the young actress who plays a detective's wife in their movie, seems more than just a crush, especially when he applies Alice's zombie makeup. Could it just be a coincidence that Joe Lamb's dead mother was married to a police deputy and that Alice's character, who dies and becomes a zombie, was married to a police detective? The scene heavily suggests that Joe is struggling to accept the death of his mother and symbolically bringing her back to life.

Joe's father mistreats Louis, attempts to sever Joe and Alice's relationship, and ends up distancing himself, emotionally and physically, from his son. Louis does the same to his daughter, which results in Alice running away and then getting snatched by the alien monster, all while her father apologetically chases after her (and crashes his car).

Now for the monster metaphor layers!! Level 1: The government had found an alien. For years, they held the alien against his will, so the alien, who would have been as harmless as E.T., begins viewing humans as a threat. After escaping from captivity during a train wreck, the alien kills humans and destroys the countryside in his attempt to build its ship and return home. Because the government refuses to "let go" of the alien, it ends up leaving a broader path of destruction and death in its haste to escape the military assault and the planet Earth. So all this chaos could have been prevented had the Air Force simply "let go" of the alien. Just like the Air Force, the characters in SUPER 8 learn to "let go" of the burdens associated with the death.

Level 2: The metaphor is sealed in the final scene. Turns out, the alien had been building a giant magnet in order to pull all his building material together. The magnet, in a scene reminiscent of LOST, attracts all the metal in the town, including the weapons of war (guns and tanks). The final piece of metal to begin flying away is Joe's mother's locket. Joe clings to it with all his might, but in a moment of enlightenment, releases the locket, signifying the release of the burden caused by the "bad thing" that happened to him. Apparently, Joe decided to follow the very advice he had given to the alien just a scene earlier when it was about to kill him. He had said to it, "I know bad things happen. But you can still live." Simple words from the mouth of a child.

I agree with the film's theme. Bad things happen all the time. But we can still live. The alternative is to cling to our negativity and risk severing the relationships that keep us grounded.

Astonished and Unaware: Road Trip! (Part 2 of 2)

2011-06-23T09:18:00.009-05:00

In the first part of this two-parter, I connected historian Gertrude Himmelfarb's thoughts about moral evolution to Frederich Nietzsche's ideas from his book The Gay Science (1882). In this post, I want to offer one more ironic example of how our brains have sort of subconsciously acclimated to God's death while our ears have yet to receive this devastating news.

Mack, one of the most intelligent students to walk the halls of EAHS, sent me the video link that has become the impetus for these present thoughts. Watch the whole thing if you feel inclined, but at one point, the guy in the video, Swiss thinker Alain de Botton, draws an interesting contrast between yesterday and today:

In the Middle Ages, in England, when you met a very poor person, that person would be described as an unfortunate, literally someone who had not been blessed by fortune—an unfortunate. Nowadays, particularly in the United States, if you meet someone at the bottom of society, they may be unkindly described as a loser. There’s a real difference between an unfortunate and a loser, and that shows 400 years of evolution in society and our belief in who is responsible for our lives. It’s no longer the gods. It’s us. We’re in the driving seat. That’s exhilarating if you’re doing well and very crushing if you’re not. It leads, in the worst cases, in the analysis of sociologists like Emile Durkheim, it leads to increased rates of suicide.

Now think for a moment about the poor in our midst and the two prevailing opinions in regards to them. In a typical conversation at work or church, who usually tries to frame the poor as the unfortunate--as people who have ended up holding the short end of life's stick? Someone who leans to the Right or the Left? Now, who usually tries to frame the poor as losers--as people who are irresponsible, lazy, and to blame for their plight? The Right or the Left? If your conversations are anything like mine, you probably connected the former opinion to the Left and the latter to the Right.

By holding each person predominantly responsible (or to blame) for his/her own plight, many from the Right (who typically lean toward conservative Christianity) seem to help prove de Botton's assessment. They also seem to help prove my own assessment. Their thinking places the human in the driving seat of a car that might have that "God is my co-pilot" bumper sticker (instead of the "God is my pilot" rebuttal bumper sticker that someone should probably make--if it hasn't already been made). Maybe the more appropriate bumper sticker would say "Since we sat God in the seat with the broken seat belt, He didn't make it during the Modern crash, so now I am the pilot." (Shut up, it could fit if you use 8 pt. font. Duh!).

Now to be clear, I'm not suggesting that the Left is more religious. Many of those from the Left's non-religious sector would probably attribute the poor man's plight to more psychological, social, political, and economic factors. But why couldn't the Right do the same and view these factors as God's means--as the repaired vehicle of His will? This type of thinking might could repair the brake line that the Humanistic madman cut long ago, make us more aware of future sabotage, and spread a more grace-driven Kingdom gospel and, who knows, maybe usher forth a second resurrection, one that would, this time, fill the empty tombs and sepulchers and provide a safer drive along the Road to Emmaus.

Astonished and Unaware: "Are We Not Plunging Continually?" - Part 1 of 2

2011-06-22T10:20:00.006-05:00

In 1882, Nietzsche's madman declared God's death. His declaration is what usually gets all the notoriety: "God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him." But the more chilling idea in "The Parable of the Madman" is not the declaration of the madman but the astonishment of his listeners:

Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they, too, were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke into pieces and went out. "I have come too early," he said then; "my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than most distant stars -- and yet they have done it themselves.

The news of God's death had not yet reached the ears of men, and I suspect the news still has a few light-years until it reaches its destination.

It's been 130 years since the unwelcome madman "struck up his requiem aeternam deo" within God's tombs and sepulchers (i.e., churches), and I don't think the news has made it. As always, there's a bit of irony in that oftentimes those who offer the loudest praises are oblivious to the linguistic and cultural trends they've embraced, this divine decomposition that began when humanity first started wiping away the horizon.

There's two trends that reek of decay. I'll discuss one in this post and the other in Saturday's post.

The first is a linguistic trend attributed to Nietzsche. Remember the phrase "family values"? Religious conservative politicians have branded this phrase onto every campaign tract, brochure, and mail-out for the past twenty years. But it was Nietzsche who first used the term "value" in reference to the "moral beliefs and attitudes of a society" (Himmelfarb 10).

But before "values" we had "virtues." Gertrude Himmelfarb, in The De-Moralization of Society (1994), discusses the subtle impact of this one measly word:

'Values' brought with it the assumptions that all moral ideas are subjective and relative, that they are mere customs and conventions, that they have a purely instrumental, utilitarian purpose, and that they are peculiar to specific individuals and societies. (And in the current intellectual climate, to specific classes, races, and sexes (10-11).

You see, for quite some time, the Christian virtues of faith, hope, and love reigned with Aquinas' God. But it seems these virtues died with Him, leaving values in their stead. The phrase "family values," at one time, before it became recognized by many as political ploy, sailed smoothly in its ambiguity. "Hell, I respect family values. I'm voting for this guy!" By now, most of us armchair pundits recognize the phrase's loaded agenda--the satirists are partly to thank. I just find it ironic that the word choice of God's civic defenders is embedded with the assumptions forged by the madman who declared God's demise.

"I have come too early."

I can guarantee that no politician will run under the banner of virtue, for virtue reminds us of chastity and marital fidelity, you know, the practices we assign to the "old-fashioned." Virtue reminds us of the filtered past, back when senators' and football players' genitals didn't interrupt our false perception of the virtuous human. Virtue doesn't leave the wiggle room that values provide. Before God's death, virtue and vice were two distinct entities. Not that humans were any more virtuous back then or anything; it's just that we could call our vice a vice. We didn't have the luxury of the God-bequeathed liberties of custom, convention, and the pursuit of our personal values.

I'm just hoping a Kingdom will fully come before "this tremendous event" arrives to rob of us our astonishment.

A Body Full of Angels? "What you talkin' 'bout, Jesus?"

2011-06-15T06:00:00.002-05:00

I’m studying the Gospel of John with some of my neighbors (not “neighbors” in the “everyone is my neighbor” sense, but “neighbor” in the “people who live down the street from me” sense). Yesterday, I read 1.51. Jesus says to Nathanael, “I assure you: You will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man” (HCSB). Scholars are all over the board on this verse, so I can’t decide for myself exactly what Jesus means (Hey! A paradox! I need scholars so that I can decide for myself what Jesus means!), but I'll use this post as an exploration.

I like N.T. Wright’s comments. He sides with the scholars who think Jesus is alluding to Jacob’s ladder in Genesis 28:

The point about Jacob’s ladder was that it showed that God was there with him, in that place. Jacob called the place "Bethel", that is, "God’s house"… [Later in the OT] Bethel became one of the great sanctuaries of Israel, one of the places where early Israelite worship was carried on. The tradition of Jacob’s dream, of the angels going up and down on the ladder, would then be connected with the belief that when you worshiped God in his house, God was really present, with his angels coming and going to link heaven and earth…. A great deal of John’s gospel has to do with the way in which Jesus fulfills the promises made concerning the Temple—and also goes beyond them, pioneering the new way in which the living God will be present with his people” (John for Everyone, 18).

Could John 1.51 represent “the new way in which the living God will be present with his people”? This theme does seem repeated a few times in John:

The Word “Dwelt Among Us”
“The Word became a human and lived [some versions use "dwelt"] among us. We saw his glory—the glory that belongs to the only Son of the Father—and he was full of grace and truth” (John 1.14, NCV). Wright finds significance in the word “lived”:

When John says that the word became flesh "and lived among us", the word for "lived" is a word associated with the presence of God "tabernacling" or "pitching his tent" in our midst. The thought of a tent in which God lived would send Jewish minds back to the tabernacle in the wilderness at the time of the Exodus, and from there to the Temple in Jerusalem where God’s presence was promised (Wright, John for Everyone, 18).

John the Baptist Wright also thinks that John the Baptist, by coming from a priestly lineage and baptizing in the Jordan, was suggesting an alternative to the Temple. He writes, “Anyone offering water baptism for the forgiveness of sins was saying: you can have, here and now, what you would normally get through the Temple cult” (Wright, 160-161, JESUS AND THE VICTORY OF GOD).

Jesus Presents Himself as a Temple Alternative
“(18) So the Jews said to him [Jesus], "What sign do you show us for doing these things?” [driving out the moneychangers from the Temple] (19) Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." (20) The Jews then said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?" (21) But he was speaking about the temple of his body. (John 2.18-21, HCSB)

Jesus Forecasts a Time When the Temple Will Be Irrelevant
The Samaritan woman, a Jew-Gentile half-breed, told Jesus, “Our fathers worshiped on this mountain [Gerizim], but you [Jews] say that in Jerusalem [at the Temple] is the place where people ought to worship." (4.20, HCSB) Jesus responds, “Believe Me, woman, an hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem….the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth” (John 4.21,23, HCSB).

So considering these thematic connections, Jesus could very well be using Jacob’s ladder--representative of God’s presence among his people in Bethel (“House of God”), a link between heaven and earth--to explain that He Himself, the Son of Man, IS the new Temple (House of God), the “new way in which the living God will be present among His people."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Image - William Blake: JACOB'S LADDER

The Impudence of Paine: The Evidence from John Adams

2011-06-12T06:00:00.002-05:00

After a little more research, I am now able to more confidently state that Paine used the voice of a Christian speaker in COMMON SENSE. Paine was not a Christian himself; he was taking on an anonymous persona in order to more convincingly persuade the Colonies to revolt against England (which is kind of ironic considering Paul's imperative in Rom 13.1 to "submit to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist are instituted by God.").

Anyway, in the early 1800s, John Adams wrote his autobiography. Here's his comments about Paine's COMMON SENSE:

I told him further that his Reasoning from the Old Testament was ridiculous, and I could hardly think him sincere. At this he laughed and said he had taken his Ideas in that part from Milton, and then expressed a Contempt of the Old Testament and indeed of the Bible at large, which surprised me. He saw that I did not relish this and soon check’d himself with these Words: ‘However, I have some thoughts of publishing my Thoughts on Religion, but I believe it will be best to postpone it to the latter part of Life.’ This Conversation passed in good humour without any harshness on either Side, but I perceived in him a conceit of himself and a daring Impudence, which have been developed more and more to this day.

So if Adams is to be trusted, the truth is contrary to Gary DeMar's conclusion that Paine changed his views between COMMON SENSE and THE AGE OF REASON, which leads to another bit of irony: In the article where DeMar makes his conclusion, he chides his critics for rarely reading original source documents. Well maybe his critics, like DeMar himself, are guilty of not reading the RIGHT original source documents? (The irony thickened even more when I noticed that of the six sources DeMar cites in his article, only one is an original source document, and guess which original source document he cites?! You guessed it--John Adams' autobiography! So for Demar, maybe it's not really about not reading the RIGHT source document, it's more about reading the RIGHT PLACE in the right source document.)

Thomas Paine: Christian AND Deist?

2011-06-08T06:00:00.000-05:00

I’ve been reading Thomas Paine’s pamphlet COMMON SENSE (1776). I can’t help but note the religious aspects of the revolutionary writings in light of the contemporary debate about whether the first European settlers and the Founding Fathers intended America to be a “Christian nation.” I kind of feel like their intentions and assumptions do not hold much relevance when it comes to church/state issues. As far as I’m concerned, an argument that relies on the intentions and assumptions of these 17th and 18th century people just as soon rely on the intentions and assumptions of the Native Americans who inhabited the continent centuries before. And my vein of thought doesn’t even scratch the surface regarding what one means when he/she uses the phrase “Christian nation,” which could be anything from a recognition of America’s roots to a justification of legislation that infringes upon the religious rights of non-Christians. In the former case, I would say that America is a Christian nation, but in the latter case, I would say that America is not a Christian nation. But regardless of my opinions on this topic, I found Paine’s opinions puzzling at first, but the more I read from and about him, the better I understood what seemed puzzling.

When reading Paine, there’s no doubt that he is appealing to a Christian audience. His language in THE AMERICAN CRISIS pamphlets, at least in the first one (the only one I’ve read) and in COMMON SENSE suggest that God is personally involved in the affairs of the Colonies, unlike the god espoused by the deists, the god who once wound the world like a clock in order for it to run according to natural laws. For instance, in THE AMERICAN CRISIS, Paine writes, “I am as confident, as I am that God governs the world, that America will never be happy till she gets clear of foreign dominion.” It would seem that the god who acts as governor is far more involved than the god who simply sets things in motion.

He also alludes to and heavily quotes from the Bible throughout both works. One of his main thrusts in COMMON SENSE relies upon ancient Israel’s sinful desire for a king to wage war and judge them as a nation. Paine uses this text as a biblical injunction against monarchical government. And it’s not as if he makes a quick reference to this Old Testament incident; Paine nearly, if not fully, quotes the eighth chapter of I Samuel.

In addition, Paine appears to hold a quasi-Christian understanding of history. He argues,

The [Protestant] Reformation was preceded by the discovery of America: As if the Almighty graciously meant to open a sanctuary to the persecuted in future years, when home should afford neither friendship not safety (COMMON SENSE).

Paine sees the New World as a God-given refuge for the countless denominational splinters formed after the Reformation. And it makes sense that Paine would point to an anti-Catholic movement (at least what turned into an anti-Catholic movement) as sanctioned by God, for his language subtly reveals his anti-papist leanings. The English government had labeled England as the American Colonies’ “PARENT OR MOTHER COUNTRY.” Paine calls this labeling “a low papistical design of gaining an unfair bias on the credulous weakness of our [colonists’] minds.” These words imply that the Catholic Church is a strong tyrant bearing the semantical sword, preying on a weak, naïve population through the power of word connotation.

So based on these texts, it would be easy to conclude that Thomas Paine is a Bible-believing Christian. Gary DeMar, the main voice behind AMERICAN VISION, a popular website whose stated purpose is “restoring America’s biblical foundation from Genesis to Revelation,” noticed what I’ve noticed: “There is no hint of Deism in COMMON SENSE.” DeMar details some of what I’ve detailed above, and his wording suggests that Paine held Christian views when penning COMMON SENSE.

What makes Paine’s writings puzzling is his later publication, THE AGE OF REASON, in which he argues against religious truth as revealed and expressed in the holy texts of the world’s religions. Paine makes his position known immediately: “My own mind is my own church. All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit” (1.1). But Paine mainly grinds his axe on the Bible, providing lengthy, specific arguments to debunk its claims. He even goes so far as to call the Old and New Testaments “much worse books than I had conceived” (2.1). The stark contrast of Paine’s opinions pose problems.

DeMar offers his own solution: “The Thomas Paine of COMMON SENSE and the Thomas Paine of THE AGE OF REASON must be kept separate, both by time and philosophy. The later Paine cannot be superimposed on the earlier Paine.” DeMar points out that COMMON SENSE was published in 1776 while THE AGE OF REASON did not appear until the early 1790s. It’s very possible that Paine changed his religious views during the fifteen or so years between COMMON SENSE and THE AGE OF REASON. After the American Revolution, Paine headed to France to aid in the French Revolution, and at that time, Deism was still making its way around the country.

I thought of another explanation that might make just as much sense. As always, more research would benefit most of what I write, but this is a blog, not a well-established academic journal, so I feel halfway decent about posting my hare-brained theories. Okay, Paine wrote both COMMON SENSE and THE AMERICAN CRISIS to American colonists—highly religious, Protestant colonists. His arguments take his Christian audience into consideration by using their understanding of God and the Bible as a pivotal foundation. Thoughts of God surely inspired these colonists to rebel (as COMMON SENSE argues) and to not lose hope during the Revolution (as THE AMERICAN CRISIS argues). But both of these theistic texts have something else in common: Thomas Paine published them both anonymously. By publishing these texts anonymously, he didn’t really have to own any of the religious views expressed. Could he have published them anonymously so as not to ruin his own argument with his own beliefs? I could hear one of his colonist buddies saying, “Wait!? Thomas wrote this? He’s not a Christian. Why would he write all this? That hypocrite! This pamphlet is garbage!!”

If you have any resources to further prove or disprove any of this, make sure you post them in the comment section below.

Book Review/Analysis - Stephen King: UNDER THE DOME (2009)

2011-06-03T08:39:00.004-05:00

Rating: B

[Warning: This review contains spoilers!]

It took me nearly nine months to read this 1074-pg. novel. But with summer finally here, I was able to get back to reading what I want to read. I’ll cover this book from three perspectives: (1) Entertainment Value and (2)Thematic Analysis in regards to (A) Religious, (B) Philosophical, and (C) Social Implications.

Entertainment Value
DOME was engaging. The plot and characters were interesting. The “Who-Done-It?” aspect is established in the first chapter when a mysterious dome suddenly appears over the city of Chester’s Mill, Maine. How does a dome made of an unknown substance suddenly appear over a city? Why? Who’s responsible? Unfortunately, King used this mystery to string his readers along for a good 9/10 of the way through the novel. Thankfully, we do eventually find out who’s responsible and why they’ve placed a dome over the town. Some alien kids have placed the dome over the town for the same reason that earthling kids place magnifying glasses over ants. Like them, we take joy in cruelty toward life forms we perceive as insignificant and “not real.” I was kind of disappointed when I realized King had no intentions of exploring the beings from this other realm. Nor do we find out the significance of the spooky Halloween seizures and hallucinations. 1074 pages seemed like a lot to read to find out so little about the culprits. But in a way, I understand. King wanted to focus on the human condition, and the less he focused on the otherworldliness of the culprits, the more striking the parallel between them and us.

Thematic Analysis: Religion
In Albert Camus’ THE PLAGUE, the quarantined plague-stricken area is a sort of microcosm (little world) closed off from the rest of the world. This “closed universe” in Camus’ novel, according to James Sire in THE UNIVERSE NEXT DOOR, represents an existence without God. I felt King was doing the same thing in UNDER THE DOME. Religion plays a pivotal role in the novel. The main power player in Chester’s Mill is Big Jim Rennie, a fundamentalist Christian who has much of the town under his control because of their involvement with the secret meth lab that keeps the town and its citizens afloat. Rennie has brainwashed many of them, even himself, to think that they are doing the Lord’s work in Chester’s Mill. But there’s no god under the dome … or better, there’s no god that matches these Maine conservatives’ perceptions, and by allegorical extension, there’s no god that matches America’s religious conservatives’ perceptions. With no air supply after an explosion that diminishes the oxygen supply, Rennie pleads with God to save him. God doesn’t save him. Is King using his literary microcosm to suggest god doesn’t exist in our cosmos? Rennie ends up confronting the ghosts? hallucinations? of the people he corrupted and murdered. So JUSTICE exists in this microcosm, and I guess we have to assume the little alien kids—the closest semblance of a god—-are responsible. But this justice seems like more of a plot device to satisfy King’s audience rather than the little alien kids; they’re not interested in justice—they’re interested in their adolescent experiments. So what do these elements suggest about King’s theological argument in this novel? Perhaps he’s claiming if a god exists, this god, because of his random acts of unkindness that script the drama of human suffering, seems more like a bored child frying ants in His backyard. One of King's characters, Piper Libby, a local atheist pastor, draws this conclusion [the parallel between the little alien kids and God]. After all but thirty-two people are wiped out by a monstrous meth lab explosion and the survivors are slowly running out of oxygen, Libby expresses her disillusionment: "'They're the God I stopped believing in about three years ago. God turned out to be a bunch of bad little kids playing Interstellar X-box. Isn't that funny?' Her smile widened, and then she burst into tears" (1033).

Thematic Analysis: Philosophy
King also uses this text to explain how easily an individual’s morality is compromised amidst social pressures like outspoken religious leaders (e.g., Harold Camping), crowd mentality, and national catastrophe. Average citizens become accomplices in a worldwide drug operation. Even more average citizens become violent looters at a grocery store. We even find out that the little alien kids are operating on a crowd mentality, for Julia Shumway, the local journalist, convinces the little alien girl, who Shumway luckily encounters apart from the little girl’s accomplices, to have pity on the twenty or so Chester's Mill survivors. Shumway accomplishes this by sharing both her own memories of being victimized in her youth by a crowd of bullies and sharing Dale Barbara’s (retired military man and town scapegoat) horrible memories of being a part of a crowd of soldiers who victimized enemy combatants in the Middle East. Sam, a man who instigated the grocery store riots at the request of Rennie, sacrifices his own life to right his own wrongs.

Thematic Analysis: Social
King’s moral argument also has American post-9/11 implications. It’s no accident that Dale Barbara served in post-9/11 military operations in the Middle East, and it’s no accident that a passenger jetliner crashes into the dome, bringing to mind the hijacked planes of 2001. King also satirizes the Patriot Act’s compromise of freedom as Jim Rennie builds a police force of inexperienced hoodlums who tighten Chester Mill’s security in the face of tragedy.

Now, since us literary types are often accused of overanalyzing texts to find “hidden” meanings, I feel the need to justify my analysis. I fervently believe that most “entertainment” holds philosophical and social arguments and implications. After over a decade has passed since the television show FRIENDS went off the air, the show’s writers recently admitted to tailoring their plots in support of a political agenda. Although I haven’t done enough research to provide evidence of King’s political agenda (I think the text is enough evidence), I do have evidence that the text is loosely allegorical in support of King’s philosophical/religious agenda. King describes UNDER THE DOME as

… a natural allegorical situation, without whamming the reader over the head with it. I don’t like books where everything stands for everything else. It works with ‘Animal Farm’: You can be a child and read it as a story about animals, but when you’re older, you realize it’s about communism, capitalism, fascism. That’s the genius of Orwell. But I love the idea about isolating these people, addressing the questions that we face. We’re a blue planet in a corner of the galaxy, and for all the satellites and probes and Hubble pictures, we haven’t seen evidence of anyone else. There’s nothing like ours. We have to conclude we’re on our own, and we have to deal with it. We’re under the dome. All of us. (Lilek)

Chester’s Mill IS a microcosm staging the human drama in which King offers his best answers to our most poignant questions. We’re under the dome. All of us!

An Alternative Approach for the Disillusioned

2011-05-24T07:11:00.007-05:00

A good Facebook conversation about Camping's failed calculation provoked a few thoughts. So here they are:

There's a few alternative biblical considerations I think would help the followers of Camping:

(1) Didn't Jesus say something to the effect that "no one knows the day or the hour" when "the end" would come?

(2) This idea of a "rapture" stems from what N.T. Wright considers as a misunderstanding of 1 Thessalonians 4.16-17. Yes, Paul believes Jesus is coming back to furiously judge the wicked--but coming back to reign as a king or emperor who exercises judgment against those who hold the keys of death and intimidation (the powers that be--Rome and her Jewish sellouts). And as was typical in the first century when a new leader would arrive, his loyal subjects would meet him at the city gates to welcome him and escort him into his new kingdom. This is the idea in 1 Thess. 4. Since Jesus is supposed to arrive via the clouds, his loyal subjects will metaphorically "meet the Lord in the air" (v. 17), not to be "raptured" away from the earth into some spiritual existence, but to meet him at the "gates" and then escort him into his new kingdom on earth--it'll be a "new heavens and earth," so to speak, with a new ruler, one who rules justly.

(3) The phrase "end of the world" sends the wrong message--as if the entire world will explode. I prefer the "end of the age of metaphorical exile and servitude" to the iron fist of foreign rule. That was the expectation of the first-century Jews, and I think Bible readers would be wise to do their best to think from this perspective. But, for the last two-thousand years, with absolutely no "literal" fulfillment of what I deem as apocalyptic figurative-symbolic imagery, much of the biblicist-literalist-fundamentalist population has been pushed to reinterpret the passages in light of their own cultural context, which, to me, understandably leads to 2,000 billboards announcing "the end," thousands of disappointed literalists, and a fearless leader in genuine disillusionment, unable to offer comment when his world DOESN'T come crashing down.(Another HT to N.T. Wright--See Chapter 9 of THE NEW TESTAMENT AND THE PEOPLE OF GOD)

I like what one commenter said, "It's okay, Camping. Don't feel down. It's not the end of the world." And I would add, in line with Camping's latest press release, "...YET...October 21st is just around the corner."

Is Platt Right to Say That All Christians Are Called to Foreign Missions?

2011-05-08T09:31:00.008-05:00

For the last few hours, I've been thinking about a passage from David Platt's RADICAL (2010):

“We take Jesus’ commands in Matthew 28 to make disciples of all nations, and we say, ‘That means other people.’ But we look at Jesus’ commands in Matthew 11:28, ‘Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest,’ and we say ‘Now, that means me.’ We take Jesus’ promise in Acts 1:8 that the Spirit will lead us to the ends of the earth, and we say, ‘That means some people.’ But we take Jesus’ promise in John 10:10 that we will have abundant life, and we say, ‘That means me.’” (73).

I guess I would like to pose a few questions in hopes of some dialogue or insight. The Great Commissions mentioned in Matt. 28.19-20 and Acts 1.8 were given to a specific audience, Jesus' inner circle of disciples--the eleven remaining apostles. The commission was given to these spirit-empowered men to fulfill a first-century mission to usher in the imminent kingdom of God. Matthew 11.28 and John 10.10 are directed toward and in reference to the general crowds, the commoners. So, couldn't I legitimately claim that Jesus intended this specific mission for a specific group of men, personally trained by Christ during His public ministry, and that these verses, contrary to Platt's conclusion, do not mean that every Christian from the first to twenty-first century should go into the foreign mission field?

Book Review - Erik Larson: THE DEVIL INTHE WHITE CITY (2003)

2011-04-24T06:00:00.000-05:00

The Devil in the White City: Murder, Magic, and Madness at the Fair that Changed America by Erik Larson

My rating: 3 of 5 stars

I guess this book was somewhat interesting. It tells the story of American architect Daniel Burnham’s creation of Chicago’s 1893 World Exposition and parallels it with the story of serial killer H.H. Holmes, who built a Jigsaw-like horror castle near the fair, to which he lured, seduced, tortured, and murdered unsuspecting females, all captivated by Holmes’ charming blue eyes.

I read this one with my AP class. At the beginning of the year, they voted to read Larson from a list of ten books. Dave Cullen’s COLUMBINE almost won, but I think the title of Larson's book garnered more interest and curiosity. Unfortunately, the title is misleading. Larson spends most of his time discussing the creation of the fair in what becomes the White City, not “the Devil in the White City.”

Larson’s book is part of what’s often called “creative non-fiction.” Truman Capote, with IN COLD BLOOD, pioneered the genre, and Larson, in his “Notes and Sources,” says he looked to Capote when trying to dramatize how some of Holmes’s murder scenes may have unfolded. Larson does well “novelizing” history. By the way, you'd be surprised at how many people (including English teachers) think a "novel" is any book longer than, say, one hundred pages. It's weird how at the school where I work, some teachers use Elie Wiesel's NIGHT to teach the final unit in their curriculum, "Unit 6: The Novel." NIGHT is a non-fictional memoir, not a novel. I only mention this because Truman Capote is considered one of the first to blend the genres of non-fiction with the conventions of the fictional novel. Maybe Capote confused the English teachers?

Anyway, back to Larson: If you’re interested in the Gilded Age (Twain’s satiric label for late 19th century America), this book might work for you. Larson casually references the era’s labor and women’s movements, as well as other major events, and alludes to so many of the period’s colorful figures (e.g., Nikolai Tesla, Buffalo Bill Cody, Jane Addams). He explains the present-day impact of Chicago’s World Exposition, which added the much-needed relevancy I yearned for as I reached the final pages. Larson also details the role architecture played in how cities and countries established symbolic power in the world, for, in addition to one-upping New York City, one of Burnham’s goals for his fair was to “out-Eiffel Eiffel,” in other words, build a structure in Chicago that would piss on Gustave Eiffel’s contribution to France’s 1889 World Exposition.

Beyond the misleading title, I didn’t find much wrong with the content and style of the book, but I did find myself viewing the book as drudgery. I find the subject matter somewhat interesting, but not interesting enough to want to read a 400-page book about it. Plus, dividing this book out over the last twelve weeks has taken me away from the other book I was (and am now) enjoying—-Stephen King’s UNDER THE DOME. With nonfiction, time usually proves whether the book was “good” or “bad,” and is dependent upon how much knowledge it unlocks and how much of its ideas prove themselves relevant to my life. So, for now I’ll say it was an okay read.

View all my reviews

TV Show Review: THE WALKING DEAD: Season 1 (2010): Frank Darabont - Disc 1: Episodes 1-4

2011-04-22T05:52:00.003-05:00

Rating: A+

Are you kidding me? A show set during a “zombocalypse”! (I didn’t make up the term; I first heard it from University of Alabama instructor Sean Hoade in Matt Scalici’s 7-part interview podcast at the Film Nerds website—good stuff, by the way; download it now!) What a great idea! Does it work? YES INDEED!!

So far, the show reflects the basic conventions. The zombies are Romero-style, cannibalistic idiots with the capacity to learn (as DAY OF THE DEAD establishes, if I remember correctly). Zombie death requires a brain-shot. Scenes of characters building-hopping, climbing chain-link fences to escape the hordes, and reaching safety in cargo trucks balance the suspense. There’s also a few stock characters who often pose a greater threat than the zombies (i.e., Merle and Daryl Dixon).

But, THE WALKING DEAD has a few qualities that freshen the zombie genre (as I have known it). For one, emotional attachment: I can’t remember welling up during a single zombie film in my thirty-three years, but my eyes moistened a bit during a couple of these episodes. Second, [SPOILER ALERT: BEGIN] camouflage: A group of survivors use an axe to chop up a zombie and then saturate their clothes and glaze their bodies with the bloody innards. Since the zombies are sensitive to smell, this camouflaging technique helps the living humans make it from Point A to Point B without dying (the suspense heightens when the rain threatens to wash off the gory paste!). If this technique has been done before, I guess I either forgot about it or haven’t seen the film that first tried it. [SPOILER ALERT: END]

I’m excited about this show. The first four episodes captivated me. Plots rarely engage and captivate me. I’m often bored during films and shows, even during the ones I enjoy. I think it’s more of an ADD thing, not that most films and shows are boring—it just takes a very well-devised plot to engage me. So far, THE WALKING DEAD has been like a double-dose of Adderall; I’m happy that I have two more episodes to watch from Season 1, but, at the same time, I'm disappointed that I have ONLY two more episodes to watch from Season 1.

Review - Alan Moore: THE LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN, VOL 1 (1999)

2011-04-17T05:33:00.001-05:00

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Vol. 1 by Alan Moore

My rating: 5 of 5 stars

I truly loved this graphic novel. Moore blows me away each time we encounter. First, through V FOR VENDETTA. Second, through WATCHMEN. Third, through THE MINDSCAPE OF ALAN MOORE DVD. And most recently, through THE LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN: VOL. 1. If you’ve been avoiding the novel because you’ve already seen the movie, you can stop. The movie miserably failed, and I think the filmmakers would even agree. All types of copyright and licensing laws, among other problems, prevented the filmmakers from achieving their vision, so the final product was botched, and as is the case with many book-to-movie translations, the “common American viewer’s” tastes created much of the film’s recipe. But, I’m not sure who I should blame for the terrible CGI.

In my previous post ("Lowbrow Puppetry"), I alluded to this graphic novel and one of its themes I've been thinking through: the human tendency to victimize ourselves BY ourselves. I’ve blanketed the novel with one character’s intriguing comment. The character James Moriarty, described as Sherlock Holmes' arch-enemy, muses on his own role as an antagonist: “Strange. He [Holmes] thought me an enemy of the state, never reasoning that it might suit the state to create its own enemy. Shadowboxing, Bond. We’re all just shadowboxing” (Book 5). His musing may be applied on a political level (as the text directly states), but the various character foils Moore creates between Jekyll/Hyde, the Invisible Man, Allan Quatermain, and Mina Murray, demand application on both the sociological and the psychological level for this graphic novel to make sense of the human struggle. Do we create our own enemies, and then engage those enemies in psychological warfare (“Shadowboxing, Bond. We’re all just shadowboxing.”) with the aim to suit ourselves? Do the perceived threats and insecurities we face in society become the building blocks of the struggles we face—our enemies? Would accepting Moriarty’s claim as truth liberate us from our struggles? Countless times since I read Moore’s novel, as I listen to someone’s complaints or anxieties about so-and-so, I think about how their perceptions are the only source of coal fueling their struggles. Also, this thought has even given me a reality check a few times, so I think Moore’s novel was somewhat liberating. I won’t be around much longer, so I’m really not in the mood for shadowboxing.

View all my reviews

Lowbrow Puppetry

2011-03-19T07:17:00.002-05:00

I was talking with my Thai foreign exchange student earlier this week about the roles of parents in America and Thailand, and I found that both have the tendency to complete their kid's school work for them. Now, I have only run into a small handful of these cases with high school students in America (apparently, these cases are more numerous in Thailand), but many parents of elementary students, some of whom send their kids to my son's school, seem to know no boundaries (as I've been told by eyewitness examiners of all depth-revealing surfaces).

The way I see it, when it comes to school projects, my role is to make suggestions and offer feedback on the ideas my kid comes up with, and regardless of how crappy the project turns out, I have no business playing Midas. I guess parents worry that the quality of their kids' projects will reflect poorly on their parenting. But, this anxiety probably stems from their own smugness and tendency to judge others from their own little keyhole perspectives [as I’m apparently doing in this paradoxical post (or hypocritical?—I prefer the former)], for I am judging parents for doing their kids’ projects based on an eyewitness’s keyhole perspective

In some ways, I empathize with these self-conscious parents. Crappy parents do exist—they have no idea how their child is doing in school. Their kid often shows up to school with a crap project ... or no project at all. And, if I'm really honest in regard to these crappy parents, I must admit—I would feel worthless if my transitory image appeared in your mind when you read the second and third sentences above. I can be overly self-conscious as well. I don't want people to make hasty generalizations and think I spend my all my after-work time and weekends in mah chair with mah beer and mah cigarettes, watching mah stories.

So, to say that I don't care what other people think would be a lie. I do care. I especially care what people think when they've misunderstood me. I don't want them to dislike me based on a misunderstanding. And even if they've understood me correctly and have decided to dislike me, I still care what they think. I may feel bad because of their opinion, but I don't care enough about their evaluation to change who I am. But I still care (in a detached sort of way). And, as I wrap up this paragraph, I’m stricken with the realization that I’ve spent a paragraph over-amplifying these momentary, fleeting thoughts others have about me, as if conflict is a normal part of my life (even as a high school teacher, I rarely have conflicts with others). I guess we human creatures love creating enemies from the raw material of our misguided perceptions, don’t we? “Shadowboxing, Bond. We’re all just shadowboxing,” as Moriarty says to his associate in Moore’s THE LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN: VOL. 1 (2000).

But to do my kids' projects so that others would think more highly of me (or not pass judgment), appealing to this false sense of what good parenting is that so many hold, is lowbrow puppetry designed to entertain the unrealistic social expectations of the nameless and faceless yet “scandalous” mass of people just like myself, people who have no interest in puppet shows—but who stop for a moment, observe and acknowledge the spectacle, and make an offhand remark during a moment when irrelevant fodder satiates the voracious silence.

So, if you’re reading this from Thailand, as I’m sure you could be (I have more visitors to my blog from foreign nations), know that it’s okay to back off. Both you and your son would reap greater benefits if you’d starve your "self" and let him become a “real boy.”

For more on parenting, read The Cynical Optimist: "The Exalted Age"--the post that incited my thoughts above.

Trimming Down Our Deficits

2011-02-23T06:00:00.000-06:00

Thomas Sowell writes, "Weighing benefits against costs is the way most people make decisions--and the way most businesses make decisions, if they want to stay in business. Only in government is any benefit, however small, considered to be worth any cost, however large" ("Spilled Milk," 2/1/11). Is a "balanced budget" simply unrealistic for our government? Or is a trillion-dollar debt simply unavoidable? In this article, Sowell does not argue that the government should trim wasteful spending--he suggests that the government should cut useful spending on programs and measures we can't afford.

As an individual who proposes a family budget each month, I can say that Sowell's ideal for government is the same ideal I strive toward each month. He continues, "When I had young children, I often thought it would be useful to have a set of the Encyclopedia Britannica for them. But I never bought one. Why? Because there were other little things to spend money on, like food, clothing and shelter. By the time I could afford to buy a set of the Encyclopedia Britannica, the kids were grown and gone. But at no time did I consider the Encyclopedia Britannica 'useless.'" I try to cut spending on what I can't afford--I start with the "waste," or unnecessary (e.g., entertainment and luxury) and then I start cutting the "useful," also unnecessary (e.g., Caedmon's piano lessons, Arwen's gymnastics, books).

And I would love to proudly say, "Government, why can't you be like me?" But, I also know that, like the government, I start most months with a deficit and hope and pray I somehow can earn the money before the end of the month. Achieving the ideal "balanced budget" is difficult, and I guess some sacrifices are not worth it, even if they are "useful" and "unnecessary" (I'm thinking mainly about Caedmon's private school tuition), for the benefit outweighs the cost. I guess I wish I could perceive the government's budget from a standpoint other than my own, that way I could better understand the necessity of this trillion-dollar deficit. There's got to be some places to trim, regardless of the "usefulness" of certain programs and measures.

Top 5 Influences on My Personal Growth: (3) Peter Enns

2011-02-19T05:45:00.004-06:00

When I promise a five-part blog series, I should probably make a rule requiring myself to fully write the series before mentioning the series. Doing this might help relieve my "blog anxiety"--you bloggers know what I'm talking about--that anxious feeling you get when you haven't posted in a while, that feeling that you're disappointing your audience as they faithfully check your blog, only to see no new post--just that same two-month-old post gathering dust bytes. I can't decide if "blog anxiety" results from narcissism or from the specks of disappointment I feel when The Hopeful Skeptic quits blogging, The Priesthood doesn't blog in four months, and the Cynical Optimist starts smoking Digital Crack again and neglecting his blogging duties. At least I can still find commitment in Real Randall (at least for now). Regardless, here I am with the third installment in my personal growth series.

#3: Peter Enns
I read Incarnation and Inspiration: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament last summer (2010), and ever since I discovered Biologos.org, I've read his blog post essays every few weeks. His ideas helped me to see just how tightly I had bound myself to certain hermeneutical frameworks. Over the years, I seem to have chosen a framework, rejected all ideas that did not fit under the framework, and then, odd as it may seem, thrown the unwieldy framework to the bottom of the sea. In other words, I feel I had mistaken biblical literalism and systematic theology, two of my hermeneutical presuppositions, as the only possible option, and then I had rejected the "truths" that these two methods lead to when applied.

Because of Enns' treatment of the biblical text, I feel more confident that doctrinal belief does not make or break the Christian person. I feel even more confident that most people cling to their, for the most part, traditional understanding of the text and reject others' views mainly because they have never truly read an opposing argument nor considered the merit of the opposing argument. Truthfully, many, if not most, people hate reading and studying to begin with, so I'm sure this disinclination plays a hefty role. But let me not use the rest of this post to play the role of the arrogant former cave prisoner who can't figure out why no one will believe his argument about the sun's existence. The main reason I place Enns on my list is because I feel like he has provided possible answers to questions I've had for years, helping me to make progressive steps toward God's throne instead of away from it.

Top 5 Influences on My Personal Growth: (4) Class of '11 AP Class

2011-01-03T05:20:00.009-06:00

It's no secret that the AP Language and Composition class I teach each spring gives me the motivation to continue in this profession, and last year's AP class (Spring 2010) gave me the blood transfusion I needed from the parasitic horror of the Spring 2009 class (They weren't "placed" into AP; they were allowed to elect the course--not a good idea.). For five months last year, we read, wrote, thought, laughed, questioned, and argued together. I would never say that this class was better than the Spring 2008 AP class (because some of them are reading this and would get their feelings hurt--plus, that class holds a special place in my heart), but I would rank them slightly (very slightly) lower (only because of that special place in my heart I just mentioned).

I'm listing the Spring 2010 class as influential not just because it was an engaging five months, but because they also represent a career accomplishment for me. It's hard to set goals for myself each semester in regards to student outcome. We don't have a standardized test yet for 11th and 12th grade on-level and honors English courses (but we'll pilot it soon). The AP Exam is my best measure of student achievement. This exam consists of a reading comprehension section with five high-level passages and fifty multiple choice questions and three essays based on various prompts. The AP Exam is the most difficult English test in high school existence, but students who pass (by scoring a 3/5, 4/5, or 5/5) receive a college English credit. I think 6 out of 23 passed the exam in Spring 2008, resulting in a 26% passing rate. Spring 2009 doesn't count (for my records) since students elected the course. This semester, 11 out of 16 passed the exam, resulting in a 69% passing rate. Student test scores depend on so many variables, so I have no idea how much of my instruction influenced this year's scores. But regardless, I was satisfied with their scores (they were an intelligent, hard-working group of kids); I was satisfied with the rigor and improvements I had made to the course; and I feel like these scores were the wages for our labor. So often I feel like the preparation I put into my courses is futile--I picture myself digging for hours at the diamond mine in Murfreesboro, Arkansas (Regionalism trumps romanticism in my analogies!!), and after finally finding one, I run to the facility restroom and flush it down the toilet.

So I thank the Spring 2010 AP class for locking the door to the facility restroom and accepting my small diamond. And even if that diamond was actually a piece of quartz (unknown variable), I'll remain delusionally encouraged, for the payment was the same as if it had been a diamond.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The image above (from threadbombing.com) was the avatar for the class Facebook Group page (A student started the page; it's against parish policy [and my own ethical standards] to communicate with current students on social networking sites). The marmoset was the subject of one of the grammar worksheets in the Holt workbook, and it immediately became a running joke last year.

Top 5 Influences on My Personal Growth in 2010 - (5): Caedmon & Arwen

2010-12-30T08:38:00.010-06:00

It's time to reflect on the year. The news media does it each year, so I feel compelled to join. In the weeks to come, I'll make my lists of the year's top albums, films, and books, but I want to begin with my own personal growth, and share the top 5 factors that have helped me to continue becoming the man I want to be.

#5 - Caedmon & Arwen
This is the most recent factor that has influenced me, and the lasting impact of what Caedmon and Arwen are teaching me has yet to be proven. But I know my mindset is changing. Strangely enough, they haven't fully grasped the lesson they're teaching me, but I hope to hurry up and perfect it in my own life so that I can model it for them. Here's the lesson: My children are teaching me how to truly love others--through calculated empathy.

They're teaching me how I need to love people not only for who they are but for how they are and how they think. Caedmon is seven-years-old (He'll turn eight on January 10th), and his thinking is becoming more complex. His sister, Arwen, is four-years-old, and although she's a smart young lady (above average according to her teachers ... and her parents), she is not as wise as Caedmon, which leads to conflict between them. As I try to manage their conflicts, I'm learning that the solution to most of their arguments lies in Caedmon's ability to communicate his ideas with an understanding of Arwen's limited capacity to think on his level. But I guess Caedmon, as a seven-year-old, has trouble navigating through empathy's tides (and of course there's always the chance that Doc was right years ago when he called Caedmon a "little son of Adam" as he observed him leafing through a children's Bible illustrated with all those *graven* images.).

Managing Caedmon and Arwen's conflicts is teaching me how to love people, not people whom I consider less intelligent (that's not my point in the contrast above), but people whose thought patterns differ from my own (especially my wife's--isn't it strange how the hardest people to love are the people whom you love the most?). What serves as a meaningless gesture or habitual social convention in my eyes may hold volumes of meaning for another. For instance, I would rather enjoy my food while it's hot instead of waiting for everyone to get to the table for the sacred blessing of the meal: I hate eating cold food, and I hate watching food grow cold. My options: (1) I could continue to rebel and express my opinion by eating in everyone's faces (I'm sure they appreciate the chewing sounds during the blessing); (2) I could eat cold food (must I experience Americanized suffering?) (3) I could let my food grow cold and then heat it up (maybe I could add a grunt or two to let everyone know that they're making me get up from the table to fix the mess their perception of Jesus caused); or (4) I could fix my plate after the prayer (and love them by showing respect for their tradition--and who knows--my calculated empathy might even ease the minds of those who worry that I may soon die from eating the poisoned pre-blessing victuals).

I think it's important for me to state that I'm NOT declaring the death of my identity; I am declaring the death of my self. If someone I claim to love feels unloved by me for reasons I may find absurd ("You haven't returned my call all day" or "You never buy me little gifts"), I think I should compromise my reasoning and speak their "love language*." You see, I really don't care when it takes people a while to return my calls (or emails for that matter)--and it also doesn't bother me when they never return my calls. I don't give it much thought, and I assume the best--I figure they're busy or something. But when I arrogantly expect others to share my opinion and when I blame them for the way they think I feel toward them (anger), I am no longer loving them. And just because I find more value in the usefulness of a gift rather than the thought that counts doesn't mean I should "love others as I love myself" (which would be to NOT buy thoughts and complain about the outrageous prices of all the "useful" items); it means I should "love others as I love myself" and buy my wife what she desires: thoughts (they're very cheap too--WAY cheaper than a hand-held video camera or a Keurig coffee brewer).

So I thank Caedmon & Arwen for helping me to realize that true love sometimes is best shown by understanding other people's varying definitions of love and adjusting my actions to fit their definition. Because if others do not perceive me as a loving person toward them, I have failed to love them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
* I've never read any books from Gary Chapman's Five Love Languages series, but I assume his terminology is appropriate here.

Skating on the River: Another Daddy Date

2010-12-28T08:42:00.003-06:00

At first she was hesitant (as was I), but I told her we should try it out. “If we don’t like it,” I said, “we’ll stop.” We tried it out. We liked it.

Yesterday, Arwen and I both ice skated for the very first time. The Baton Rouge River Center charges $12 per person for 90 minutes of ice-skating, an 8 oz. beverage, and a pack of M&Ms (ONLY M&Ms … God forbid I substitute them for a type of candy Arwen actually likes so that I don’t have to pay $5 for a 6 oz. cup of Dippin’ Dots).

Here’s what I learned:

(1) Standing up while wearing ice skates does not require extraordinary balancing skills. The shoes’ support is designed to help the wearer stand without breaking his ankle bone.

(2) Ice-skating is only slightly more difficult than roller-skating.

(3) Arwen is a tough girl who has been gifted with the ability to persevere. We noticed this trait when she took gymnastics last summer, but her performance on the rink yesterday confirmed it. She fell down a little over twenty times, but each time she got up and insisted on “doing it by myself.” Caedmon doesn’t handle challenges as well. His eyes get puffy underneath when he can’t snap a Lego into place without breaking the vehicle he’s creating or when he can’t get Leonardo to scale a wall in our TMNT PS2 game.

I decided to take her out on the ice again tomorrow, but this time, Jess and Caedmon are coming along. Though I may have to follow Arwen’s example this time. Since I spent yesterday’s trip holding Arwen’s hand, picking her up after falls, and brushing ice off her clothes, I did not get the chance to skate faster than preschool speed. Tomorrow, I’ll have some help. I’ll get to see if ice-skating truly is only SLIGHTLY more difficult than roller-skating.

When the Levee Breaks: A Revelation

2010-12-22T06:00:00.000-06:00

I would blame my job for inhibiting regular blogging, but to tell you the truth: I've been spending my free time consuming more than producing. I've been doing some heavy reading and studying. I've been focusing some on the Book of Romans, going back through it with Wright's exegesis in mind. But I've spent most of my wee-hour free time with the Book of Revelation. The more I study, the more I stray from the Scofield / Hal Lindsey / Dispensationalist / Left Behind treatment of the Bible's last book. Although I've doubted most of Revelation's future (post-2010) implications for some time now, I now have more evidence to support those doubts (none of which I plan to detail in this post).

Fiedler wrote an interesting analogy on his blog last month. He writes, "Saying that something in the Book of Revelation is a prediction of something happening in my lifetime is like saying that Led Zepplin [sic] wrote When the Levee Breaks about Hurricane Katrina." I love Fiedler's comparison; however, I'd tweak the analogy a bit: Saying that something in the Book of Revelation is a prediction of something happening in my lifetime is like saying that Kansas Joe and Memphis Minnie wrote "When the Levee Breaks" about Hurricane Katrina, and that Led Zeppelin's version confirmed their prophecies. The original writing and recording of the song could represent the Book of Daniel in the analogy, and Led Zeppelin's version could represent the Book of Revelation. Kansas Joe and Memphis Minnie wrote "When the Levee Breaks" in response to the Great Mississippi River Flood of 1927, and pseudo-Daniel wrote the Book of Daniel in response to the Maccabean Revolt against the Seleucid Empire (which eventually led to a period of Jewish independence during the Hasmonean Dynasty). Led Zeppelin recorded "When the Levee Breaks," in some regards, to pay homage to the blues musicians of the past, and John wrote the Book of Revelation, in some regards, to pay homage to the prophets of the past (i.e. Daniel, Isaiah, Ezekiel) in response to the failed Jewish Revolt of 70 A.D. against the Roman Empire (which eventually led to a period of Jewish dispersion, the destruction of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, the "end of the age" of Jewish sacrifices and ritual, and Jesus' "Second Coming" on another "Day of the Lord" (See 1 Below) which established the "Kingdom of God" on earth (i.e. within the hearts and minds of Christian believers on earth) and resulted in (and possibly continued) the new role of God's faithful followers: "[The Lamb has] made them a kingdom and priests to our God," as the four living creatures and twenty-four elders sing in Rev. 5.10. I guess the analogy breaks down when considering that, unlike John, who may have had Rome's Siege of Jerusalem in mind when he wrote Revelation, Led Zeppelin most definitely did not have Hurricane Katrina in mind. But why should we allow such a minor technicality ruin an interesting analogy?

-------------------------------------------------------------
1. "Days of the Lord" appear frequently in the OT. This "day" represents a time when God will judge His people (the Israelites) for their sins. Rome crushed the Jews in 70 A.D., making this "Day of the Lord" a blood-drenched judgment of famine and earth-quaking military dominance of Jerusalem.

The image above is one of William Blake's depictions of Rev. 5 (I assume). You may remember another of Blake's paintings (or engravings ... I'm not sure which) from the RED DRAGON films [both Michael Mann's MANHUNTER (1986) and Brett Ratner's RED DRAGON (2002) were film versions of writer Thomas Harris's predecessor to THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS (1988), RED DRAGON (1981).

Book Review - J.D. Salinger: THE CATCHER IN THE RYE (1951)

2010-12-18T07:49:00.002-06:00

The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger

My rating: 5 of 5 stars

I'm still thinking through this novel, deciding whether to rate it an average three stars or a supreme five stars--I'll safely rate it in between for now (Sidenote: I decided to go with the five after I wrote this review.). The narration and readability were great, but the anti-climactic ending left me wanting more. But regardless, I'm relieved that I don't have to feel guilty anymore in conversation when I have to say, "No, I haven't read that one yet, but it's on my list." Now I have to figure out when to read Fitzgerald's THE GREAT GATSBY (and Shakespeare's HAMLET is still lingering).

Thankfully, no one, in my thirty-two years of life, has revealed spoilers, so most of the book was fresh for me. I was immediately drawn in to the conversational tone of Salinger's narrator, seventeen-year-old Holden Caulfield. I closely (so close it's scary) empathized with Caulfield's cynicism toward others. In Caulfield's mind, adherence to social conventions creates a citizenry of phonies. His criticism of his teachers and peers was keen and honest, and I felt like Caulfield was revealing not just his own thoughts to the world but MY own thoughts as well, which, I guess is the mark of a truly great character--one whom I can't imagine too terribly many people could sympathize with (since they're all a bunch of "goddamn phonies"). I kind of feel like this: if you hate Holden Caulfield, this book was not written for you.

What I liked best about CATCHER was how I felt Salinger didn't seem to celebrate Caulfield's cynicism; Salinger seemed to expose it: 1) By making Caulfield just as phony as everyone else and 2) By speaking through Mr. Antolini ("the best [English] teacher ever"). At one point, Mr. Antolini asked Holden if he wanted to grow old and be the guy who sits in the bar, disgusted at every guy who walks in wearing a college shirt (If I botched the details, please forgive me.). Antolini caused me to evaluate my own sour attitude toward school spirit, obsessive BR sports fans, and those who are "involved" in the "community." Although my use of quotation marks in the previous sentence prove that I haven't shed my skin completely, I have been thinking about my current identity, wondering if and HOW I should change the cynical, judgmental, and hypocritical portraits I paint of the people I encounter.

So I need more time with Salinger's themes. I need more time to figure out how this catcher in the rye is supposed to operate. I feel like Holden's narration in itself could operate as the catcher, trying to prevent thirty-somethings like myself (and Salinger, who was my age when CATCHER was published) from growing cold and hard and allowing our childhood purity and naivete to run off the cliff, just like Arcade Fire seems to attempt to do. And as I think through this message, I'm tempted to go back up and add a star to this review (Sidenote: I gave in to the temptation and added the extra star.).

View all my reviews

A Few Comments on Piper and Not Many on Wright

2010-11-06T06:26:00.005-05:00

I’m about to make a statement about a book that I don’t think I’ve ever made about a book before. Here goes: N.T. Wright’s Justification is the best theological work I have ever read!! Wright’s understanding of Paul’s view of justification is helping me to reshape over a decade of misinformation and misunderstandings of not just Paul’s epistles, but the Gospels as well. (If I added IMO or IMHO right here, would you feel less attacked by my implications? You would? Okay.) ... IMHO ... Nah, on second thought, scratch it. It's unnecessary.

Before you ask me if I read Piper’s THE FUTURE OF JUSTIFICATION (the book Wright responds to in JUSTIFICATION) and compared his ideas to Wright’s, let me tell you the answer: sort of. I made it to chapter 2. I started with every intention of reading both, but I could no longer stomach Piper’s “pastoral” tone. The first words from Piper’s pen are “The Final Judgment feels too close for me to care much about scoring points in debate” (pg.13).¹ He then spends a few pages trying to establish his ethos, portraying himself as one whose hand trembles as he writes each word, in fear of God’s vengeful wrath against those who misrepresent “God’s Word.” From a rhetorical standpoint, this method is quite cheap. He’s basically saying, “I am scared to death that God will punish me if I mishandle the Bible; therefore, you can rest assured that I will not mishandle the Bible.” He then portrays his ideas, the ones about Jesus he is about to present, as a “matter of life and death” (pg. 14) for his audience. Once again, here’s how Piper comes across to me: “I don’t want God to hold me responsible for killing you with false teaching; therefore, you can rest assured that I am not about to teach you falsely.”

Moreover, this frame Piper chooses immediately implies that N.T. Wright’s teachings on justification are damning souls. In the Acknowledgments at the beginning of Piper’s book, he claims that his ideas originated from conversations with “those who are losing their grip on this great gospel” (pg. 10). Although he doesn’t explicitly name Wright among “those,” I can safely (very safely) assume Wright is one of “those,” especially when the subtitle of the book is “A Response to N.T. Wright.” Now teem Piper’s “grip-losing” comment with his comment on pg. 14, where he writes (and he means this more literally than you think), “Getting the good news about Jesus right is a matter of life and death.” Did you catch the logic? Wright is losing his grip of the gospel (i.e. good news); therefore, Wright is contributing to the deaths of those who believe his “grip-less” gospel. I’ll even take it a notch further: Piper suggests that N.T. Wright is condemning souls to death (an eternal hell) with his G.I. Joe Kung-Fu death-grip. I would apologize for my cutesy hyperbole, but I’m sure you noticed that the only words I really put into Piper’s mouth were “G.I. Joe” and “Kung-Fu.”

Piper continues his fretful tone throughout the first two chapters. He mentions how “concerned” and “startled” he is over Wright’s chicanery. He even starts his first chapter with the word “CAUTION” in all caps, written in a font triple the size of the majority of the words in his book. Okay, you got me. I’m trying to manipulate you. I was pulling a Michael Moore with that last bit about the caps and font-size. I told you a true statement, but I left out the important fact that the word “CAUTION” is part of the chapter one title, all of which, incidentally is written in all caps and huge font (CAUTION: NOT ALL BIBLICAL THEOLOGICAL METHODS AND CATEGORIES ARE ILLUMINATING). But I still think Piper’s language is out of hand. He uses an unnecessary amount of fear to support his position, and although he may genuinely believe that the souls of countless people hang in the balance over the “correct” view of justification, and although he has a nice cherry basket full of de-contextualized Bible verses to back him up, I guess I’m too dedicated to my own assumptions to give his understanding any credence. I'll explain “my own assumptions” in a later post.
---------------------------------------------------
1. I’m citing the free copy from Piper’s Desiring God website

Image of Piper and Wright Borrowed from Denny Burk's Blog

THC=Failure: An Open Request to Open My Mind

2010-10-23T06:00:00.003-05:00

Let's take it for granted that we all agree that hard drugs like heroin and crack cocaine are a detriment to an individual, a community, and a society. But what about that old "softy"--marijuana? I believe THC is indeed a psychologically detrimental drug, and until I meet several successful potheads, I will not consider changing my belief.

Here's my basic measure of relative success: 1) holding and advancing in a job or career that results in financial independence from government assistance and from increasing debt (or at least a plan in place to become free of these two shackles); 2) healthy relationships with loved ones, but especially with one's spouse and children that involves real quality time nourishing their educational, emotional, and social well-being; 3) consistent ethical behavior--that doesn't lead to court dates and jail time--and avoidance of overindulgence and selfishness.

I will acknowledge the argument that American society, with its anti-marijuana legislation and stigmatizing of the drug, is to blame for impeding the success of pot users. My argument weakens in light of this acknowledgment; the variables American society places on the table do indeed affect the success of pot users. I would like to limit my argument strictly to the psychological effects of THC, not the behaviors and consequences caused by our society's disapproval of the drug.

I have never met a person who leads or has led a THC-driven lifestyle whose lived life reflects my understanding of success. I could not lead it. My friends through the years could not lead it. My students have not proved that they can lead it, and it must be known that I secretly (no longer a secret, huh?) conduct this experiment with my graduating stoners. The results? Academic probation and college dropouts with arrest records--and this is only the ones I hear from--the others drop out of high school or end up jumping between low-wage jobs with no purpose in mind. And yes, I sound judgmental; I'm "waving my finger," but I do not have "lemon juice in my eye," nor have I "pissed all over [your] black kettle" (See Tool's "The Pot" from the album 10,000 DAYS). Had I not personally experienced failure in these regards, I wouldn't be able to confidently express these thoughts. But I'm also willing to acknowledge my own weakness or sensitivity as the culprit in my past personal failure.

So you disagree? You're angry at my blatant condemnation of stonerdom? Then prove me wrong. Lead a successful life laced with THC (a successful decade might convince me) and let's converse over a cup of coffee or a few pints of beer. Introduce me to the successful person you know. Just keep in mind that my definition of relative success is central. I'm sure each of us defines success differently. I even withheld the spiritual element to success I highly value and give most of the credit to in order to be as fair as possible. I'll even consider ignoring American society's effects on your perceived success as we talk. The comment section is ready, and I'll be checking it regularly, waiting for your success story. And after you convince me, I'll go home and delete this post and open my "closed" mind.

Image Borrowed from Fanpop

Review: Jeff Smith's BONE - Vol. 1: OUT FROM BONEVILLE (1995)

2010-10-02T08:02:00.001-05:00

Bone, Volume 1: Out From Boneville by Jeff Smith

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

A Few Brief Thoughts: The dialogue is a bit cliche--the characters often sound like they jumped out of the Sunday funnies. But toward the end of this first volume, the conflict became interesting and the mystery heightened. The antagonists, strange rat-creatures and their grim reaper leader, added artistic beauty to this series. I may continue reading. I don't know.

View all my reviews

Empty Hermeneutics Cache? The Violence of Jehovah and Allah

2010-09-29T06:00:00.001-05:00

When it comes to genocide in the Bible, I'm not so much concerned with questions like "How should I live today? Does God want me to partake in genocide against non-believers?" For me, the Canaanite Genocide raises questions about God's nature. It's difficult to defend God against the charges brought against Him. Yes, God commanded the Israelites to slaughter all the men, women, children, and animals in the Promised Land. And yes, Christians have committed atrocious acts for a couple thousand years, probably under the impression that these texts sanction their violence. Conservative biblical apologists argue that these commands were indeed just and right decrees issued by a Holy God; however, these commands do not apply to anyone and everyone. They were given to a specific people at a specific time, not to me, not to you, not to extremist pro-lifers, Crusaders, or conquistadors. Liberal apologists condemn the genocide as ungodly and blame the Israelites, who wrote their own history (the Old Testament) and justified their sin through their God's mouth. But regardless of positions, both camps usually emphasize the necessity of correct biblical interpretation in order to understand this dilemma.

But I wonder how often these Christian apologists enter the caves and deserts fully armored with their correct biblical readings ... but end up exhausting their hermeneutics cache when confronted with the sacred books of the pagans? Are they reading other holy books with the same precision? Since 9/11, we've all heard the endless banter from the priests and pundits: "Islam is not a peaceful religion! These extremists are following the dictates of their holy book, for the Quran charges Muslims to 'kill the infidels!' Therefore, the religion itself is destructive." And I've heard this argument from the mouths of fundamentalist Christians who defend God's slaughter of His own infidels, yet attack Allah's.

Now I'm not arguing here that either religion is peaceful or not peaceful. I'm arguing that religious people might want to handle the texts of the infidels with the same care in which they handle their own. As I've supposed for some time now, Muslims have the same argument as Christians when it comes to defending their God against needless violence and oppression. The charge to "kill the infidels" (9.5) concerned a specific group of infidels who lived during a specific period in space-time history, not all infidels who walk the face of the earth from now to forever (See Helminksi Below). These Muslim apologists claim that this decree was given to specific people at a specific time, not to me, not to you, not to suicide bombers, Palestinians, or Osama bin Laden.

Both Christians AND Muslims use their Scriptures to defend their violence. And I guess their readings are somewhat justified if their argument is based on the nature of their God and His principles expressed in the past and applied in the now (an argument that I do not hold to; however, as I said above, this is where my questions form.) But if you plan to attack the other side, I think it best to play by the same rules.

For more information on this topic, you should read the article that prompted my thoughts. Kabir Helminkski explains the violent decrees in the Quran in "Does the Quran Really Sanction Violence Against 'Unbelievers'?" at The Huffington Post. Helminksi does not mention Christianity, but a helpful resource that does is the book SHOW THEM NO MERCY, which features four different theological perspectives concerning the Canaanite Genocide.

Review and Analysis: Philip Pullman's THE GOOD MAN JESUS AND THE SCOUNDREL CHRIST (2010)

2010-09-25T10:26:00.003-05:00

The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ by Philip Pullman

My rating: 3 of 5 stars

In my brief search through the downtown EBR library to find a New Release or Current Bestseller, I ran across Philip Pullman's new book. Since I loved the HIS DARK MATERIALS TRILOGY, I was excited to stumble across Pullman's latest, an examination/critique/alternative to the New Testament Gospels. Although THE GOOD MAN JESUS AND THE SCOUNDREL CHRIST (2010) was a somewhat interesting read, I didn't walk away too impressed or enlightened. If you plan to read this book, you should be advised that SPOILERS are ahead.

The Basics: Pullman attempts to explain how the stories of Christ became popular and widely believed in the 1st century, so he retells the Gospels as experienced by Jesus' twin brother Christ. Christ, who's actually not the scoundrel, is visited by a stranger (never clearly identified ... Christ thinks he's an angel) who advises him to write down the events of his brother Jesus' life. The stranger makes a distinction between HISTORY (which belongs to TIME and describes WHAT WAS) and TRUTH (which is BEYOND TIME and describes WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN)(pg. 99). The stranger tells Christ that he must focus on the latter in order to bring about the Kingdom of God (i.e. the Church Age, or Christianity as it has existed for these two-thousand years). Christ then writes down his observations of his brother's ministry and the observations of one of Jesus' disciples (Christ's informant). So this Christ basically shapes his account according to what he thinks SHOULD HAVE BEEN instead of how these events actually WERE.

The Pleasure Aspect: The debate between Jesus and Christ in the Wilderness about their differing ideas concerning the Kingdom of God was very interesting. Christ, in Pullman's HISTORY, plays the tempter. In addition, Christ fulfills Judas' role later in the book. Two roles that the NT Gospels assign to Satan. Since I know the Gospels relatively well, I enjoyed reading Pullman's ideas of WHAT WAS and the motivations that lead Christ to change the HISTORY in order to go BEYOND TIME.

The Argument: Pullman describes his book as "a story about how stories become stories" (back cover). Granted, the NT Gospels differ in some regards from one another, which qualifies them more within the genre of myth or legend as opposed to historical narrative. I like to think of the Gospels as a myth that I believe by faith. Pullman's attempt to explain these differences between the four Gospel accounts is just simply that--an attempt, and a very speculative attempt at that. It's just that Pullman's ideas have about as much impact as a 2nd grade girl's most powerful uppercut. Okay, so the body of Jesus was stolen and discarded by a good-intentioned mysterious stranger who wanted to bring hope to millions of people in the future, and in order to convince Jesus' 1st century contemporaries that Jesus had resurrected from the dead, he tells his twin brother Christ to pretend to be the resurrected Jesus. All I can really say is "I guess that's a legitimate conspiracy theory?" And then I might add my own speculative theories: "Or maybe someone else put on some makeup and a Jesus beard? Or maybe the disciples got together and agreed on a few lies? Or what about this: the resurrected Jesus was a well-crafted puppet controlled by the disciples from various roofs, using a complicated manipulation of strings and voice-throwing? Or better yet, maybe God thought it would be a good idea to send His own Son to Israel in order to teach the people what it means to love others? And maybe God thought it would be kind of cool if His Son would take the sins of the world and change people's hearts in order to fulfill good on the earth?"

Should you read it? I don't know. I don't think Pullman's book will make any sort of dent within Christendom. From what I understand, his theories are not groundbreaking in their originality in any sense. However, I do think Pullman's choice of medium to communicate these theories is original and creative.

View all my reviews

Hands in the Cookie Jar? - The Assertions of the Apostolic Fathers

2010-09-22T06:00:00.001-05:00

Prompt: Are you surprised by any of the assertions of the Apostolic Fathers?

I would say, "Not really." In his mini-lecture, Dr. Drumm says, "Not even a hundred years after Jesus is gone, we can see that they begin to rely less on Scripture and more on people, that they begin to rely on their bishops." I'm not sure what the antecedent of the pronoun "they" is; his language points to the Apostolic Fathers, but the context points to the common people as the "they." But regardless of his meaning, Dr. Drumm makes a similar statement in the PowerPoint for Lessons 1 & 2: "The Fathers show that within just a few years of the apostle's [sic] deaths, the church began to teach doctrines not included in the New Testament." I think Drumm's word choice is telling in both quotations: He says "Not even a hundred years after Jesus is gone" and "within just a few years of the apostle's [sic] deaths." To me, his language implies wrong-doing on their part (although he does describe their actions as "good-intentioned.") It's just that the way he phrases these comments makes Jesus and the Apostles sound like the Fathers' ... well ... fathers: "Not even a few minutes after his dad left, Lil Johnny beat the snot out of the nun" or "Within just a few moments after his father walked out of the room, Lil Johnny urinated on his sister's teddy bear."

Certain "adults-have-left-the-room" doctrines Drumm mentions, like final unction, baptismal regeneration, and the existence of Purgatory, have their origin, not in rogue bishops squandering their dead fathers' inheritances, but in certain interpretations of not only "Scriptures" now known as the New Testament but works considered God-inspired at the time (i.e. Scripture). I know very little about final unction, but it doesn't take a spiritless heretic to find NT verses that seem to suggest baptismal regeneration. One can easily develop a doctrine of Purgatory from certain readings of 1 Corinthians 15 and 2 Maccabees (both considered God-inspired by the early church). And when you consider the early work "The Shepherd of Hermas" as God-breathed (as the early church did), you'll be able to further argue a case in favor of both baptismal regeneration AND the existence of Purgatory.

So, no, I'm not a bit surprised by the assertions of the Apostolic Fathers. They believed what they believed because some of their "Scripture" was different than ours, and their readings of this "Scripture" (both the Scripture no longer considered holy and the Scripture accepted as Scripture today) differed from our contemporary readings.

So in conclusion, the Apostolic Fathers did not murder their parents in order to stay up late. Their parents simply left a babysitter in charge before they met their untimely deaths, the babysitter wrote down the parents' directions, and then these orphans tried their best to interpret the commands of their dead parents written in the babysitter's somewhat legible cursive handwriting (these orphans can't yet read cursive) ... it just so happens that some of them might have stayed up to watch Craig Ferguson: "It IS the weekend ... and our parents SOMETIMES let us stay up ... well ... dad did at least ... and ... I guess we should brush our teeth before bed ... we USUALLY do ... but not on weekends for some reason ... maybe we should go ahead and ..."

Thoughts on Ignatius (ca. 35 or 50 - between 98 and 117

2010-09-04T08:27:00.007-05:00

Prompt: What are your thoughts regarding the collection of writings known as the Apostolic Fathers?

It's very interesting how church denominations today, in addition to picking and choosing scriptural emphases, they often pick and choose which Apostolic Father to side with on issues that the NT does not explicitly detail. For instance, on one hand, some Presbyterians side with Ignatius when he writes, "Let no man perform anything pertaining to the church without the bishop" ("Epistle to the Smyrnaeans"). Ignatius specifically mentions the Eucharist and baptism, so many follow his lead and defend his opinion in fear of becoming heretics. However, on the other hand, these same Presbyterians would probably not so adamantly defend Ignatius' belief in the magical, regenerative power of this same Eucharist. He claims that the Eucharist is "the medicine of immortality, the antidote against death which gives eternal life in Jesus Christ” ("Epistle to the Ephesians").