Red has been amusing herself by labeling photos of the construction going on up at the Hillsdale campus:
Here's a blank picture.
Here's her first one.
Here's the second one.
Perhaps more to come.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Saturday, August 12, 2006
Absolutes and Stuff
::lightbulb:: You don't have to understand "absolutes" to understand absolute allegiance.
Now I've got to figure out exactly what I mean by that. That may take a while. Something along the lines of, "you don't have to make people philosophers to make them Christians" and "you're banging your head against a brick wall trying to explain sin and morality and responsibility that particular way (at least to the average person alive today)...there's a much more direct and accessible and understandable route available."
I'm getting closer, I think...and one day I'll finally write my 666 page critique of presuppositional apologetics and apologetics in general (as they're normally done, at least), and get rich and famous. :)
Hmm. And considering I rather despise slogans, I probably shouldn't go about making them. But, hey. If you can't beat em', join em...or something like that.
Now I've got to figure out exactly what I mean by that. That may take a while. Something along the lines of, "you don't have to make people philosophers to make them Christians" and "you're banging your head against a brick wall trying to explain sin and morality and responsibility that particular way (at least to the average person alive today)...there's a much more direct and accessible and understandable route available."
I'm getting closer, I think...and one day I'll finally write my 666 page critique of presuppositional apologetics and apologetics in general (as they're normally done, at least), and get rich and famous. :)
Hmm. And considering I rather despise slogans, I probably shouldn't go about making them. But, hey. If you can't beat em', join em...or something like that.
Thursday, August 10, 2006
Initial Thoughts on My Summer Reading (Finally!)
I've done a good bit of reading this summer...and not terribly organized, either. I'm rather at a loss to summarize much of anything, so I'm just going to go "link happy," and throw out a scattered list of some of the better (or cooler, or more interesting, or more noteworthy, or funnier, or more influential, or more random) stuff I've run across.
There's of course Peter Leithart. And Mark Horne. And the whole Federal Vision gang. On the FV deal...I've fallen quite heavily on one side of it (at least when people start forcing there to be sides), and am staying there for a while. It's been immensely helpful to me, drawing together and giving viable, livable solutions to many many nagging questions and concerns.
On to books...there's Leithart's Against Christianity. It's most certainly biased, one-sided "theological haiku." But, like Chesterton, he at least knows he's exaggerating. And of course I rather like his emphasis on the church as a counter-polis, "salvation" being saved INTO something, and theology as something other than systematic philosophy. :)
You can find the article it was based off of here...but the book definitely presents it a bit better. Or at least a bit more beautifully.
I have a love-hate thing going with Doug Wilson. But he hits the nail dead center with this.
This was pretty cool, as well.
And of course I'm partial to everything in this book -- so much so that I'm not reading any more of it until I can think a bit more objectively about the whole matter, and endure solid disagreement to some of the things I'm so knee-jerkedly attracted to.
And then there's Deuteronomy. God reveals himself and his character through his actions and promises. Israel was a foothold of a sweeping redemption stretching from Abraham to the eschaton. And we're supposed to anthropomorphise. Among other things. :)
There's James Jordan's Through New Eyes. He certainly seems to go a bit off the deep end in places. But for every one of those, there's something like this:
He reads the Bible like a poet, and it is beautiful. Read it even if you think Jordan is pretty much utterly whacked -- he's probably still got some very good and useful and helpful counterbalances. (Shucks -- read it even if you could care less about the Bible, but want to see some darn good worldbuilding and poetic material. :))
Apparently, Leithart considers his own Old Testament survey -- A House For My Name as "Through New Eyes for Dummies."
Steve Wilkins preached the two of the most amazing sermons I've ever heard. A good bit of the material seems replicated in this book.
I've no link for this...but "allegiance" is a freaking awesome conceptualization of the Christian life. So is "union with Christ."
There's also this piece, which summarizes some of my own re-conceptions of many OT passages pretty well. Or at least gets across what I mean when I say, "fighting sovereignty."
And, yeah...N.T. Wright is amazing. Not perfect -- who is?, but still one of the best apologist-theologians out there. Here's him on Easter, and on the Christian imagination, and on the virgin birth. I've included the last one as an example of his basic apologetical method, which is miles ahead of that of most Christian writers out there. At least in terms of persuasiveness to those "outside the tent"...take my word for it on that one. ;)
Leaving off theology for a second...Lim is back (YAY!!!), and is sounding like Dr. Stewart. :) Also, I finally read her Hounds of Spring novella (continued here). ::jawdrop:: Ignore the karma mumbo jumbo (and the lack of decent red herrings). It's a story about sin and evil and justice and grace, and differing responses to the bentness of a fallen world. (Or maybe I was just tired and reading WAY too much into it. :)) If nothing else, the worldbuilding is unique (as always).
Favorite movie review read this summer: this one, on A. I. It talks about love, and I needed a good whap upside the head about that. Also, I was one of the stupid people who thought the weird things at the end were aliens. :)
This was just plain funny. So is this.
And, still having in the back of my mind Laura C.'s comment -- "all the writers we admire seem to be Catholic or high church!" -- here's one of the better analyses I've seen to date of why evangelicals "can't write".
If I remember anything else, I'll tack it up later. But that should be enough for now. :)
There's of course Peter Leithart. And Mark Horne. And the whole Federal Vision gang. On the FV deal...I've fallen quite heavily on one side of it (at least when people start forcing there to be sides), and am staying there for a while. It's been immensely helpful to me, drawing together and giving viable, livable solutions to many many nagging questions and concerns.
On to books...there's Leithart's Against Christianity. It's most certainly biased, one-sided "theological haiku." But, like Chesterton, he at least knows he's exaggerating. And of course I rather like his emphasis on the church as a counter-polis, "salvation" being saved INTO something, and theology as something other than systematic philosophy. :)
You can find the article it was based off of here...but the book definitely presents it a bit better. Or at least a bit more beautifully.
I have a love-hate thing going with Doug Wilson. But he hits the nail dead center with this.
This was pretty cool, as well.
And of course I'm partial to everything in this book -- so much so that I'm not reading any more of it until I can think a bit more objectively about the whole matter, and endure solid disagreement to some of the things I'm so knee-jerkedly attracted to.
And then there's Deuteronomy. God reveals himself and his character through his actions and promises. Israel was a foothold of a sweeping redemption stretching from Abraham to the eschaton. And we're supposed to anthropomorphise. Among other things. :)
There's James Jordan's Through New Eyes. He certainly seems to go a bit off the deep end in places. But for every one of those, there's something like this:
To help us understand the nature and purpose of the world as God created it, let us imagine an alternate world. Let us imagine an infinite, or at least nearly infinite, flat plain. This flat plain is inhabited by people. These people exist to glorify God. They do this by praising Him, and by developing in their social relationships with one another. These people never need to sleep, and so there is no alternating of night and day. These people get their energy directly from the Holy Spirit, so there is no need for food. There are no animals, plants, or gemstones in this world. There are only people, interacting with God and with other people, on a nearly infinite flat plain.
He reads the Bible like a poet, and it is beautiful. Read it even if you think Jordan is pretty much utterly whacked -- he's probably still got some very good and useful and helpful counterbalances. (Shucks -- read it even if you could care less about the Bible, but want to see some darn good worldbuilding and poetic material. :))
Apparently, Leithart considers his own Old Testament survey -- A House For My Name as "Through New Eyes for Dummies."
Steve Wilkins preached the two of the most amazing sermons I've ever heard. A good bit of the material seems replicated in this book.
I've no link for this...but "allegiance" is a freaking awesome conceptualization of the Christian life. So is "union with Christ."
There's also this piece, which summarizes some of my own re-conceptions of many OT passages pretty well. Or at least gets across what I mean when I say, "fighting sovereignty."
And, yeah...N.T. Wright is amazing. Not perfect -- who is?, but still one of the best apologist-theologians out there. Here's him on Easter, and on the Christian imagination, and on the virgin birth. I've included the last one as an example of his basic apologetical method, which is miles ahead of that of most Christian writers out there. At least in terms of persuasiveness to those "outside the tent"...take my word for it on that one. ;)
Leaving off theology for a second...Lim is back (YAY!!!), and is sounding like Dr. Stewart. :) Also, I finally read her Hounds of Spring novella (continued here). ::jawdrop:: Ignore the karma mumbo jumbo (and the lack of decent red herrings). It's a story about sin and evil and justice and grace, and differing responses to the bentness of a fallen world. (Or maybe I was just tired and reading WAY too much into it. :)) If nothing else, the worldbuilding is unique (as always).
Favorite movie review read this summer: this one, on A. I. It talks about love, and I needed a good whap upside the head about that. Also, I was one of the stupid people who thought the weird things at the end were aliens. :)
This was just plain funny. So is this.
And, still having in the back of my mind Laura C.'s comment -- "all the writers we admire seem to be Catholic or high church!" -- here's one of the better analyses I've seen to date of why evangelicals "can't write".
If I remember anything else, I'll tack it up later. But that should be enough for now. :)
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
Arthur Farwell...Deja Vu
Remember Arthur Farwell? And his grand dream of nationalistic "community music pagents"? And his absolute conviction that they would be the wave of the future?
I've seen one.
On our vacation to the Outer Banks of North Carolina last week, we stopped by several touristy sites, including Roanoke Island. There's an outdoor theatre production running there during the summer, entitled The Lost Colony. It's been playing since the 1930s -- the only time it didn't run was during WWII, when the stage lighting would have been visible to Nazi submarines off the coast.
It was originally commissioned by the island residents to celebrate the history of the area and the American founding. Then, riding on the coattails of the New Deal, the producers received a grant from the government to continue staging it, and even got a theatre thrown in to boot. (As my dad remarked, "timing is everything.") There's more on the history of the production here.
Watching that thing was amazing, if only because it was seeing the second half of my research paper in action. Everything was there -- nationalism by the bucketload, hymns and songs and choruses, and connection to the local community.
Aside from that...it wasn't so amazing. The plotting and pacing and music were decidedly mediocre. There's a rather horrendously imposed romantic subplot. And the historical accuracy leaves a quite a bit to be desired. One can make the costumes more accurate over the years (they drastically improved the Native American ones), but the narrative is still bleeding the 1930s and its concerns and prejudices all over the place. There's a heavy dose of "YAY AMERICAN VALUES! YAY AMERICA! YAY PIONEERS! YAY TURNER THESIS!" So you pretty much have to watch it as a fascinating snapshot into the era in which it was written, not as a closely accurate (or even well-produced) docu-drama.
Still...wow. I wasn't expecting something like that, going in, and it was pretty cool to get a belated epilogue to my semester of research. :)
I've seen one.
On our vacation to the Outer Banks of North Carolina last week, we stopped by several touristy sites, including Roanoke Island. There's an outdoor theatre production running there during the summer, entitled The Lost Colony. It's been playing since the 1930s -- the only time it didn't run was during WWII, when the stage lighting would have been visible to Nazi submarines off the coast.
It was originally commissioned by the island residents to celebrate the history of the area and the American founding. Then, riding on the coattails of the New Deal, the producers received a grant from the government to continue staging it, and even got a theatre thrown in to boot. (As my dad remarked, "timing is everything.") There's more on the history of the production here.
Watching that thing was amazing, if only because it was seeing the second half of my research paper in action. Everything was there -- nationalism by the bucketload, hymns and songs and choruses, and connection to the local community.
Aside from that...it wasn't so amazing. The plotting and pacing and music were decidedly mediocre. There's a rather horrendously imposed romantic subplot. And the historical accuracy leaves a quite a bit to be desired. One can make the costumes more accurate over the years (they drastically improved the Native American ones), but the narrative is still bleeding the 1930s and its concerns and prejudices all over the place. There's a heavy dose of "YAY AMERICAN VALUES! YAY AMERICA! YAY PIONEERS! YAY TURNER THESIS!" So you pretty much have to watch it as a fascinating snapshot into the era in which it was written, not as a closely accurate (or even well-produced) docu-drama.
Still...wow. I wasn't expecting something like that, going in, and it was pretty cool to get a belated epilogue to my semester of research. :)
Friday, July 21, 2006
News
Most recently, I have...
- learned to play a scale on the trumpet.
- pretty much mastered all the white-belt stuff I'll need for the Tae Kwon Do testing next Friday (bwahaha)
- transformed computer paper into elegant stationary. (Water does amazing things).
- started a zoology course at Hampton University (and greatly contributed to the campus's racial diversity...)
Friday, July 07, 2006
Tae Kwon Do (Woh-Pah!)
I've been attending Tae Kwon Do classes for about a month.
One of my brothers started taking lessons several years ago; my other four siblings picked it up last fall. I finally gave in after coming home and realizing that they knew how to kill me 27.5 different ways, and that I didn't even know how to land a punch.
Plus, roundhouse spinning back kicks are just plain cool. I defy anyone to watch them being practiced day in and day out, and not get even a slight bit jealous.
So, hoping I wouldn't have to break too many boards, or do anything else that would splinter the little tiny bones in my hand I rather desperately need to play the piano, I trudged along with them to class.
Grand list of accomplishments so far:
So...assuming I don't do anything stupid at testing at the end of the month, I'll be a yellow belt by the time I get back to college. (Bwahaha!) And someday I'll finish hacking out how TKD has cemented my views on liturgical worship and the sacraments... ;)
One of my brothers started taking lessons several years ago; my other four siblings picked it up last fall. I finally gave in after coming home and realizing that they knew how to kill me 27.5 different ways, and that I didn't even know how to land a punch.
Plus, roundhouse spinning back kicks are just plain cool. I defy anyone to watch them being practiced day in and day out, and not get even a slight bit jealous.
So, hoping I wouldn't have to break too many boards, or do anything else that would splinter the little tiny bones in my hand I rather desperately need to play the piano, I trudged along with them to class.
Grand list of accomplishments so far:
- I can count to eight in Korean!
- I can do a roundhouse kick (and hit the target 40% of the time!)
- I can make my littlest brother collapse on the floor laughing as he watches me practice my fighting moves! ("No, no, silly -- not like THAT! The guy is over there!")
- And I can make it through the white belt form. :) And, yeah, I've broken the obligatory board.
So...assuming I don't do anything stupid at testing at the end of the month, I'll be a yellow belt by the time I get back to college. (Bwahaha!) And someday I'll finish hacking out how TKD has cemented my views on liturgical worship and the sacraments... ;)
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
More Theologicalish Stuff
Some additional conclusions.
1) Gordon Clark is wrong. Van Til, though I think he may still have problems in places, got some very very important things right.
2) John Frame is onto something with his "multi-perspectivalism"(there's something of a summary in point 21 here). And Joseph Minich gets a good bit right here. (This is a really long article...the parts most focused upon theology in general are in sections IV and V).
3) Artists will do theology differently than scientists will. (EDIT: Now I actually have a link for this!)
4) When I found out that Peter Leithart was a Federal Visionist (what the whole Minich article is about), I figured I'd better wade back into TULIP-infested waters for a time, and see what was up.
And was promptly reminded of one reason I'd sworn off reading Reformed theologians for a time. We're like pirhannas...and cannibalistic ones at that.
Still...wow. Union with Christ as central, election in the context of covenants, eschatological vision, reality of the visible church, real possibility of both assurance and apostasy, reaffirmation of God's goodness, baptism as actually meaning something, a rooted basis for church unity, an evangelistic pitch of "join the people of God"... Unsuprisingly, Marie's grand initial reaction was, "An aesthetic, big-picture, high church, joyfully missional Calvinism? You're kidding me! Where's the catch??"
It seems to fly, actually. And rings very true...and I'm knee-jerkedly attracted to it just as strongly as a lot of people are knee-jerkedly repelled. ::quickly dashes for the bank, and hopes that pirhannas haven't evolved legs::
1) Gordon Clark is wrong. Van Til, though I think he may still have problems in places, got some very very important things right.
2) John Frame is onto something with his "multi-perspectivalism"(there's something of a summary in point 21 here). And Joseph Minich gets a good bit right here. (This is a really long article...the parts most focused upon theology in general are in sections IV and V).
3) Artists will do theology differently than scientists will. (EDIT: Now I actually have a link for this!)
4) When I found out that Peter Leithart was a Federal Visionist (what the whole Minich article is about), I figured I'd better wade back into TULIP-infested waters for a time, and see what was up.
And was promptly reminded of one reason I'd sworn off reading Reformed theologians for a time. We're like pirhannas...and cannibalistic ones at that.
Still...wow. Union with Christ as central, election in the context of covenants, eschatological vision, reality of the visible church, real possibility of both assurance and apostasy, reaffirmation of God's goodness, baptism as actually meaning something, a rooted basis for church unity, an evangelistic pitch of "join the people of God"... Unsuprisingly, Marie's grand initial reaction was, "An aesthetic, big-picture, high church, joyfully missional Calvinism? You're kidding me! Where's the catch??"
It seems to fly, actually. And rings very true...and I'm knee-jerkedly attracted to it just as strongly as a lot of people are knee-jerkedly repelled. ::quickly dashes for the bank, and hopes that pirhannas haven't evolved legs::
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
Some Actual Conclusions
And, a month (and a good many more complications) later -- bother those charismatics... :) -- some semi-concluding thoughts on a handful of things:
Once myfour three term papers are done, and my thinking can be a bit a more clear and alert and open and at peace...
- Deism is a bad thing. Borderline-deism-that-doesn't-realize-it's-borderline-deism is a bad thing, too. I don't know exactly how radically 'interventionist' and involved in everyday life God actually is. But I'm pretty certain it's a lot more than whatever picture I had before.
- God is BIG -- too big to be contorted and smashed into my brain. (Or at least one hopes He would be, being the infinite God and all). :-)
- As much as you can help it, NEVER ask the questions "is Christianity true?" and "what is 'Christianity'?" and "am I really a Christian?" simultaneously. They spiral one another downwards most effectively. :-P
- Thankfully, God's promises are dependent upon Him, and not upon our understanding of them, or our swinging levels of certainty and confidence in them. (Thanks, Laura :))
- Angst is compounded 100-fold by four term papers hanging over one's head. :-)
Once my
- re-learn NT Greek. Or start picking up Hebrew.
- figure out why we have the books in our canon that we have in our canon. (Yes...this is immensely important. If you're going to be meditating on the word of God and shaping your life and thinking around them...you'd better make sure you've got the right words :-)).
- figure out how to not get defensive when I run up against stuff like this
- cry out for wisdom and understanding.
- remember that "wisdom" does not equal "knowledge"
- figure out how on earth to combine an insatiably curious and questioning mind with a quiet and humble and gentle spirit. (For I most certainly have the first, and most certainly lack (most of) the second).
- leave the tomorrows in God's hands. It's harder than it sounds.
- redirect any further entries here to more objective sorts of things. Or at least things I know I'm knowledgeable enough about and wise enough about to be talking about... :)
Saturday, March 25, 2006
To Speak of Many Things
Ok. There were a couple posts up here about a good many important things. Like God, evil, history, Hell, creation, and grace. They're hiding, now, until I can wrap my brain around them better, and articulate them better.
In the meantime, I'm cutting and pasting a couple quotes that might still be worth something.
//EDIT: Sep. '07 I've taken the whole "Evil and Eschatology" post back out of hiding for now (unedited and untouched from whatever I wrote in March '06)//
Basically...I'm finally having to confront, head-on, a good many of the loose ends that have built up since this and this. And it's a rather ugly tangle, with very very little light at the end of the tunnel.
In the meantime, I'm cutting and pasting a couple quotes that might still be worth something.
//EDIT: Sep. '07 I've taken the whole "Evil and Eschatology" post back out of hiding for now (unedited and untouched from whatever I wrote in March '06)//
I'm reading my medieval history textbook, and about Europe from 200 BC to 1000 AD. Some of the amazingly cool and amazingly depressing stuff happened then. And I'm convinced that people often are far, far too eager to say, "I know God's plan for history, and that's why this good thing happened here, and this bad thing happened there."
I do NOT read history and see "God's glorious providential script." God's glorious script, as far as I can tell, would have been a Perelandra, a world growing up under him without a Fall.
I read history, and I see evil and suffering and pain. And I see God's grace coming in from time to time, through people, and mitigating it and redeeming it. I read history and say, "Wow. I am floored by how many times God uses the evilly-intended actions of men to work great good."
As far as I can make out right now, Calvinism is amazingly unlivable. It doesn't hold up soon as I run into a non-Christian, or see and feel the suffering and pain and bentness of the world. If the renewal and union with God of a tiny 1% of people is the whole bloody hope that Christianity potentially promises -- to hell with everything else -- it's a rather tiny and limited hope.
I don't think God's grand plan of history is, "Yes, man rebelled and fell. I've got every right to let them all go to hell, but I'll stoop down and save a tiny 1% of them, and make those my new chosen people, and show my mercy and power and glory through their salvation and redemption. And the other 99%? They can just keep right on going to hell (literally). And I'll be just as glorified through that."
I look at the world right now, and about all I can say is, "There is evil. It hurts. God never desired injustice and evil and man's inhumanity to man, and man's abuse of creation, and man's perversion and abuse and misuse of all of the good things God gave to man. And yet God allows it to keep happening."
Let me be troubled by why God doesn't interfere more. Let me be troubled as to why he chose something as inefficient as his church to be the focal point of his interference -- to be the foothold of the spread of his renewal and hope. I can hold this in tension. I cannot hold in tension a God who looks at the world and says, "Renewal? Suffering? What are you talking about? It's going to hell in a handbasket -- just worry about growing in your personal relationship to me, along with this handful of other people I'm saving!"
Calvinism doesn't seem to mesh with reality. But non-Calvinism doesn't seem to mesh with the Bible. Yes, there's something of a syllogism in there, and it scares me.
People always say that Christianity is the only religion that takes seriously questions of evil and suffering. And then they turn right and around and say, "Why are you so torn up about evil and suffering? God had scripted all history beforehand for his glory, and that unsaved starving child in India is a part of it -- who are you to question the plans and purposes of God? God is God. You are not."
If Christianity requires me to inure myself to the suffering and pain of the world, and not be torn up by it, and say "and it's not really an important and integral part of the hope of Christianity to be fixing it -- just worry about your personal relationship with God and with the church" -- I can't live like that. And I AM rather frightened, right now, that this more limited hope is actually what the Bible teaches. And that a huge percentage of the things I looked at in Christianity and said, "Wow. Yes. True. Beautiful. Hard. Right. Livable. Of course." are not actually what the Bible teaches, and are not actually Christianity.
Basically...I'm finally having to confront, head-on, a good many of the loose ends that have built up since this and this. And it's a rather ugly tangle, with very very little light at the end of the tunnel.
Friday, March 24, 2006
Evil and Eschatology
Ok. Calvinism, I think, is a distraction from the actual issue at hand. Which I believe is something to the effect of this:
How bothered should Christians be by the evil and pain and bentness and darkness of the world? What is the proper response to such things?
Is it to say something along the lines of, "Yes, there's evil. Purge it out of your own life, make sure you're living rightly, encourage your fellow handful of believers to live rightly. And don't worry about all that stuff happening out in the world, to people who aren't part of God's family. God has it all under his hand and providential plan of history -- he's directing all that mess to some end."
Or is it to say something along the lines of, "These things ought not be. God did NOT create the world to be unjust and bent and evil and wrong -- we should reach out and FIX IT as much as we are able, with his help -- and this renewal is an integral part of the hope of Christianity"?
Are the world, and non-Christians, just out there for the sake of Christians? So that our run-ins with them strengthen us and make us better followers of Christ? Or is the world out there for us to actually DO something about? And is its renewal an integral part of what Christianity is about?
And I know people will be yelling, "Both/and! Both/and!" And they'll have a point. I must beware false dichotomies. But it's something awfully hard to walk the fine line on, and I DO see people tending to fall on one side or the other.
Um...it should be rather obvious to anyone who's been reading this thing for any length of time where I fall. Because, dammit, I CAN'T think otherwise. If Christianity requires me to inure myself to the suffering and pain of the world, and not be torn up by it, and say "and it's not really an important and integral part of the hope of Christianity to be fixing it -- just worry about your personal relationship with God and with the church" -- I can't live like that. And I am quite frightened, right now, that this more limited hope is actually what the Bible teaches. That a huge percentage of the things I looked at in Christianity and said, "Wow. Yes. True. Beautiful. Hard. Right. Livable. Of course." are not actually what the Bible teaches, and are not actually Christianity.
People always say that Christianity is the only religion that takes seriously questions of evil and suffering. And then they turn right and around and say, "Why are you so torn up about evil and suffering? God had scripted all history beforehand for his glory, and that unsaved starving child in India is a part of it -- who are you to question the plans and purposes of God? God is God. You are not."
And I know I'm being ungracious about some things here, and mashing together too many issues, here, and not representing everything 100% clearly. And drawing lines and oppositions where there may not really be any.
Still. I do NOT read history and see "God's glorious providential script." How can I? God's glorious script, as far as I can tell, would have been a Perelandra, a world growing up under him without a Fall. (The Fall was not a "happy fault" or bonum-something-or-other or whatever the term is. God used it to bring about a wonderful and great GOOD, and to show his love and mercy and glory in a way that would never have been possible without it. Very cool. But not the same thing). I read history, and I see evil and suffering and pain. And I see God's grace coming in from time to time, through people, and mitigating it and redeeming it. I read history and say, "Wow. I am floored by how many times God uses the evilly-intended actions of men to work great good."
I look at the world right now, and about all I can say is, "There is evil. It hurts. God never desired injustice and evil and man's inhumanity to man, and man's abuse of creation, and man's perversion and abuse and misuse of all of the good things God gave to man. And yet God allows it to keep happening."
Let me be troubled by why God doesn't interfere more. Let me be troubled as to why he chose something as inefficient as his church to be the focal point of his interference -- to be the foothold of the spread of his renewal and hope. I can hold this in tension. I cannot hold in tension a God who looks at the world and says, "Renewal? Suffering? What are you talking about? It's going to hell in a handbasket -- just worry about growing in your personal relationship to me, along with this handful of other people I'm saving!"
And it really doesn't bother me if the whole earth is going to get destroyed in the end. Though of course I would sort of like it better if the postmillenialists are right in part. Or if Dr. Jackson's right, and the New Heaven and New Earth are really this heaven and this earth, after God's coming and presence has cleansed imperfection out of them. I'd just really appreciate, in some form or another, a Christianity that weeps at the suffering of the world, and reaches out, and fixes it as much as is possible. Whether it's seen as being in imitation of the 2nd coming kingdom, or being an actual step in/towards the 2nd coming kingdom.
How bothered should Christians be by the evil and pain and bentness and darkness of the world? What is the proper response to such things?
Is it to say something along the lines of, "Yes, there's evil. Purge it out of your own life, make sure you're living rightly, encourage your fellow handful of believers to live rightly. And don't worry about all that stuff happening out in the world, to people who aren't part of God's family. God has it all under his hand and providential plan of history -- he's directing all that mess to some end."
Or is it to say something along the lines of, "These things ought not be. God did NOT create the world to be unjust and bent and evil and wrong -- we should reach out and FIX IT as much as we are able, with his help -- and this renewal is an integral part of the hope of Christianity"?
Are the world, and non-Christians, just out there for the sake of Christians? So that our run-ins with them strengthen us and make us better followers of Christ? Or is the world out there for us to actually DO something about? And is its renewal an integral part of what Christianity is about?
And I know people will be yelling, "Both/and! Both/and!" And they'll have a point. I must beware false dichotomies. But it's something awfully hard to walk the fine line on, and I DO see people tending to fall on one side or the other.
Um...it should be rather obvious to anyone who's been reading this thing for any length of time where I fall. Because, dammit, I CAN'T think otherwise. If Christianity requires me to inure myself to the suffering and pain of the world, and not be torn up by it, and say "and it's not really an important and integral part of the hope of Christianity to be fixing it -- just worry about your personal relationship with God and with the church" -- I can't live like that. And I am quite frightened, right now, that this more limited hope is actually what the Bible teaches. That a huge percentage of the things I looked at in Christianity and said, "Wow. Yes. True. Beautiful. Hard. Right. Livable. Of course." are not actually what the Bible teaches, and are not actually Christianity.
People always say that Christianity is the only religion that takes seriously questions of evil and suffering. And then they turn right and around and say, "Why are you so torn up about evil and suffering? God had scripted all history beforehand for his glory, and that unsaved starving child in India is a part of it -- who are you to question the plans and purposes of God? God is God. You are not."
And I know I'm being ungracious about some things here, and mashing together too many issues, here, and not representing everything 100% clearly. And drawing lines and oppositions where there may not really be any.
Still. I do NOT read history and see "God's glorious providential script." How can I? God's glorious script, as far as I can tell, would have been a Perelandra, a world growing up under him without a Fall. (The Fall was not a "happy fault" or bonum-something-or-other or whatever the term is. God used it to bring about a wonderful and great GOOD, and to show his love and mercy and glory in a way that would never have been possible without it. Very cool. But not the same thing). I read history, and I see evil and suffering and pain. And I see God's grace coming in from time to time, through people, and mitigating it and redeeming it. I read history and say, "Wow. I am floored by how many times God uses the evilly-intended actions of men to work great good."
I look at the world right now, and about all I can say is, "There is evil. It hurts. God never desired injustice and evil and man's inhumanity to man, and man's abuse of creation, and man's perversion and abuse and misuse of all of the good things God gave to man. And yet God allows it to keep happening."
Let me be troubled by why God doesn't interfere more. Let me be troubled as to why he chose something as inefficient as his church to be the focal point of his interference -- to be the foothold of the spread of his renewal and hope. I can hold this in tension. I cannot hold in tension a God who looks at the world and says, "Renewal? Suffering? What are you talking about? It's going to hell in a handbasket -- just worry about growing in your personal relationship to me, along with this handful of other people I'm saving!"
And it really doesn't bother me if the whole earth is going to get destroyed in the end. Though of course I would sort of like it better if the postmillenialists are right in part. Or if Dr. Jackson's right, and the New Heaven and New Earth are really this heaven and this earth, after God's coming and presence has cleansed imperfection out of them. I'd just really appreciate, in some form or another, a Christianity that weeps at the suffering of the world, and reaches out, and fixes it as much as is possible. Whether it's seen as being in imitation of the 2nd coming kingdom, or being an actual step in/towards the 2nd coming kingdom.
Friday, February 24, 2006
Frederica is Cool
Frederica Mathewes-Green is my new hero.
She very much reminds me of Chesterton -- showing Christianity in a new and deep and rich and imaginative way. Quite honestly, stuff like this could basically be described as a reiteration of the introduction to The Everlasting Man:
And she can write intelligently, awarely, compassionately, and with conviction about such things as abortion. So much so that both pro-lifers and pro-choicers recommend her books.
She's apparently managing to do the same thing with the topic of homosexuality, too. And gender-neutral Bible translations. And other super-hot-topic cultural issues that normally end up with both sides screaming at one another and reaching for machetes.
And I'm also very happy to find someone talking about politics and Christianity like this.
She has one of the absolute best ears to today's culture that I've come across. And she's not afraid to wrestle with hard things honestly -- acknowledging her own doubts on matters; recognizing oversights or wrongs done by those on the "right" side (as it were). Honesty is a good thing. With a good deal of experience and humility mixed in.
Yeah, and she's Eastern Orthodox. (And, no, I'm not joining the Whitley Theological Angst party over it. ;))
She very much reminds me of Chesterton -- showing Christianity in a new and deep and rich and imaginative way. Quite honestly, stuff like this could basically be described as a reiteration of the introduction to The Everlasting Man:
America is far from spiritually monolithic, but the vast backdrop of our culture is Christian, and for most of us it is the earliest faith we know. The "idea of the God-man" is not strange or scandalous, because it first swam in milk and butter on the top of our oatmeal decades ago. At that age, many things were strange, though most were more immediately palpable. A God-filled baby in a pile of straw was a pleasant image, but somewhat theoretical compared with the heartstopping exhilaration of a visit from Santa Claus. The way a thunderstorm ripped the night sky, the hurtling power of the automobile Daddy drove so bravely, the rapture of ice cream–how could the distant Incarnation compete with those?
We grew up with the Jesus story, until we outgrew it. The last day we walked out of Sunday School may be the last day we seriously engaged this faith. Thus the average person’s conception of the Christian faith is a child’s conception, still hobbled by a child’s perspective and presumptions. We were fed the oatmeal version of Christianity, boiled down to what a child could comprehend, and to many it never occurs that there might be something more to know. The other great faiths of the world we encounter as adults, and can perceive their depth and complexity. We cease thinking about Christianity when we are children, and so fail to glimpse the power and passion that has inspired poets and martyrs and theologians for millennia. There is ample material here to ponder for a lifetime. The problem is, we think we already know it all. (link)
And she can write intelligently, awarely, compassionately, and with conviction about such things as abortion. So much so that both pro-lifers and pro-choicers recommend her books.
She's apparently managing to do the same thing with the topic of homosexuality, too. And gender-neutral Bible translations. And other super-hot-topic cultural issues that normally end up with both sides screaming at one another and reaching for machetes.
And I'm also very happy to find someone talking about politics and Christianity like this.
She has one of the absolute best ears to today's culture that I've come across. And she's not afraid to wrestle with hard things honestly -- acknowledging her own doubts on matters; recognizing oversights or wrongs done by those on the "right" side (as it were). Honesty is a good thing. With a good deal of experience and humility mixed in.
Yeah, and she's Eastern Orthodox. (And, no, I'm not joining the Whitley Theological Angst party over it. ;))
Monday, February 13, 2006
Choir and Transcendentalist Hymns
Choir is incredible on Thursdays now. The new director is actually teaching us sight-singing skills. And part of the warmup involves two-voice harmonization. I hereby recant any complaining I have indulged in concerning this semester's choir.
Anyhow. The real reason I'm writing this entry is to hash out a bit of a dilemma.
We were assigned a song entitled "Turn Back O Man" a week or so ago. The melody is "The Old 124th Psalm, from the Genevan Psalter arranged by Gustav Holst." It is a quite glorious hymn tune. And I was most delighted, at first, to have a more optimistically-toned piece to sing. Because our big piece of the semester is Verdi's "Dies Irae" ("Day of Anger." Or "Day of Wrath." Or something like that). Which isn't exactly the most encouraging and positive piece in the world.
However, when one isn't really paying attention to the words of the Holtz piece (because one is singing solfege instead), it's apparently very easy to get distracted by phrases like "124th Psalm," "Geneva," "Gustav Holst," "forswear thy foolish ways," and "not till that hour shall God's whole work be done."
And completely miss the fact that the whole thing is some rather atrocious mishmash of gnostic?-romantic-transcendental gibberish. I here copy the whole thing for your perusal:
I have concluded two things:
1) I am irrationally possessive of hymn tunes. Although I'm well aware that (orthodox) Christian hymn writers often appropriated common and singable tunes for their own purposes, my reaction to this song is still, "HOW DARE THEY!??!!?"
2) I am not, at present, capable of being very charitable toward the transcendentalist-romantics. After the Dies Irae, I wanted something with MEAT to it. Not this happy smiling mishmash of saccharine idiocy. (<--- a notable example of uncharitableness)
I am having great difficulty finding ways to rationalize away the "inner god," "dream/wake," "undaunted man," stuff, and pretend that this sorry excuse for a hymn has at least SOMETHING to do with orthodox Christianity. Which means I'm going to be stuck, at best, wincing and attempting not to laugh as I sing this mess of a piece. (<--- a slightly milder bit of uncharitableness)
I think I can pull a bit of something together. My postmil/amil leanings probably help. But it's still very very hard to ignore the authorial intent of the lyrics.
I wonder if non-Christians in choir get as conflicted as this when they sing Christian songs.
Anyhow. The real reason I'm writing this entry is to hash out a bit of a dilemma.
We were assigned a song entitled "Turn Back O Man" a week or so ago. The melody is "The Old 124th Psalm, from the Genevan Psalter arranged by Gustav Holst." It is a quite glorious hymn tune. And I was most delighted, at first, to have a more optimistically-toned piece to sing. Because our big piece of the semester is Verdi's "Dies Irae" ("Day of Anger." Or "Day of Wrath." Or something like that). Which isn't exactly the most encouraging and positive piece in the world.
However, when one isn't really paying attention to the words of the Holtz piece (because one is singing solfege instead), it's apparently very easy to get distracted by phrases like "124th Psalm," "Geneva," "Gustav Holst," "forswear thy foolish ways," and "not till that hour shall God's whole work be done."
And completely miss the fact that the whole thing is some rather atrocious mishmash of gnostic?-romantic-transcendental gibberish. I here copy the whole thing for your perusal:
Turn back O Man, forswear they foolish ways.
Old now is Earth, and none may count her days,
Yet, Thou, her child, whose head is crowned with flame,
Still will not hear thine inner God proclaim,
"Turn back, O Man, forswear thy foolish ways!"
Earth might be fair and all men gland and wise.
Age after age their tragic empires rise,
Built while they dream, and in that dreaming weep.
Would but man wake from out his haunted sleep,
Earth might be fair and all men glad and wise.
Earth shall be fair, and all her people one.
Nor till that hour shall God's whole work be done.
Now, even now, once more from earth to sky
Peals forth in joy man's old undaunted cry,
"Earth shall be fair and all her folk be once!"
I have concluded two things:
1) I am irrationally possessive of hymn tunes. Although I'm well aware that (orthodox) Christian hymn writers often appropriated common and singable tunes for their own purposes, my reaction to this song is still, "HOW DARE THEY!??!!?"
2) I am not, at present, capable of being very charitable toward the transcendentalist-romantics. After the Dies Irae, I wanted something with MEAT to it. Not this happy smiling mishmash of saccharine idiocy. (<--- a notable example of uncharitableness)
I am having great difficulty finding ways to rationalize away the "inner god," "dream/wake," "undaunted man," stuff, and pretend that this sorry excuse for a hymn has at least SOMETHING to do with orthodox Christianity. Which means I'm going to be stuck, at best, wincing and attempting not to laugh as I sing this mess of a piece. (<--- a slightly milder bit of uncharitableness)
I think I can pull a bit of something together. My postmil/amil leanings probably help. But it's still very very hard to ignore the authorial intent of the lyrics.
I wonder if non-Christians in choir get as conflicted as this when they sing Christian songs.
Thursday, February 09, 2006
On Christians and Art (Again)
And I officially heart this article. For while he uses the word "conservative," he pretty much really means "Christian."
Ten Mistakes Conservatives Make in Art and Entertainment
The three best points being these:
1. Common Grace
2. Mystery and wonder
3. Un-safe Art
Ten Mistakes Conservatives Make in Art and Entertainment
The three best points being these:
1. Common Grace
Mistake #2: We don't quite understand common grace -- the idea that the good, the true, and the beautiful can be found in the most "unlikely" of places (Broadway) and people (liberal artists). Without a strong belief in common grace, we will either get angry at the culture or withdraw from it entirely.
2. Mystery and wonder
Mistake #7: We use the arts to save souls and sway elections. True artists enter their work with a sense of mystery, wonderment, always uncertain what may finally appear on the canvas or film or pages. Children’s author Madeleine L'Engle speaks of her surprise when a certain character appeared unexpectedly in the plot of the novel she was writing. She says, "I cannot imagine the book without [the character], and I know that it is a much better book because of him. But where he came from I cannot say. He was a sheer gift of grace." A sermon can be artful, and Lord knows campaign ads could use some imagination. Mixing art and agenda, however, is propaganda, whether it comes from the left or the right. If you want to send a message, Samuel Goldwyn rightly said, call Western Union.Though I would caveat (or clarify) that any piece of art worth anything is going to have some sort of message to it. The point, I think, is more along the lines that we should go into art to show the glory, wonder, truth, mystery, and beauty of things...and whatever message comes out of that, so be it.
3. Un-safe Art
Mistake #10: We like safe art. Soggy may be a better term. Easy to digest. Nothing that causes heartburn. Do we really want art that never challenges our convictions, wrestles with our beliefs, or questions our faith? Let’s not forget: beauty is hardly safe, truth is never tame, goodness is anything but trite. Author Franky Schaeffer said it best : "The arts ask hard questions. Art incinerates polyester/velvet dreams of inner healing and cheap grace. Art hurts, slaps, and defines. Art is interested in truth: in bad words spoken by bad people, in good words spoken by good people, in sin and goodness, in life, sex, birth, color, texture, death, love, hate, nature, man, religion, music, God, fire, water, and air. Art tears down, builds up, and redefines. Art is uncomfortable." Finally, and most profoundly, he writes: "Good art (which, among other things, means truth-telling art) is good in itself, even when it is about bad things."
Sunday, February 05, 2006
The Evolution Question
Ok. Just so no one gets any wrong ideas about where I stand on anything, here goes:
I don't CARE about evolution. I haven't since 10th grade.
So whatever tentativeness I have about the subject is not due to the corrupting influence of an EVUL secular college or an EVUL Dr. Stevens. Blame Mr. Minish (my 10th/11th grade Bible teacher) if you want to blame anyone. Then blame C.S. Lewis.
I wouldn't be taking a Philosophy of Science class this semester in the first place if I knew I'd get uber-defensive at half the things discussed.
I don't think the truth and validity of Christianity depends upon literal 6-day creationism being true. I don't think evolution being true means that Christianity is false. I'm sorry -- I don't. And once that stopped being an issue, I found better things to worry about. There are more important hills to die on.
You can wham me upside the head with your 53-point comparative chart of how theistic evolution and Genesis 1 don't match. You can harangue me as much as you want about how the 4th commandment and the Adam-Christ comparisons in the New Testament demand that 6-day literal creationism be true. I don't buy it. (Or perhaps more accurately...I'm not persuaded enough by it to come down decisively on the matter). And here's my official below-the-belt comment about how heliocentrism didn't destroy Christianity, but merely incorrect interpretations. And my cheap shot about Augustine and his "Scripture shows us the way to the heavens, not the way the heavens run" deal.
I'm not a science major. I know next to nothing about how the whole evolution deal is supposed to technically work. I haven't looked at all of the experiments and tests and theorizing. When one doesn't know much about a subject, and doesn't have time to investigate it themselves, they tend to trust the leading authorities. Leading authorities say, "Yay evolution!" Be happy, (Christian) people -- I'm at least saying, "And they could possibly be wrong about a lot of this."
Precisely because I know virtually nothing about the science of this matter, and precisely because I'm not quite willing to go completely along whatever the leading authorities are currently saying, I'm not going say anything one way or the other about evolution. And a corollary: because I haven't conclusively decided one way or the other, I'm not going to use evolution or creationism as part of how I argue for a position. Don't look for me to, and don't ask me to.
If creationism vs. evolution ever becomes central to some very troubling issue I'm working through, and starts forcing me to take sides (whether I think it's possible or not)...maybe then I'll start hashing through lab reports. At the moment, however, it is nowhere near this level of importance.
However the universe and world were made,
a) God started it, at the very least.
b) Man is different and special -- "created in the image of God" in a way animals aren't.
c) There was a Fall. It screwed up people, and apparently screwed up creation up to some degree as well.
Don't ask me to come down hard on much beyond this. Things seem a lot more mushy once I start trying to construct anything beyond this core, and I've got better things to do worry about this particular mush. Again...I've picked my battles. Evolution vs. creationism isn't one of them.
I don't CARE about evolution. I haven't since 10th grade.
So whatever tentativeness I have about the subject is not due to the corrupting influence of an EVUL secular college or an EVUL Dr. Stevens. Blame Mr. Minish (my 10th/11th grade Bible teacher) if you want to blame anyone. Then blame C.S. Lewis.
I wouldn't be taking a Philosophy of Science class this semester in the first place if I knew I'd get uber-defensive at half the things discussed.
I don't think the truth and validity of Christianity depends upon literal 6-day creationism being true. I don't think evolution being true means that Christianity is false. I'm sorry -- I don't. And once that stopped being an issue, I found better things to worry about. There are more important hills to die on.
You can wham me upside the head with your 53-point comparative chart of how theistic evolution and Genesis 1 don't match. You can harangue me as much as you want about how the 4th commandment and the Adam-Christ comparisons in the New Testament demand that 6-day literal creationism be true. I don't buy it. (Or perhaps more accurately...I'm not persuaded enough by it to come down decisively on the matter). And here's my official below-the-belt comment about how heliocentrism didn't destroy Christianity, but merely incorrect interpretations. And my cheap shot about Augustine and his "Scripture shows us the way to the heavens, not the way the heavens run" deal.
I'm not a science major. I know next to nothing about how the whole evolution deal is supposed to technically work. I haven't looked at all of the experiments and tests and theorizing. When one doesn't know much about a subject, and doesn't have time to investigate it themselves, they tend to trust the leading authorities. Leading authorities say, "Yay evolution!" Be happy, (Christian) people -- I'm at least saying, "And they could possibly be wrong about a lot of this."
Precisely because I know virtually nothing about the science of this matter, and precisely because I'm not quite willing to go completely along whatever the leading authorities are currently saying, I'm not going say anything one way or the other about evolution. And a corollary: because I haven't conclusively decided one way or the other, I'm not going to use evolution or creationism as part of how I argue for a position. Don't look for me to, and don't ask me to.
If creationism vs. evolution ever becomes central to some very troubling issue I'm working through, and starts forcing me to take sides (whether I think it's possible or not)...maybe then I'll start hashing through lab reports. At the moment, however, it is nowhere near this level of importance.
However the universe and world were made,
a) God started it, at the very least.
b) Man is different and special -- "created in the image of God" in a way animals aren't.
c) There was a Fall. It screwed up people, and apparently screwed up creation up to some degree as well.
Don't ask me to come down hard on much beyond this. Things seem a lot more mushy once I start trying to construct anything beyond this core, and I've got better things to do worry about this particular mush. Again...I've picked my battles. Evolution vs. creationism isn't one of them.
Monday, January 30, 2006
Extra-Curricular (Nerdy) Hillsdale
So...back at college. A glancing look at the first few weeks:
On Fiddler on the Roof:
Brenna: "If you think about it, the guys get progressivly worse. The first was a dork, the second a communist--"
Marie: "A social idealist."
Brenna: "Um...right, Marie. And the third one was an unbeliever!"
Some other girl in the room: "But really cute, you've got to admit."
Marie: "Hmm. So what you'd need is a combination of all three, then."
Brenna: "A dorky communist unbeliever??"
Marie: "NO!!"
On Writing:
Never joke that you'll write "a romance" involving "a dorky communist unbeliever."
a) it doesn't work too well
b) it'll mutate into something completely free of dorks, but with plenty of communistic leprechauns.
On SAI:
I like having my Thursday evenings free. And really need to stop grinning and saying "haha!" whenever SAI people complain about meetings...
On the Enlightenment:
It probably happened. Either that, or it's a grand coverup conspiracy of historians. Like the early middle ages. :)
On a Certain Mercenary Legion of Great Popularity around Here:
Phillip: "You know – if would make a great call on one of those advice shows. Someone calls in all depressed and suicidal, and the guy says, 'Well – that’s really too bad. But before you do something irrevocable and hasty ...have you ever considered joining the French Foreign Legion?'"
On Geography:
There's a playground up by the Academy. With swings. It needs to be taken advantage of at some opportune moment.
On Prophecy:
If you're told that you will die in three days, does it necessarily follow that you will not die before the third day? (If the doom-teller said, "within three days," of course the answer would be obvious. But most of the time they aren't this precise in their prepositions).
On Lawrence of Arabia:
When you can miss an hour in the middle of a movie, and still think it's one of the most awesome films you've ever seen, it's probably pretty good.
On Theology:
Remind me never to write a theological work. Or it will end up with chapters like "God's not a Thundercloud, You Idiot! He's a Lightning Bug Zapper!"
On Fiddler on the Roof:
Brenna: "If you think about it, the guys get progressivly worse. The first was a dork, the second a communist--"
Marie: "A social idealist."
Brenna: "Um...right, Marie. And the third one was an unbeliever!"
Some other girl in the room: "But really cute, you've got to admit."
Marie: "Hmm. So what you'd need is a combination of all three, then."
Brenna: "A dorky communist unbeliever??"
Marie: "NO!!"
On Writing:
Never joke that you'll write "a romance" involving "a dorky communist unbeliever."
a) it doesn't work too well
b) it'll mutate into something completely free of dorks, but with plenty of communistic leprechauns.
On SAI:
I like having my Thursday evenings free. And really need to stop grinning and saying "haha!" whenever SAI people complain about meetings...
On the Enlightenment:
It probably happened. Either that, or it's a grand coverup conspiracy of historians. Like the early middle ages. :)
On a Certain Mercenary Legion of Great Popularity around Here:
Phillip: "You know – if would make a great call on one of those advice shows. Someone calls in all depressed and suicidal, and the guy says, 'Well – that’s really too bad. But before you do something irrevocable and hasty ...have you ever considered joining the French Foreign Legion?'"
On Geography:
There's a playground up by the Academy. With swings. It needs to be taken advantage of at some opportune moment.
On Prophecy:
If you're told that you will die in three days, does it necessarily follow that you will not die before the third day? (If the doom-teller said, "within three days," of course the answer would be obvious. But most of the time they aren't this precise in their prepositions).
On Lawrence of Arabia:
When you can miss an hour in the middle of a movie, and still think it's one of the most awesome films you've ever seen, it's probably pretty good.
On Theology:
Remind me never to write a theological work. Or it will end up with chapters like "God's not a Thundercloud, You Idiot! He's a Lightning Bug Zapper!"
Friday, January 13, 2006
Reading List Revisited
Current state of the reading list:
Other reading (aka...PROCRASTINATION):
Aristotle's Rhetoric is profoundly interesting. Partly because it's a fascinating look at ancient Greek society and values, and partly because it's a very telling look at human nature in general. It also makes me feel like a fuzzy-headed idiot. Favorite Aristotle quote of the moment: "With regard to the element of moral character: there are assertions which, if made about yourself, may excite dislike, appear tedious, or expose you to the risk of contradiction; and other things which you cannot say about your opponent without seeming abusive or ill-bred. Put such remarks, therefore, into the mouth of some third person."
Cramming the entirity of Indroductory Logic into my head in one afternoon was NOT a good idea. But I at least remember the square of opposition. And I'll never again throw inductive logic at someone who's trying to be deductive. Hahaha! Yay for whamming people upside the head with syllogisms!
Margaret Atwood...probably a neat person to talk to. People who read The Handmaid's Tale, then assume they know everything there is to know about Christian fundamentalism and theonomic ideas...NOT neat people to talk to. At least sort through the mishmash of Gilead to find the demi-applicable parallels, people.
My littlest sister's new favorite book is Firebringer. Condensed verdict: The author unabashedly rips off Watership Down. He's got some neat solutions to many problems that arise in anthropomorphic stories, though (carnivores vs. herbivores; communication between species, etc.) And he's much more subtle than I expected when dealing with themes of peace, war, violence, revenge, justice, and pacifism.
How to Read a Book is awesome. I can't believe I've never read this before...articulately and eloquently lays out a TON of stuff I've been stumbling around trying to say.
I really want to find a copy of How to Read Literature Like a Professor. One of my sister's teacher's gave the class a sheet summarizing the contents, and it's amazingly helpful. And quite humorous. How can you not like section headings such as "Every Trip is a Quest (Except When It's Not)", "When in Doubt, It's from Shakespeare...Or the Bible", "It's All About Sex...Except Sex", and "Yes, She's a Christ Figure Too!"
- Lorna Doone failed to arrive over interlibrary loan in time. (All our library had was an abridged edition...::grumble grumble grumble ::) Yes, I'm well aware that it's available online. But having an actual book in hand is half the pleasure of reading.
- The Everlasting Man: in progress.
- Dürrenmatt: impossible to find.
- Martin has lost his plot in a morass of sex and violence. Revised verdict: not recommendable to ANYONE. Yes, I can back this up if you want me to.
- Theonomy. Right. I'm...um...procrastinating?
- Schedule readjustments include dropping History of Spain.
Other reading (aka...PROCRASTINATION):
Aristotle's Rhetoric is profoundly interesting. Partly because it's a fascinating look at ancient Greek society and values, and partly because it's a very telling look at human nature in general. It also makes me feel like a fuzzy-headed idiot. Favorite Aristotle quote of the moment: "With regard to the element of moral character: there are assertions which, if made about yourself, may excite dislike, appear tedious, or expose you to the risk of contradiction; and other things which you cannot say about your opponent without seeming abusive or ill-bred. Put such remarks, therefore, into the mouth of some third person."
Cramming the entirity of Indroductory Logic into my head in one afternoon was NOT a good idea. But I at least remember the square of opposition. And I'll never again throw inductive logic at someone who's trying to be deductive. Hahaha! Yay for whamming people upside the head with syllogisms!
Margaret Atwood...probably a neat person to talk to. People who read The Handmaid's Tale, then assume they know everything there is to know about Christian fundamentalism and theonomic ideas...NOT neat people to talk to. At least sort through the mishmash of Gilead to find the demi-applicable parallels, people.
My littlest sister's new favorite book is Firebringer. Condensed verdict: The author unabashedly rips off Watership Down. He's got some neat solutions to many problems that arise in anthropomorphic stories, though (carnivores vs. herbivores; communication between species, etc.) And he's much more subtle than I expected when dealing with themes of peace, war, violence, revenge, justice, and pacifism.
How to Read a Book is awesome. I can't believe I've never read this before...articulately and eloquently lays out a TON of stuff I've been stumbling around trying to say.
I really want to find a copy of How to Read Literature Like a Professor. One of my sister's teacher's gave the class a sheet summarizing the contents, and it's amazingly helpful. And quite humorous. How can you not like section headings such as "Every Trip is a Quest (Except When It's Not)", "When in Doubt, It's from Shakespeare...Or the Bible", "It's All About Sex...Except Sex", and "Yes, She's a Christ Figure Too!"
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Yay Movies; Boo Golden Means
Who needs the "golden mean"? Averaging extremes will give approximately the same answer, right?
Witness, therefore, the first edition of "Marie's Econo-Reviews." Every movie from last semester crammed into ONE ENTRY! Three sentences or less, OR YOUR MONEY BACK! No historiographical or sociological ramblings, GUARANTEED! Never read a four-part review of a worthless movie ::cough:: EVER AGAIN!
Donnie Darko
If anybody figured out this movie without googling it, they are either insane or a genius. Probably both.
Equilibrium
It has inspired elements (like Preston's hand skimming the banister -- watch the movie if only for this). It also has plenty of stupid elements (like the quasi-Nazi flag. And most of the acting).
Fiddler on the Roof
I'm starting to see why it's one of my mom's favorite movies.
First Knight
The main thing that sticks in my mind is the insane set design and tone. It's as if they couldn't decide whether to make it feel historical of fairy-tale-like. The other memorable thing: late night conversations on Arthur vs. Lancelot.
Gladiator
One of the most gruesome opening sequences I've ever seen. A good movie, but also a quite depressing one...the double-crosses in the middle, especially.
The Jacket
Slightly more comprehensible than Darko. But not very. Maybe it's better that they never explained how or why he could time-travel.
King Kong
Jackson realized that it was basically a brainless action movie, and decided to make it the most actiony action movie ever. With every element he could cram in: dinosaurs, zombies, bugs, machine guns, explosions, storms, tanks, car chases, airplanes, a beautiful woman, and a HUGE GORILLA. Still, the acting was very good...and with three hours of screen time, he couldn't completely avoid referencing a couple demi-profound themes.
Lola Runs/Run Lola Run
I liked it, even though I don't quite understand what the director was trying to say. The "flash-forward" photos were particularly cool, and I liked the fact that he was evidently making some point about God and prayer at the end. (Probably negative...but a point nonetheless :)).
Narnia
It is not a great movie, but it is a very good one. And they didn't ruin Aslan.
Never Been Kissed
I am told that this movie is a "chick flick." Such a label (if my sources are to be believed) excuses it from the requirements of a plausible plot and convincing characterization. So be it -- but remind me never to watch one of those again.
Phone Booth
Beware 128 gazillion uses of "f***." Plus some rather sketchily clad women. That said -- great characterization, great acting, and one of the better movies I watched during exam week.
The Red Violin
Ahem: once the 1800s concert violinist comes on the scene, BEWARE THE SKETCH! Excellent movie, nonetheless. It was an ingenious way of connecting several quite unrelated stories, and I liked the fact that it was filmed in 3+ languages.
And some TV series for good measure. These may be more than three sentences.
Alias -- 6 episodes
SD6: "Here's your mission!"
CIA: Here's your counter-mission!
Sidney: "Oh no -- something went terribly wrong! I must change into sexy and seductive attire!"
Dad or Sidney: "Well -- it didn't go perfectly. But we pretty much got what we needed, learned a bit about Rambaldi (or this season's equivalent overarching plot mystery), and had a touching moment of father-daughter bonding time."
Um...yes. It was fun the first two or three times around. But after that, I rather lost interest.
Firefly -- all episodes
Just about any sci-fi movie with action/adventure elements earns the label "space western." Instead of getting mad at the pigeonhole...why not just shrug and go all out? I thought Whedon's concept was hilariously and ironically ingenious. Sure...you ended up with a stupid plot or two, but overall it was a rollicking good time.
Lost -- 4 episodes
This has potential. I'm not sure where it's going, but with the insane mishmash of a "lost on a desert island" story, preternatural happenings, and science gone wrong, it keeps you watching. It's got excellent acting. Plus, unlike Alias ::cough::, every episode is quite distinct.
Witness, therefore, the first edition of "Marie's Econo-Reviews." Every movie from last semester crammed into ONE ENTRY! Three sentences or less, OR YOUR MONEY BACK! No historiographical or sociological ramblings, GUARANTEED! Never read a four-part review of a worthless movie ::cough:: EVER AGAIN!
Donnie Darko
If anybody figured out this movie without googling it, they are either insane or a genius. Probably both.
Equilibrium
It has inspired elements (like Preston's hand skimming the banister -- watch the movie if only for this). It also has plenty of stupid elements (like the quasi-Nazi flag. And most of the acting).
Fiddler on the Roof
I'm starting to see why it's one of my mom's favorite movies.
First Knight
The main thing that sticks in my mind is the insane set design and tone. It's as if they couldn't decide whether to make it feel historical of fairy-tale-like. The other memorable thing: late night conversations on Arthur vs. Lancelot.
Gladiator
One of the most gruesome opening sequences I've ever seen. A good movie, but also a quite depressing one...the double-crosses in the middle, especially.
The Jacket
Slightly more comprehensible than Darko. But not very. Maybe it's better that they never explained how or why he could time-travel.
King Kong
Jackson realized that it was basically a brainless action movie, and decided to make it the most actiony action movie ever. With every element he could cram in: dinosaurs, zombies, bugs, machine guns, explosions, storms, tanks, car chases, airplanes, a beautiful woman, and a HUGE GORILLA. Still, the acting was very good...and with three hours of screen time, he couldn't completely avoid referencing a couple demi-profound themes.
Lola Runs/Run Lola Run
I liked it, even though I don't quite understand what the director was trying to say. The "flash-forward" photos were particularly cool, and I liked the fact that he was evidently making some point about God and prayer at the end. (Probably negative...but a point nonetheless :)).
Narnia
It is not a great movie, but it is a very good one. And they didn't ruin Aslan.
Never Been Kissed
I am told that this movie is a "chick flick." Such a label (if my sources are to be believed) excuses it from the requirements of a plausible plot and convincing characterization. So be it -- but remind me never to watch one of those again.
Phone Booth
Beware 128 gazillion uses of "f***." Plus some rather sketchily clad women. That said -- great characterization, great acting, and one of the better movies I watched during exam week.
The Red Violin
Ahem: once the 1800s concert violinist comes on the scene, BEWARE THE SKETCH! Excellent movie, nonetheless. It was an ingenious way of connecting several quite unrelated stories, and I liked the fact that it was filmed in 3+ languages.
And some TV series for good measure. These may be more than three sentences.
Alias -- 6 episodes
SD6: "Here's your mission!"
CIA: Here's your counter-mission!
Sidney: "Oh no -- something went terribly wrong! I must change into sexy and seductive attire!"
Dad or Sidney: "Well -- it didn't go perfectly. But we pretty much got what we needed, learned a bit about Rambaldi (or this season's equivalent overarching plot mystery), and had a touching moment of father-daughter bonding time."
Um...yes. It was fun the first two or three times around. But after that, I rather lost interest.
Firefly -- all episodes
Just about any sci-fi movie with action/adventure elements earns the label "space western." Instead of getting mad at the pigeonhole...why not just shrug and go all out? I thought Whedon's concept was hilariously and ironically ingenious. Sure...you ended up with a stupid plot or two, but overall it was a rollicking good time.
Lost -- 4 episodes
This has potential. I'm not sure where it's going, but with the insane mishmash of a "lost on a desert island" story, preternatural happenings, and science gone wrong, it keeps you watching. It's got excellent acting. Plus, unlike Alias ::cough::, every episode is quite distinct.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)