It's nice to be done

No school, for two weeks. No more working on Saturdays. No more! It feels good. The hit to my income will hurt. But, I'll hopefully get some work on our house-in-progress. And, of course, school is only out for a couple weeks - but damn it Skip! I'm gonna enjoy it!

Hotel Rwanda is an awesome movie. I found it very hard to watch, yes, ->me<-. It'll grip you and twist you all the way through; not for the light of heart. The movie is about the Rwandan genocide a decade ago. It tells the story of a hotel manager who's hotel became a makeshift refugee camp for Rwandan's who were of the wrong ethnicity (Tutsi, sp?). Anyways, you're always wondering when its gonna end, when the mobs will roll in with AKs and slaughter everyone. Gripping.

Another excellent move is The Corporation. It's humerous, smart, informative - everything you could ask for in a film. It does even try to show both sides of the picture, with interviews of several high ranking businessmen. But overall, the movie shows many corporations in a negative light. They argument of the film is quite neat: Corporations are legally persons under the law, but unlike most humans, they don't have a sense of ethical or moral responsibility. Whatever path makes the company the most profit for its stockholders is the path that the corporation takes. And since a corporation is a legal person, it is open to psycological analysis. So they bring in an FBI expert on psychopaths, and show that many Corporations share the same symptoms of people who are psychopaths. Pretty funny, but quite serious as well. Again, a great flik; one I highly recommend.

If you're interested in some satiring of evangelicals (hey, why not!), check out this spoof by landoverbaptist on World of Warcraft evangelism. I was sickened at first (thinking it was for real), until I remembered that landoverbaptist is a satire website (and a damn good one - no pun intended). Then I just couldn't stop laughing. Sorry if this offends you, but I think a little satire of how we Evangelicals go about doing things can be healthy. Oh, and it's meant for a mature audience (18+). You've been warned.

Whoever still has finals to go, best of luck for this last haul.
Peace to all.

T minus 12 hours

Four exams down, one to go. After my Biblical Hebrew exam tomorrow, I will be free as a fox...for two weeks. Then I begin on a rough summer session comprised of six weeks of CHEM 233 (Organic Chem), and 12 weeks of RELG 314 (Origins of Christianity). I have heard only horror stories about CHEM 233; every single person whom I've spoken to has warned me, freaked me, terrorized me, and just plain scared me. It will not be an easy six weeks, that much I know. As for RELG 314, I am excited (not scared) to start. I have heard only good things about the professor (Dr. Neufeld), and about the course itself. Not only that, it's material I am very interested about. It should be a great 12 weeks.

Anywho, I came across a radio interview of Rev. Dr. John Polkinghorne on a fellow bloggers site (The Questioning Christian has an awesome blog, worth checking out). Polkinghorne is decked out: professor of Particle Physics turned Anglican Priest, appointed a Knight of the British Empire, insanity! Anyways, he remarks in the interview about the dual nature of light: light is both a particle and a wave at the same time. Now, this has been indoctrinated into me since high school, and I have come to just accept it. He explains it so (paraphrased): if you ask of light a particle-like question, you will get a particle-like answer; if you ask of light a wave-like question, you will get a wave-like answer. This paradox (contradiction) is a foundation stone of much modern physics. But when Christian theology says Jesus is both man and God, people choke and snicker. Both are incredibly mysterious and odd; one is widely accept, the other is laughed at. But as Polkinghorne says, if you ask of Jesus man-like questions, you will get man-like answers; if you ask of Jesus God-like questions, you will get God-like answer. Is that really so odd in a modern world such as ours?

Another thing that popped into my head (again) today: what is it about the Anglican Church that has so many great scholars and thinkers: C.S. Lewis, Alister McGrath, N.T. Wright, John Polkinghorne, Richard Burridge, James Packer, and the list goes on. Is there something about the Anglican Church that nourishes/encourages/facilitates the life and vocation of its intellectuals? Maybe it's just pure coincidence? Maybe it's because the British have a longer history of theological studies than North America? I don't have an answer...

I must get back to my wonderful Pi'el paradigms.

Eyes on Liturgy, and New Testament Ethics

I think I've figured out why I've become so interested in liturgy lately. My understanding of how we know things has gone from a foundationalist (modernist) position at the beginning of university--i.e., certain foundations from which one draws certain deductions--to a postmodernist position. I don't think we have the same level of absolute certainty about our knowledge as I used to think. I also have realized how our own perception and situatedness colours everything we see: our understanding can never be detached from ourselves - flies don't stand on the wall any longer. As many have said, we see the world through our own pair of shades. Now, I don't go so far as to say we can't ever know anything. I have become particularly attracted to Critical Realism (influenced by Tom Wright, Ben Meyer, John Stackhouse). As the phrase implies, one must be critical of one's own position and understanding, as well as engage in dialogue and critique. There is still a reality out there which remains regardless of how coloured our glasses are. Some interpretations of reality are better descriptions than others. But the point is, there is no monopoly of knowledge, and we aren't perfect--objective--observers.

Anyways, trying to navigate the waters of epistemology, and trying to figure out where exactly I stand (a work in progress) leaves me in turbulent waters. My way of seeing and understanding the world has radically changed in the span of a few years. Certainty has gone out the window, and a sober, critical view has taken its place. I think this provided the soil for an interest in liturgy. Liturgy connects the Christian community over time and space. The liturgy some congregations celebrate is the same their forefathers celebrated centuries ago. What one congregation in Vancouver celebrates is much the same as what another congregation in India celebrates. That gives a sense of solidarity and community unlike so many low-church protestant congregations. Moreover, liturgy is stable. It's not a new style of service every week, every month, every year. It follows a relatively set lectionary (one, two, or three year cycle, whatever), and a set format of service.

Of course, there is a flip side to this: liturgy can be too rigid. I haven't really experienced much in terms of liturgy yet, so I can't comment. What I'm thinking so far is that this can be a real hazard. But, I'm not so sure rigidity is a bad thing. The liturgies I have seen so far give plenty of time for reflection/prayer. What it does safeguard against is the overenthusiastic (in a bad way) worship leader who just does as he/she pleases; or the unprepared/unsure service chairperson who doesn't understand what the various stages in the service are about, or what the role of scripture is in guiding the congregation through them.

Hopefully, through the summer, I can experience some liturgical services. Maybe my wonderful theorycraft is just that.

I'd like to be able to share a better description of critical realism in the future, one that actually does justice to it. It seems to me to be one of the better postmodern options out there.

I've also been listening along to the Regent Radio broadcast of Richard Burridge's lecture series on New Testament Ethics. I love it so far. He is big on biographical approaches to the Gospels. His dissertation is all about how the Gospels are a form of Graeco-Roman biography. And Graeco-Roman biography (this may be a shock) is about the subject in question! As Burridge likes to joke, the Gospels are about Jesus. Go figure. Furthermore, Biography (noun) can be historical, comedic, tragic, etc... (adjectives) . Which adjective you tack on to the noun is question in itself. Anyways, Graeco-Roman biographies aimed to show what kind of person the subject in question was. In several biographies, the point was for people to imitate the subject's virtues, and avoid their vices.
This is the approach that Burridge brings to the Gospels, and it is one that has captured my attention. So far, he has talked about the ethics of Jesus. Jesus in his words has incredibly stringent ethics. He intensifies Torah, he doesn't make things easier. However, at the very same time, Jesus extends his open invitation to sinners. The strict moral teacher invites the worst of the worst--those who fail his moral standards--into his community. Jesus heals the outsiders and sinners, he eats with them, he offers them forgiveness on the spot (which, by the way, completely circumvents the Temple), he parties with them - he dies for them. There is no prerequisite to meet the standards first; the invitation comes first. I'm really looking forward to hearing more of this lecture series.

Anyways, that's plenty of writing for one post.
Peace be with you all,
Kev

"The last enemy to be destroyed is death."

It has been some time since my last post. I just haven't had anything 'profound' or 'interesting' to say lately. Meh, what can you do? I feel like talking about some recent events in the world, and what I think about them.

Since I last wrote, Terri Schiavo died. What a huge row that caused, all of a sudden the euthanasia debate is center stage. I haven't really thought about euthanasia. I remember reading about it for my moral phil class last year, but I never really took a side. And I still don't. What stance I take is that there is no one definitive answer. It doesn't seem like it's completely wrong in all cases, nor completely correct in all cases. But, to tell the truth, I still haven't given it much thought. God, I hope I never have to. I also think that we are to care for and give support to those in need. Helping those who can't help themselves is a tradition rooted deep and wide throughout the biblical texts. But, that's about as far as my thinking has gone.

More recently, Pope John Paul has died. The day I heard the news was a sad day. I have much respect for my catholic brothers and sisters. I've already talked a little bit about how I stand in relation to Catholicism (ie, much more inclusive than many in my Protestant tradition). I also have much respect for Pope John Paul. Yes, I may disagree with some of his positions, but he was an incredible man. If the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran comes to the funeral of the head of the Catholic Church, you know this man carries weight. And, along with many, I think he was one of the best Popes the Roman Catholic Church has had in modern times. Probably lots more I can say about this, but I'll save it for now.

Seems like there's been a lot of death in the air recently. It's a brutal reality sometimes I wish weren't so. Paul was right, death is an enemy to be defeated. How much joy and love in this world has been torn apart by death. How much goodness in this world has been blackened by death. It bugs me when I see some Christians talk about death like it's a necessity to 'get to heaven'. Is it the Purpose Driven Life that talks about life as a 'temporary assignment'? (I'm not certain if it comes from that book, but I recall hearing so...someone please correct me if it's not!) Wherever it's from, that kind of thinking disgusts me. Assignment?! What, is life a big test so that we can go to heaven? No, life is a good thing. The universe was created and given life. God wanted to share himself--to share goodness and joy and love--with a living universe. No, death is an enemy. I do not think God is some cosmic sadist, bringing people into wonderful joy only to tear it apart at the worst moment. (Sometimes I think that I'm in some small way walking the path good ol' Lewis had to walk.) And no, we don't die so we can go to heaven and enjoy our eternal paradise; we wait with eager longing for life - for the new heaven and the new earth. We wait for God to restore and redeem his world - his universe; not to abandon his masterpiece in a great ball of flame.
And the wonderful philosophical discussions about an all good and an all knowing God and the existence of evil seem to me to miss the point. Evil isn't something to just sit and discuss in an ivory tower somewhere. Evil is something to be confronted, something to be defeated. God didn't come and talk philosophy with rich men in universities, he put a young Jewish rabbi on a cross, a young man crushed by evil. Evil which so many in the world have had to suffer, and which so many would continue to suffer. And that young rabbi rose to a life which evil could no longer corrupt. The 'Problem of Evil' indeed.

I think it's about time for me to get off my soap-box. I should stop before I get really heated up. I am horrible when I don't write calmly and with reflection. But, after all, this is a blog; it's a brain dump, not a dissertation. My apologies if I have caused offence, I don't aim to do that (though I seem to do it often). As always, I welcome comments.

Peace be with you all, especially during final exam period.