A Glass Darkly

Three random thoughts on a Monday

2012-01-30T16:48:00.000-06:00

Yesterday was Sunday, and I was impressed more than is usualby the time of Confession in the liturgy. I was raised in a tradition wherethis is not included in church meetings, the argument being that no biblicaltext can be named that commands its inclusion. No one seemed to notice that theorder of service we followed was as I see things now, painfully human-centric,nor that the historic liturgy we rejected was shaped by the demands of thegospel. So, Confession usually catches my attention but yesterday it did sorather sharply. “We are a mess,” the pastor said, “and making a mess,” and thendrew our attention to Titus 3:2. There we are told, “to speak evil of no one,to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward allpeople.” Surely the apostle didn’t mean for us to apply that during apresidential primary season.

A friend mentioned that he has taken to asking a questionbefore meetings, discussions, and classes begin: “What will you do in order tobe fully present while we are together?” Recently I have noticed elders FaceBookingduring a worship service, friends checking email on iPhones duringconversations, people Tweeting during discussions, and others surfing theInternet on laptops that were supposedly there in order to take notes. In eachcase their actions had an effect on me, convincing me that they wereintentionally only partially present though each would insist, I am certain,that they be taken fully seriously as a participant.

I turned on the car radio only to discover NPR was in amembership drive, which is fine, except that it makes for poor listening, whichis, I suppose, the point. The commentator, needing to fill airtime, hadrepeated the phone number to call with our pledge several times and clearlyneeded to say something else, so mentioned, “NPR news is your compass in aworld of information.” I thought that a bit weak and wondered if telling jokeswouldn’t raise more money, but then got to wondering what served as a compassin my life. What helped me sort out fact from fiction, the important from themerely urgent, the deeper things from the ubiquitously loud. I decided theanswer was Creation, Fall, Redemption & Restoration—the four part melody inthe great orchestral suite of life that grounds us in the grand story ofreality. Without it acting like a GPS to point to the hope of home, I amlost in the cosmos.

Some things I’d like in the new year

2012-01-01T14:14:00.000-06:00

I’d like to be a better listener. (Reasons are obvious.)

I’d like to pay more attention to creation. (Ignoring fellowcreatures is rude.)

I’d like to not change the world. (Can’t anyway.)

I’d like to read more poetry. (Stupid not to.)

I’d like to see more tattoos. (Stories are fascinating.)

I’d like to get art I don’t like. (Understanding culturalconversation is good.)

I’d like to have meals take more time. (It’s actually thepoint.)

Are there things you’d like? Please let me know by postingthem in a comment.

A final word for the year 2011

2011-12-27T19:23:00.000-06:00

This is my final blog in 2011, time running out as it is,and I can think of no better post than to let Walker Percy have the final word.I could say that Percy is one of my heroes, which is true, but the way the word“hero” is overused today makes that comment feel like I’m in some waytrivializing his memory, which is something I refuse to do. Walker Percy(1916-1990) was a novelist and essayist who lived in Louisiana, and if you havenot read him you need to make a resolution this year to correct that error.Begin with The Second Coming (1980),then read The Moviegoer (1961), andthen… well, if you begin with those two novels you’ll read the rest on yourown.

In Signposts in aStrange Land (1991) a number of Percy’s essays were collected, edited byPatrick Samway. The essays fall into three categories: Life in the South,Science, Language, Literature, and Morality and Religion. As an Epilogue Samwaywisely included “Questions They Never Asked Me,” a witty, wide-ranging, and insightfulinterview in which Percy both posed the questions and provided the answers. Itis from this interview (pp. 416-417) that I take the following excerpt.

-----------

Do you regard yourself as a Catholic novelist?

SinceI am a Catholic and a novelist, it would seem to follow that I am a Catholicnovelist.

What kind of Catholic are you?

Bad.

No. I mean, are you liberal or conservative?

I nolonger know what those words mean.

Are you a dogmatic Catholic or an open-minded Catholic?

Idon’t know what that means, either. Do you mean do I believe the dogma that theCatholic Church proposes for belief?

Yes.

Yes.

How is such a belief possible in this day and age?

Whatelse is there?

What do you mean, what else is there? There is humanism,atheism, agnosticism, Marxism, behaviorism, materialism, Buddhism, Muhammadanism,Sufism, astrology, occultism, theosophy.

That’s whatI mean.

To say nothing of Judaism and Protestantism.

Well,I would include them along with the Catholic Church in the whole peculiarJewish-Christian thing.

I don’t understand. Would you exclude, for example,scientific humanism as a rational and honorable alternative?

Yes

Why?

It’s notgood enough.

Why not?

Thislife is much too much trouble, far too strange, to arrive at the end of it andthen be asked what you make of it and have to answer, “Scientific humanism.”That won’t do. A poor show. Life is a mystery, love is a delight. Therefore, Itake it as axiomatic that one should settle for nothing less than the infinitemystery and the infinite delight; i.e., God. In fact, I demand it. I refuse to settlefor anything less. I don’t see why anyone should settle for less than Jacob,who actually grabbed aholt of God and wouldn’t let go until God identifiedhimself and blessed him.

Grabbed aholt?

A Louisianaexpression.

----------

Happy New Year—may 2012 be rich in evidences of grace andglimmers of glory for you.

There was “no room in the inn”

2011-12-19T11:00:00.001-06:00

It was always part of my understanding of the Christmasstory that Jesus was born in a stable because all the available rooms in thelocal “hotels” of the day were occupied. This, in turn, has been taken to meanthat in his birth Jesus was marginalized, unwanted, excluded, unwelcomed bythose in the City of David that should have recognized the arrival of theirrightful King.

In Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes, New Testament scholar Kenneth Bailey suggests thistake on the Christmas story may in fact be erroneous. Bailey has lived for over40 years in Egypt, Lebanon, Israel, and Cyprus, and is professor emeritus ofMiddle Eastern New Testament studies at Tantur Ecumenical Institute inJerusalem.

Most Englishtranslations state that after the child was born, he was laid in a manger“because there was no room for them in the inn.” This sounds as if they were rejected by the people of Bethlehem. Wasthat really the case?

There is a trap intraditional language. “No room in the inn” has taken on the meaning of “the innhad a number of rooms and all were occupied.” The “no vacancy sign” was already“switched on” when Joseph and Mary arrived in Bethlehem. But the Greek worddoes not refer to “a room in an inn” but rather to “space” (topos) as in “There is no space on my desk for my new computer.” It isimportant to keep this correction in mind as we turn to the word we have beentold was an “inn.”

The Greek word in Luke2:7 that is commonly translated “inn” is katalyma. This is not the ordinary word for a commercial inn. In the parable ofthe good Samaritan (Lk 10:25-37) the Samaritan takes the wounded man to an inn.The Greek word in that text is pandocheion. The first part of this word means “all.” The second part, as a verb,means “to receive.” The pandocheionis the place that receives all, namely a commercial inn. This common Greek termfor an inn was so widely known across the Middle East that over the centuriesit was absorbed as a Greek loan word into Armenian, Coptic, Arabic and Turkishwith the same meaning—a commercial inn.

If Luke expected hisreaders to think Joseph was turned away from an “inn” he would have used theword pandocheion, which clearly meanta commercial inn. But in Luke 2:7 it is a katalyma that is crowded. What then does this word mean?

Literally, a katalyma is simply “a place to stay” and can referto many types of shelters. The three that are options for this story are inn (the English translation tradition), house (the Arabic biblical tradition of more thanone thousand years), and guest room(Luke’s choice). Indeed, Luke used this key term on one other occasion in hisGospel, where it is defined in the text itself. In Luke 22 Jesus tells hisdisciples:

“Behold, when you haveentered the city, a man carrying ajar of water will meet you; follow him intothe house which he enters, and tell the householder, ‘The Teacher says to you,Where is the guest room [katalyma]where. I am to eat the passover with my disciples?’ And he will show you alarge upper room furnished; there make ready.” (Lk 22:10-12)

Here, the key word, katalyma, is defined; it is “an upper room,” whichis clearly a guest room in a private home. This precise meaning makes perfect sense when applied to the birthstory. In Luke 2:7 Luke tells his readers that Jesus was placed in a manger (in the family room) because in that home theguest room was already full.

If at the end of Luke’sGospel, the word katalyma means aguest room attached to a private home (22:11), why would it not have the samemeaning near the beginning of his Gospel? The family room, with an attachedguest room, would have looked something like the diagram below:

…To summarize, a partof what Luke tells us about the birth of Jesus is that the holy family traveledto Bethlehem, where they were received into a private home. The child was born,wrapped and (literally) “put to bed” (anaklino) in the living room in the manger that was either built into the flooror made of wood and moved into the family living space. Why weren’t theyinvited into the family guest room, the reader might naturally ask? The answeris that the guest room was already occupied by other guests. The host family graciouslyaccepted Mary and Joseph into the family room of their house.

Source: Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes: CulturalStudies in the Gospels by Kenneth E. Bailey (Downers Grove, IL:InterVarsity Press; 2008) p. 32-34.

Shedding light on Jesus’s manger

2011-12-12T12:22:00.000-06:00

Kenneth Bailey has spend four decades living in Egypt,Lebanon, Israel, and Cyprus, most recently serving as professor of MiddleEastern New Testament studies at Tantur Ecumenical Institute in Jerusalem. Inthe early chapters of Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes, Bailey sheds understanding on some of the details inthe story of Christ’s birth as recorded in the Gospels.

[I]t is evident thatthe story of the birth of Jesus (in Luke) is authentic to the geography andhistory of the Holy Land. The text records that Mary and Joseph “went up” fromNazareth to Bethlehem. Bethlehem is built on a ridge which is considerablyhigher than Nazareth. Second, the title “City of David” was probably a localname to which Luke adds “which is called Bethlehem” for the benefit of nonlocalreaders. Third, the text informs the reader that Joseph was “of the house and lineage of David.” In the Middle East, “the house of so-and-so” means “thefamily of so-and-so.” Greek readers of this account could have visualized abuilding when they read “house of David.” Luke may have added the term lineage to be sure his readers understood him. Hedid not change the text, which was apparently already fixed in the traditionwhen he received it (Lk 1:2). But he was free to add a few explanatory notes.Fourth, Luke mentions that the child was wrapped with swaddling cloths. Thisancient custom is referred to in Ezekiel 16:4 and is still practiced amongvillage people in Syria and Palestine. Finally, a Davidic Christology surfacesin the account. These five points emphasize that the story was composed by amessianic Jew at a very early stage in the life of the church.

For the Western mindthe word manger invokes the words stable or barn. But in traditional Middle Eastern villages this is not the case. Inthe parable of the rich fool (Lk 12:13-21) there is mention of “storehouses”but not barns. People of great wealth would naturally have had separatequarters for animals. But simple village homes in Palestine often had but tworooms. One was exclusively for guests. That room could be attached to the endof the house or be a “prophet’s chamber” on the roof, as in the story of Elijah(1 Kings 17:19). The main room was a “family room” where the entire familycooked, ate, slept and lived. The end of the room next to the door, was eithera few feet lower than the rest of the floor or blocked off with heavy timbers.Each night into that designated area, the family cow, donkey and a few sheepwould be driven. And every morning those same animals were taken out and tiedup in the courtyard of the house. The animal stall would then be cleaned forthe day. Such simple homes can be traced from the time of David up to themiddle of the twentieth century. I have seen them both in Upper Galilee and inBethlehem. Figure 1.1 illustrates such a house from the side.

The roof is flat andcan have a guest room built on it, or a guest room can be attached to the endof the house. The door on the lower level serves as an entrance for people andanimals. The farmer wants the animalsin the house each night because they provide heat in winter and are safe fromtheft.

The same house viewedfrom above is illustrated in figure 1.2

The elongated circlesrepresent mangers dug out of the lower end of the living room. The “familyliving room” has a slight slope in the direction of the animal stall, whichaids in sweeping and washing. Dirt and water naturally move downhill into thespace for the animals and can be swept out the door. If the family cow ishungry during the night, she can stand up and eat from mangers cut out of thefloor of the living room. Mangers for sheep can be of wood and placed on thefloor of the lower level.

Source: Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes: CulturalStudies in the Gospels by Kenneth E. Bailey (Downers Grove, IL:InterVarsity Press; 2008) p. 28-30

Which films should I show in class?

2011-12-05T13:17:00.000-06:00

The first week of January I will be once again teaching a2-credit course, “Film & Theology” at Covenant Theological Seminary in StLouis. It’s rather intensive (4 straight days, 8:30-12 noon, 1-4 pm) but adelight for me. It seems undeniable that film is a primary story-tellingmedium—perhaps the primarystory-telling medium—in our postmodern world. Being able to explore that withthe next generation of leaders in the church, and demonstrate how we can bepart of that cultural dialogue is a very good way to spend a week. After all,good films raise the same issues that are addressed in the biblical gospel—theperennial questions of life and reality.

As part of that class, I schedule at least three (and willprobably use 4) films to watch in class, and then discuss. After all, talkingabout engaging an art form but not actually practicing it is not a wise way todevelop discernment. There are a multitude of good films I’d like to watch withmy students but have to decide on four. I have several qualifications:

1. The filmmust be worth discussing. Every movie can be talked about, and usually is, butsome movies are very limited in the themes they explore or the depth to whichthat exploration occurs.

2.Depictions of sexuality or violence must be moderate. Since we live in apost-Christian and fallen world, it is inevitable that there will be aspects topeople’s stories that reflect less than full righteousness. Even the Scripturescontain such stories. Still, since this is an academic setting, the viewershave less discretion as to whether they will choose to see the films. And sincethere are plenty of fine films that are moderate in how they depict suchrealities, choosing films that will not produce problems for weaker believersis a responsibility I wish to assume as the instructor.

3. The filmshould be easily defensible. I am teaching this course at a TheologicalSeminary, an institution I happen to like a great deal. I not only teach there,I did my theological studies there. Covenant is part of a denomination in whichthere are people who are quick to object to whatever they happen to disapprove,and for some movies is on the list. Some of these folks are cultural warriors,some are ideological conservatives, and none have the self-awareness to realizetheir expressions of “being offended” are actually attempts to control othersvia the legalisms they spawn. I am pleased that Covenant Seminary offerscourses like the one I teach and I want to choose films to watch in class thatI can argue are worth seeing and are vital expressions of issues that thechurch needs to engage.

Films that I have shown in classes in the past include Run Lola Run (1998; R); Nanking (2007; R); Wit (2001; PG-13); Strangerthan Fiction (2006; PG-13); and 13Conversations about One Thing (2001; R).

My question is this: What films would you suggest I show inclass? Or to put it another way, which movies would you like the future leadersin the church to discuss during the week they spend with me?

Jazz for kids (and the rest of us) II

2011-11-30T12:10:00.000-06:00

The delightfully creative people behind Coal Train Railroad (CTRR) are at it again. Even if you are notgiven to public displays of emotion, their second CD, Coal Train Railroad Swings, will make you smile and tap your foot.The lyrics are childlike (without ever being childish) reveling in the simplewonder children sense in the ordinary things of life.

There are flakes undermy fingernails

and a smidgen in mysocks

Dirt

I’ve got a landfill upmy nostril—

plus I found somelittle rocks!

Dirt

My mom says “Ideclare, you could get dirty anywhere!”

I made mud pies withEdwina and you told me I should share

What are you supposedto do?

The stuff iseverywhere

Dirt [from “Dirt”]

It’s true that the wisdom of maturity brings soberreflection on the brokenness of life but that should never be allowed to sweepaway wonder in a tidal wave of drab solemnity. Coal Train Railroad Swings helps us to remember that, and remindsus of the joy that springs from simple wonder at life.

Now that the inside’sempty

and the stuffing’s allunpacked

Don’t send that torecycle, bring it here

With some crayons,glitter glue and masking tape

It’s a terrarium or abiosphere

Give me the box thatcame along with my shoes

I can get rid of theblues

I can make my own roomor a robot that talks

I can do almostanything with a box

Just let me keep thebox that my present came in

I can make the presentdouble

If I’m driving youcrazy just give me a box

I'm almost guaranteedto keep out of trouble

I can do almostanything with a box [from “With a Box”]

Good music does far more than entertain. It revealssomething about reality—about creation, about our selves, about life and death,about God—that we cannot know fully by any other means. After I say all I canabout a good song, the song still says more. “Forgive me if I don’t have thewords,” Ella Fitzgerald once said. “Maybe I can sing it and you’ll understand.”This is a precious thing to know, to experience, and to introduce to children.Cheap music fills the background of postmodern society, like static slowlyhardening our souls to the significance of art. The people behind CTRR know thedifference and are speaking into that chaos with music that reminds us thatbeauty has a depth all its own.

CCRR is the creation of Katy Bowser and Chris Donohue. Katy’sclear, lovely voice along with Chris’ superb musicianship and the appearance ofa number of top flight instrumentalists, including saxophonist Jeff Coffin ofThe Dave Matthews Band means Coal TrainRailroad Swings is a work of jazz worth savoring. These are people who lovechildren and beauty, and have honed their skill in music so that they can speakto children without ever talking down to them.

The sun is sizzling onthe concrete deck,

Lifeguard’s whistlekeeps the runners in check,

I lost my goggles butwhat the heck?

S’just another day atthe pool.

Jake’s big brotherclimbed the water slide,

zoomed down the troughand his suit came off!

That's what happenswhen ya go down backwards,

S’just another day atthe pool.

Za...zou turned hertowel into a circus tent,

Story learned topaddle and away she went,

Henry’s little sisterhad an accident (YIKES!)

S’just another day atthe pool [from “(Just Another) Day At The Pool”]

Order a copy of Coal Train Railroad Swings for yourself. You don’t have to admit that you listento it, but you will. And order a copy for each child in your life. You will begiving them a gift that teaches wonder and the joyous freedom of jazz and thelearning process will be so delightful they won’t know they are being taught.What could be better?

Source: Ella Fitzgerald online (http://ma.tt/jazzquotes/Ella-Fitzgerald).

A biological basis for morality?

2011-11-07T15:21:00.000-06:00

Recently the oxytocin levels in Toad Hall have been ratherhigh. This mainly has to do with the Angora rabbit, Honeysuckle, that lives onour back porch and the litter of 10 kits she produced after a weekend flingwith a handsome young buck named Heathcliff. She is new to mothering, so shewas helped begin nursing by an inoculation of oxytocin… well, this is probablymore than you need to hear, at least on this blog. For more such news you cango here.

Anyway, oxytocin was suddenly a topic of conversation aroundhere the weekend the baby bunnies were born. That weekend also happened to bethe time John and Leslie Eddy, from Cos Cob, CT were here for a visit. So theytoo were swept up in talk about oxytocin, which really is not something I amprone to normally give much thought to. But there it is. After they returnedhome John alerted us to a fascinating TED talk on “Trust, Morality—andOxytocin.”

I recommend this talk, and encourage you to watch the videoand think through what Paul Zak is saying. I’d like to begin a conversationhere—in the comments on this blog—about this video and Zak’s ideas, and so haveappended a few questions that might be worth considering. My questions don’tcover all that needs to be discussed, but the ones I list here will get usstarted and prepare the way for the rest of what should be addressed.

Questions for reflection:

1. How doyou respond to Zak’s presentation as a talk? Consider what he communicates insuch a brief presentation—how effective, interesting, persuasive, andinformative is his TED talk?

2. Asobjectively as possible, state Zak’s basic premise(s), and the reasons he givesfor accepting it.

3. Whatideas did Zak make attractive in his talk? How did he accomplish this?

4. Withwhat in Zak’s presentation do you agree? Why?

5. How doyou respond to the notion that might be a molecular basis for empathy or otheraspects of behavior we classify as “moral”?

6. Assumingthat all the findings in Zak’s research are valid and confirmed by moretesting, to what extent and in what way does your understanding of moralityneed to change?

7. SomeChristians might express the fear that if some biological or molecular basis formoral behavior is identified, any claim for a divine basis for morality or lawwould be rendered implausible. How would you respond? What Scriptures would youappeal to? What Scriptures might they appeal to as the reason for theirconcern? How would you respond to these texts?

8. Reflecton Zak’s prescription of 8 hugs per day. On the one hand, it can sound a bitsentimental and certainly is incapable of solving the intractable problems ofour badly broken world. Even 108 hugs per day will not fulfill the deepestyearnings of the human heart. On the other hand, the corners of the world weinhabit are filled with lonely people who feel unnoticed and underappreciated,for whom simple human touch can bring a moment of respite and a glimmer ofhope. How does Zak’s prescription resonate with the Christian mandate to loveour neighbor?

Paul Zak’s bio (from TED): Aprofessor at Claremont Graduate University in Southern California, Zak believesmost humans are biologically wired to cooperate, but that business andeconomics ignore the biological foundations of human reciprocity, risking loss:when oxytocin levels are high in subjects, people’s generosity to strangersincreases up to 80 percent; and countries with higher levels of trust—lowercrime, better education—fare better economically.

I look forward to reading your comments.

Why we believe what we do

2011-10-31T10:53:00.000-05:00

There is a simple story we usually tell about the things webelieve: we were presented with the alternatives, carefully examined the facts,and came to a studied conclusion about what is true. The truth of the matter,of course, is far more complicated.

For one thing there is an essential link between knowing anddoing that we must never ignore. It is why St Paul can speak of “the obedienceof faith” (Romans 1:5) without for a moment suggesting that the Christian’srelationship to God through Christ is based on works, or on meriting grace insome way. Rather, we are embodied creatures so what we know and what we do isinextricably tied together. What I truly believe is evident in how I live,regardless of what I claim to believe. How I live effects what I believebecause beliefs that do not resonate with the give and take of life are forthat reason suspect.

Once we begin to reflect on this, it is clear that what isinvolved is far more richly nuanced than we might initially imagine. In i told me so: Self-deception and theChristian Life, philosopher Gregg Ten Elshof (professor of philosophy atBiola University) examines one aspect of the process of belief more carefully.He argues that one thing we do is selectively give attention to things—we haveto since there is far too much going on to give full attention to everything.But he also argues that this thing we do so naturally and subconsciously has aneffect on what we believe.

In The Violent Bear It Away, Flannery O’Connor’s Tarwater is a man busyabout the task of suppressing his knowledge of Christ. O’Connor's descriptionof Tarwater's inner life is worth quoting at length:

Inthe darkest, most private part of his soul, hanging upside down like a sleepingbat, was the certain undeniable knowledge that he was not hungry for the breadof life. Had the bush flamed for Moses, the sun stood still for Joshua, thelions turned aside before Daniel only to prophesy the bread of life? Jesus? Hefelt a terrible disappointment in that conclusion, a dread that it was true… Hetried when possible to pass over these thoughts, to keep his vision located onan even level, to see no more than what was in front of his face and to let hiseyes stop at the surface of that. It was as if he were afraid that if he lethis eye rest for an instant longer than was needed to place something—a spade,a hoe, the mule's hind quarters before his plow, the red furrow under him—thatthe thing would suddenly stand before him, strange and terrifying, demandingthat he name it and name it justly and be judged for the name he gave it. Hedid all he could to avoid this threatened intimacy of creation.

William James said that “myexperience is what I agree to attend to. Only those items I notice shape mymind.” The most common strategies for long-haul self-deception involve themanagement of attention. Through habitual and systematic management of mycognitive gaze, I can come to believe things that I wouldn’t believe were I toattend indiscriminately to my surroundings. Through attention management, Iexercise a degree of control over what comes into my mind. And this, in turn,affects what I believe.

I first came to the study ofphilosophy through an interest in apologetics. I found philosophically trainedChristian apologists handling with some care the difficult questions thatothers in my Christian context seemed to gloss over. Is there good evidence forGod's existence, for the reliability of the Scriptures, or for the historicalresurrection of Jesus? Can the reality of evil be squared with the existence ofthe Christian God? I read books on these and other topics by Christianapologists. I found the evidence supporting the truth of orthodox Christianityimpressive, and that was a source of great comfort and increased faith.

Before long, though, I also noticedthat the people most impressed by the arguments favoring orthodox Christianitywere the orthodox Christians. Now this in itself isn't at all surprising. Isuppose the people most impressed by the arguments for anything will be the people who believe in thatthing, whatever it is. The people most impressed by the evidence forextra-terrestrial life, for example, will tend to be the people who believe inextra-terrestrial life. Arguably, it’s because they’ve found the evidence compelling that they now believe what theydo. So a correlation between people who find the evidence for Christianitycompelling and people who believe that Christianity is true is not surprising.

What struck me, though, was theseeming infrequency of a change of mindin either direction upon initial confrontation with the evidence. Christians Iknew who carefully considered the evidence for the first time tended to find itimpressive. Non-Christians I knew who carefully considered the evidence for thefirst time tended to find it wanting. And if they didn’t, they’d likely faultthe person articulating their side of the issue for a less-than-adequate presentationof the evidence. I’ve found it almost as unlikely that people will change theirminds about Christianity at a debate as it is that they will change theirsports loyalties after seeing their favorite team lose.

But how do we do this? How doChristians manage to find the same body of evidence supportive of Christianitythat non-Christians find to discredit Christianity? How do Christians andnon-Christians alike manage to remain unimpressed by the evidence against theirposition? The answer, in part, is that we do this by managing our attention. Toa significant degree, we control the character of our experience by decidingwhat to attend to. Those experiences, in turn, result in our having the beliefsthat we do.

This reality has profound implications for our own faith,and for how we engage in conversations with non-Christians over what beliefsare best supported by the available evidence. And I’d love to hear people’s thoughtsabout that.

Source: i told me so: Self-deception and theChristian Life by Gregg A. Ten Elshof (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans; 2009)pp. 31-33.

The strange attractiveness of fear

2011-10-14T09:54:00.000-05:00

From the usual definition of fear—a distressing, unpleasantemotion evoked by the dread of or threat of imminent harm—we’d assume peopledon’t line up to pay good money to be frightened. But the lines outside hauntedhouses and theaters showing horror films prove us wrong. We don’t like beingafraid but somehow are attracted to fear.

I wonder if this love of being scared isn’t hardwired intous as human beings. Created as finite we exist as tiny creatures in anexpansive cosmos, and so live on the edge of a greatness that shocks ourimagination. Called into existence by God’s word, if God were to withdraw hissustaining word we would tumble back into the nothingness from which we came.And in a fallen world we live knowing that death shadows us, and every glimpseinto that abyss once again underscores our finitude. Not surprising then, thatbiblical incidents where people experience the presence of God and his angelicwarriors find them struck down with fear (Isaiah 6:5; Daniel 8:17; Revelation1:17). Nor is it surprising that a healthy fear of the Almighty is a sign ofwisdom and maturity, demonstrating an ability to rightly discern reality(Proverbs 1:7; 1 Peter 2:17).

Thus the yearning for spirituality, for God, for meaningthat transcends the narrow confines of time and space includes a search for aproper fear. We find this unpleasant response somehow strangely attractive,needed to jolt us into a sense that we might after all exist.

Perhaps this explains the attractiveness of places like The Nightmares Fear Factory, a tourist attraction at Niagara Falls, Canada, billedas “The World’s Most Frightening Experience.” It takes fifteen minutes or lessto walk through it, and at the corner in which the fear peaks The Factory hasinstalled a camera. They post pictures online (which you can see here).

My question is: why are these pictures so funny?

[Source: Thanks to Andrew Sullivan on The Dish, where Ifirst heard about The Nightmares Fear Factory.]

Poem: How to Kill a Living Thing

2011-10-10T11:37:00.000-05:00

How to Kill a Living Thing

Neglect it

Criticize it to itsface

Say how it kills thelight

Traps all the rubbish

Bores you with itsgreen

Continually

Harden your heart

Then

Cut it down close

To the root aspossible

Forget it

For a week or a month

Return with an axe

Split it with one blow

Insert a stone

To keep the wound wideopen.

[Poem byEibhlin Nic Eochaidh]

This poem was read in church yesterday, a reminder of howdeeply the brokenness extends into life and how easily I find myself part ofthe process. Sadly, I can find reasons, good reasons, excellent reasons toreturn with the axe. They attacked me and all I am doing is showing them theircriticism is mistaken—something is wrong within them and deep sores need to belanced. They don’t fit in because they just don’t try and unless their unhealthysense of entitlement is rooted out they’ll never get anywhere in life so I amdoing them a favor. They are different and so everyone feels so uncomfortable,an unnecessary thing if people just try, which they don’t unless provided withsome loving motivation—which my carefully aimed blows are intended to be.

The image given in Scripture that the Almighty, the God ofheaven and earth notices the tiniest sparrow hopping and then stumbling as itpicks among the litter on the ground is not merely a record of divineomniscience but a standard for compassion (Matthew 10:29). That just as Christ embracedthe cross I must absorb blows so that others may flourish more fully as thehuman beings God made them to be. How can I know that and still prefer to cutthem down to size?

Source: graphic online (http://www.haryana-online.com/fauna/Birds/house_sparrow.htm)

More numbers

2011-10-05T10:01:00.000-05:00

Statistics can lie, not because they are incorrect butbecause they are partial, incomplete, so that sometimes what is unreported isthe real fact that’s needed to see things realistically. Still, they can beinteresting—and revealing. As these are, I think:

Amount of money spent per capita on lottery tickets annually:

MI: $239

CT: $265

NJ: $271

MD: $275

GA: $319

NY: $348

WV: $438

RI: $468

DE: $482

MA: $628

“Worldwide, snakebites cause about 100,000 deaths and 400,000 limbamputations each year.”

FDA Guidelines on acceptable levels of ‘Insect Fragments’ per gram:

Peanutbutter: 0.3

Chocolate:0.6

Cornmeal: 1

Macaroni: 1

Wheatflour: 1.5

Groundallspice: 3

Groundpaprika: 3

Groundcinnamon: 8

Groundpepper: 9.5

Groundnutmeg: 10

Groundoregano: 125

Sources: Lottery from “Datastream” in Wired (September 2011) p. 44; snakebite from “Salve buys time aftersnakebite” by Nadia Drake in Science News(July 30, 2011) p. 11; Insect fragments from “Datastream” in Wired(August 2011) p. 36.

When some feel alienated (III): Listening to sermons

2011-09-26T10:54:00.000-05:00

One theme that has continuously resurfaced in myconversations with people who feel alienated from the church is sermons thatdon’t connect with life. This is not the only group of people who experiencethis, of course, but those who feel alienated seem to experience it regularly.The lack of connection is a deep disappointment that seems to place the faithoutside the circle of the reality in which you live and move and have yourbeing. You came for encouragement, healing, and a way to help make sense ofthings but hear something that seems never to acknowledge the questions,challenges, and choices that fill your days.

A serious problem—OK, I am under no illusion that I have thesolution to this dilemma, but I have three modest suggestions.

Tim Keller, one of today’s most gifted preachers, sayssermons reflect how preachers spend their time and energy. Some spend it in theworld of theological scholarship (their sermons affirm their listeners that theybelieve correctly), others spend it in the sub-culture of evangelicalChristianity (their sermons seek to deepen devotional life, family solidarity,and morality and warn of dangers), while some spend it in the rough and tumbleof our pluralistic culture (their sermons bring the text into tension with theworld we all live in). Though a gross simplification, you can imagine the firstgroup alone with thick dusty books, the second in their car visiting folk withthe radio tuned to a religious station, and the third reading the New York Times and hanging in a coffee shop. So,suggestion number one: pray earnestly, regularly, for those who bear the officeof pastor/teacher in your life.

My second modest suggestion: be grateful to live at a timein history when technology allows us access to preaching that a few years agowould have been out of reach. We can download and listen to sermons andlectures that meet the need we have, and we should do so. This is not, however,a replacement for church for it leaves out the graces found only there: thesacraments, Christ’s spiritual presence, the communion of saints, and the unityof the body. And since attending church brings us back to sermons that fail to connectto life, I have one more suggestion.

My third suggestion is to listen more deeply. As you sit inthe pew, before you are a text of Scripture and a sermon. The same Spirit thatinspired the text is at work in the church today, but the text is primary—thesermon seeks to explain the text but never exhausts it. I do not mean todismiss the sermon in saying this, but to properly honor the text.

So, as you listen to the sermon listen more deeply to thetext. This listening more deeply is actually a spiritual discipline—it’s calledmeditation. Such meditation—deeper listening—is evident in the illuminationsMakoto Fujimura so loving developed for The Holy Gospels. It’s an ancient skill worth nurturing. Three questions mighthelp you to begin: What will you take away from the text as something God saysthat you need to remember? What questions or responses would your non-Christianfriends have to the text? What single sentence can you compose that captures akey element of the text that, if said to a non-Christian, might intrigue themabout your faith?

You can even take this one step farther. Meet with a fewlike-minded friends for lunch and listen deeply together. Talk about the textand the sermon in light of the three questions I have listed. Process together.Share each other’s creativity. And don’t be discouraged if you find thisprocess difficult at first—meditation is actually a skill to be learned andmastered. That is why it is called a discipline. My third question—composing asingle intriguing sentence—might prove to be the most difficult. We tend to beused to speaking in a dialect that has been birthed in the church sub-cultureand that actually sounds strange to outsiders. It’s a dialect designed torepeat what we know in the terms we were taught to affirm we are correct. Itisn’t designed to find some creative twist or surprise in the text, though thatis exactly what the Scriptures are full of. You will probably add questions ofyour own as you develop skill in meditation. The details aren’t as important asthe spiritual discipline itself: learning to listen more deeply to the text asyou listen to a sermon.

And let me know what you think of my three suggestions.

A lovely addition to a web crowded with stuff

2011-09-19T20:10:00.000-05:00

This past week my best friend and wife and co-workerlaunched a sub-set of Ransom’s web site called Margie’s Stuff. You can find ithere.

On Margie’s Stuff there are essays, short pieces, recipes,audio recordings, and a link to her blog, Toads Drink Coffee. She has anuncanny ability to tell stories of ordinary life while showing theextraordinary ways grace reveals itself in humor and suffering and brightglimpses of glory. That is something we were taught by Francis Schaeffer backin the Sixties—that faithfulness in the ordinary things of life is where truesignificance is found—and Margie is better able to tease out the truth of thatbetter than anyone I know.

There is something refreshing about someone who publishes aBible reading program “for Slackers and Shirkers,” while insisting the titlerefers to herself. Or who finds glimmers of grace in an infestation of moths inher pantry, or who insists that cooking with cast iron can be glorifying to Godeven if you aren’t doing it for a church potluck, or who finds simplehospitality a chance to bring a measure of healing and rest into busy people’slives. The sort of person who can read the Christmas story and find this:

From the Advent storyone of the characters we don’t hear much about because she’s such a minorplayer is Anna. What attracts me is that she’s old, like really old. Luke tellsus “she was advanced in years, having lived with her husband seven years from whenshe was a virgin, and then as a widow until she was eighty-four. She never leftthe temple worshiping with fasting and prayer night and day” (Luke 2: 35-37).It seems she never forgot the memories of her young husband and his untimelydeath which could have left her angry and bitter. Probably her joints ached,her skin sucked, and her eyes got gunkier each morning. From a modernperspective she didn’t have much of a life, although her contemporaries calledher a prophetess. One morning in walks this couple with a baby, one amonghundreds, maybe thousands she’s already seen, but she has the clarity oftruthfulness and purpose that helps her recognize something different aboutthis baby—he’s The Christ of God. She walks over to touch this child that all theworld is waiting for, and there in front of everyone she blesses him and thanksGod.

In the Gospel of Lukein the chapter just before we hear about Anna, Zachariah, the father of Johnthe Baptist, says a profound thing, and I think it captures exactly what Annawas doing with her life. He says that the Messiah is going “…to rescue us fromthe hand of our enemies, and to enable us to serve him without fear in holinessand righteousness before him all our days…” (Luke 1:74,75) Which is exactlywhat Anna was doing, right there in the temple with corns on her toes and moleson her neck.

If I am busyconsidering either my body or time as enemies then I have succumbed to alimited perspective which is informed by my senses and, more subtly, bycultural pressures that determine whether we are good, successful, disciplined,worthy people, thanks to iCalendar, diet, and proper exercise. Both body andtime are gifts that enable me to serve God in holiness and righteousness“before him (embodied) all our days.” That means being contented withtwenty-four hour days where God says it’s good to live – from babyhood to endthe of life. If I understand Anna’s life correctly, this child she blessed hasthe power to transform our fearful concentration on self (in whatever form),forgive our complaints, and direct us in acts of service to others.

So, I commend Margie’s Stuff to you. Not because I have too,but because on a world wide web crowded with nonsense and knowledge, it is aspace devoted to wisdom.

Calling all introverts

2011-09-12T17:37:00.000-05:00

A few years ago (March 2003) Jonathan Rauch published abrilliant piece in The Atlantic Monthly,“Caring for your Introvert” (you can read a copy here). Please do read it. Ifyou are an introvert you will want to keep a copy of Rauch’s article to give tofriends. (I’m not kidding.) If you are an extrovert you need to read Rauch’sarticle regularly in order to stop inflicting so much damage. (I’m not kiddingabout this, either.)

I am qualified to identify Rauch’s piece as brilliantbecause I am an introvert. Off the charts introvert, actually. Being withpeople is great, unhurried conversation is lovely and something I cherish, butI find being with people draining not energizing. I have friends who areextroverts and enjoy watching them ramp up as they are in a crowd andinteracting, and though I wonder what that is like, I don’t envy them. I findsilence and solitude energizing, and when the crowd disperses and I am alone Ifind my soul recovering a sense of delight great enough to once again plungeinto another crowd.

Or as Rauch puts it: Extrovertsare energized by people, and wilt or fade when alone. They often seem bored bythemselves, in both senses of the expression. Leave an extrovert alone for twominutes and he will reach for his cell phone. In contrast, after an hour or twoof being socially “on,” we introverts need to turn off and recharge. My ownformula is roughly two hours alone for every hour of socializing. This isn’tantisocial. It isn’t a sign of depression. It does not call for medication. Forintroverts, to be alone with our thoughts is as restorative as sleeping, asnourishing as eating. Our motto: “I’m okay, you’re okay—in small doses.”

It should not be much of a surprise to anyone that manyorganizations, activities, and programs are run by extroverts. Not all by anymeans, but many. This includes the church. (There is even a book on the topicof introverts in the church, but I haven’t read it.)

The fact that many leaders within the church—clergy as wellas lay leaders, formal and informal—are extroverts suggests this might causesome problems for introverts who love Christ but find people draining. It’s notthat introverts cannot spend significant time with people, realize, butprograms designed by extroverts can make introverts feel like they’ve been placedin a sealed box from which the air is being slowly sucked out. The worst of it is, Rauch notescorrectly, that extroverts have no ideaof the torment they put us through. Sometimes, as we gasp for air amid the fogof their 98-percent-content-free talk, we wonder if extroverts even bother tolisten to themselves. Still, we endure stoically, because the etiquettebooks—written, no doubt, by extroverts—regard declining to banter as rude andgaps in conversation as awkward. We can only dream that someday, when ourcondition is more widely understood, when perhaps an Introverts’ Rightsmovement has blossomed and borne fruit, it will not be impolite to say “I’m anintrovert. You are a wonderful person and I like you. But now please shush.”

In a comment to my last post on this blog (September 5,2011) a friend of mine mentioned how introverts can be made to feeluncomfortable in church:

Is there a place forintroverts in evangelical churches? A few weeks ago I went to a church where Iknow a fair number of people there and am quite close to a couple. But it was anew church for me and it was a massive crowd. I felt deeply uncomfortable thewhole time. It wasn't b/c of anything the church did. It was b/c I'm an extremeintrovert who hates crowds of any kind and who esp. struggles in crowds ofChristians I do not know because I have a really messy past with Christians. Isthere a place for someone like that in your church? That's what I want to askpeople. Have you given any thought as to how to love, serve, and relate topeople who don't like crowds and who don't thrive on tons of time with otherpeople?

So, I’d love to hear from people on all this, particularlyfrom introverts. What is your response to Rauch’s article (which you can readhere)? What is your experience in all this, for blessing or for curse? Whatdoes introversion and extroversion suggest for the life of Christians and thechurch?

And finally, just because it is so true, I end this postwith Rauch’s conclusion:

How can I let the introvert in my life know that I support him andrespect his choice? First, recognizethat it’s not a choice. It’s not a lifestyle. It’s an orientation.

Second, when you seean introvert lost in thought, don’t say “What’s the matter?” or “Are you allright?”

Third, don’t sayanything else, either.

When some feel alienated (II)

2011-09-05T08:35:00.000-05:00

Once before I posted on this topic (May 9, 2011). It seemedto strike a nerve. Recently I decided to return to the topic by writing a piecefor Critique in the form of a letteraddressed to those who love Christ yet feel alienated from the church. I haveno illusions about what such an article can cover or accomplish, but I dobelieve this conversation needs to continue. What follows is a brief excerptfrom that article, that letter.

I would love your honest feedback. What I include here addressesonly one part of the dynamic that is involved, but one that is worthy of somereflection. I realize much more needs to be said—this is, after all, only abrief excerpt. It is not the wholeletter. But I would love to hear your comments about what I write here:

An excerpt from a letterto those who love Christ but feel alienated from the church:

…One thing you need toknow is that many church leaders feel threatened by you, by your dis-ease withthe church and by what you perceive as its failure. I know you have troublebelieving that since they hold all the power, but it’s true. They are honestlypuzzled by how anyone could have trouble with something they personally findvery edifying. They feel comfortable with the programs and classes, the sermonsand music, the potlucks and fellowship, and wonder why you don’t. What theyhear and experience week by week affirms their choice of what they believe andwhere they worship. The more they attend the more certain they are correct intheir beliefs, and in a world that seems to be rather quickly unraveling thatcertainty is something they cherish. They hear your critique and fear you wantthem to be looser with doctrine. They see churches emerging that seem to beprogressively denying biblically orthodox teaching, and they feel obliged toguard against that happening in their congregation.

Another threat yourepresent appears when you seem less than pleased when answers are given to thequestions you raise. They are used to giving answers, like giving answers, aregood at giving answers, and are convinced the Bible provides answers, so what’sthe problem? Letting questions hang at the end of a study or class gives theimpression that the Bible doesn’t contain the answers or that their churchdoesn’t know the answers it supplies. They want people to go away satisfied,and they find answers satisfying. When you suggest that questions are good inthemselves, or that answers given too easily cheapen the truth they see thechurch being weakened not strengthened.

The same goes forcorrecting bad theology. It’s not that anyone is trying to be a doctrinal cop;it’s just that bad theology is bad. They see correcting bad theology as a gooddeed, a loving act for which people should be grateful. If you needed to findWal-Mart and someone gave you the wrong directions, wouldn’t you want someoneoverhearing the conversation to correct them? Theology is far more importantthan getting to Wal-Mart; it’s the directions for getting through all of lifeand finally to heaven. So, when you suggest that that people don’t feel safe ifeveryone is correcting every mistaken comment, they wonder why anyone wouldn’twant to know the truth.

And then there are thepotluck meals. People like them. And people who like them have troubleimagining why or how anyone who is halfway normal could possibly dislike themor feel uncomfortable at them. And it’s sort of a personal thing. If you don’tlike potlucks you must not like fellowship, and that means you must not want tofellowship with us, or with me. Which is why if you are spotted walking intothe parking lot after the service as the potluck is beginning someone will askwhy you aren’t staying and assure you there is plenty of food even if youdidn’t bring any. They can imagine someone ducking out over guilt at notbringing a dish to share but they can’t imagine anyone leaving because theyfind potlucks unpleasant.

This is why churchleaders get defensive when you try to talk about your concerns. Why theyusually respond by marshaling evidence that you couldn’t be correct and suggestthat you have a spiritual problem. Since so many found the class inspiring andedifying, the fact that you found it deadening means there is something wrong.Something wrong with you, that is…

Photos were taken28 August 2011 at the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum. You can learn more aboutthis beautiful place here.

Worth careful reflection: on relationships

2011-08-29T08:35:00.000-05:00

Often others say something so well we would do best to simply step aside and let their words be heard as widely as possible. So today I offer two excerpts from the writings of thoughtful Christians.

Excerpt #1: John Stott on how to treat others:

In Colossians, chapter 3, St Paul gives us two general principles governing personal relationships. Here they are: “Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus.” The second is: “Whatever you do, work at it heartily as to the Lord and not unto men” (verses 17 and 23). Now let me tell in my own words what I believe these two principles mean. Firstly, I have got to learn, if I am a Christian, to treat other people as if I were Jesus Christ. That is what it means to do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus. To do something in somebody else’s name, is to do it as his representative. When David stood on the field of battle against Goliath, he said: “I come to you in the name of the Lord of Hosts.” That is, I am not coming in my own name, I am coming as his representative. So to the Christian, to do everything in the name of Jesus Christ, is to do it as if he were Jesus Christ. I have got to learn, if I am a Christian, to treat other people with the respect and the consideration, the thoughtfulness and the graciousness with which Jesus Christ would treat them.

The second principle is the exact opposite. It is to learn to treat people as if they were Jesus Christ. I must learn to do everything as unto the Lord. The roles are now reversed and I must learn to treat every person with the graciousness, the humility, the understanding, and the courtesy, not now that he would give to them but that I would give to him...

I tell you that these two principles, to treat other people as if they were Christ and as if I were Christ, are as realistic as they are revolutionary. This is not idealist rubbish. This is practical advice about personal relationships.

Excerpt #2: Garret Keizer on naming enemies

The first logical step toward loving an enemy is admitting that you have one. Like the first logical step toward forgiveness—that of acknowledging that you have something to forgive, that you have been wronged—this step comes as something of a liberation. “You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” If the word enemy seems too grotesque, then the liberation consists of putting your hostile thoughts into some kind of perspective. Lillian is not your “enemy”; she’s just a nosy pain in the neck who sits at the computer next to yours. On the other hand, if the name fits, the liberation comes from saying something true to oneself—possibly as a prelude to saying something true to the enemy. In either case, the liberation of naming the enemy can also be a partial liberation from anger. That is because anger itself has helped liberate us from our denial. Spent in a worthy cause, anger becomes less necessary.

The act of naming will certainly make us hesitate. The word enemy is so strident, so devoid of the irony that we post-moderns take as a form of spiritual consolation. Enemy is a suspicious word to about the same extent, and for some of the same reasons, that friend has become such a debased word. It makes sense that in a society where half the people we know count as “friends,” no one we know should ever count as an enemy. Aristotle may have been too doctrinaire when he said, “He who has friends has no friend,” but he may have been closer to the truth than many people ever come to friendship. Perhaps he ought to have said, “He who has no enemy probably has no friend either.”

For a religious person, naming the enemy may come about as a result of praying on the enemy’s behalf. This may well be one of the reasons Jesus enjoins the practice on his followers. Praying for an enemy as an enemy amounts to an admission, to oneself no less than to God, that one is seriously at odds with another human being. Having confronted the truth before God, one is in a better position to confront it with the enemy.

Of course, it would be sweet to think that a confrontation of this kind always leads to dialogue, resolution, closure. The truth is that where people have reduced the social intercourse of human beings to the cant phrases of “dialogue,” “resolution,” and “closure,” confrontation will in all likelihood lead to no such thing. Telling someone he is my enemy is more likely to elicit amusement, a pretense of incredulity, a supercilious show of concern. “I’m sorry that you feel that way. I’m sorry that you have this problem.”

Sources:

John Stott in Langham Partnership Daily Thought, 29 August 2011, from “The Doctor—A Person” (Cape Town: Medical Christian Fellowship, 1959), p. 4. Excerpted from Authentic Christianity, pp. 221-222, by permission of InterVarsity Press.

Garret Keizer in The Enigma of Anger: Essays on a Sometimes Deadly Sin (San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass, 2002) pp. 253-254

Movie Comment: The Way Back (2010)

2011-08-22T12:40:00.000-05:00

The Cold War is a part of history now, and I can amuse my grandchildren with stories of the air raid drills that occasionally interrupted class in school. The sirens would scream, we would put down our pencils, file out of classrooms, and crouch in the hallway, heads tucked under our arms. The sense of fear was palpable.

I doubt our crouching in the halls would have saved us had the missiles been launched. It wasn’t until much later that I read One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich by Alexander Solzhenitsyn and realized the extent of the fear, the terror the Communist regime unleashed for those caught behind the Iron Curtain. The Czars had long used the wastes of Siberia as a dumping ground for criminals and other undesirables. The Communists used updated surveillance techniques with a vastly expanded secret police force until over the years millions of people were shipped off the Gulag where they were used as slave labor. Millions perished in the Siberian cold, the brutal living conditions of the camps, and the harsh cruelty of the prison system.

In 1941, seven men escaped from a Siberian prison camp into the surrounding forest during a blizzard. Three eventually made their way south across to Siberia to Lake Baikal, then across the Mongolian desert and into India. The film, directed by Peter Weir, is based on a memoir of such an escape, though it is doubtful the story is true. Nevertheless we want it to be true, and fictional or not The Way Back is a celebration of human perseverance and dignity in a world of suffering and oppression.

The Way Back is a flawed film, so that too many details remain unexplained and the tension in the story, namely their survival, is not always sufficient to propel the story. Ed Harris is believable as Mr. Smith, the lone American in the party, though Colin Farrell as the Russian thug, Valka, was never quite as convincing. Still, it is a good film, and one that uncovers the heart of what it means to be human. The cinematography by Russell Boyd is very strong, and background shots of forest, desert, mountains, and all extremes of weather lend life and plausibility to the enormous struggle to survive that unfolds on the screen.

So, I understand why The Way Back did not do well at the box office, though I hope those who love film will see it now. Those who love film, and those who love creative expressions of the human spirit, irrepressible and unwilling finally to accept the notion that life is without purpose and hope, even when everything seems to insist that it is.

The Way Back (2010), U.S.A.; 133 minutes. Rated PG-13 (for violence and depictions of human suffering).

Technology, creativity & the adventures of Gulp

2011-08-11T09:04:00.000-05:00

In my April 4, 2011 post for this blog I showcased two videos about the adventures of Dot. The first video was a narrative adventure shot on Nokia N8, consisted of the smallest stop action animation ever filmed. The second showed how the little film was made.

Now the same people are back, this time to produce the largest stop action animation outside a studio on a beach, again using a Nokia N8. The short film is called Gulp, and like Dot reveals how creativity can use any sort of technology to produce art.

So, here is Gulp, the world’s largest stop action animation shot on a Nokia N8:

And here is Gulp. The making of: