When one is the resident of a Religious Studies department, one sees a lot of flyers advertising meetings for the pre-ministry kids on how to discern the call to the ministry. With the combination of my background in CofC land and my cynicism of organized religion – I typically ignored them. Other than stopping to think: only RS people can come up with such a impressive sounding way to phrase that classic post-adolescent problem: what the heck am I doing with my life?
Now, the Metra is finding that she wishing she had better heuristic devices for dealing with said question. Discernment might have to be a foreign word to adopt into the vocabulary – like theois, or Eucharist, or sanctuary.
So why isn’t discernment a strong part of the Southern Restoration Movement heritage? Part of it probably the anti-intellectualism you get in CofC land. Discernment is just a fancy word with too many syllables. The Christian Chronicle has a rather nifty and informative little article up on the history of the Harding Graduate School of Religion. It touches several times of this anti-intellectualism. Even someone from my generation has probably heard the crack that Harding is where you go to graduate from religion. This attitude goes hand in hand with the notion that the Bible is sufficient for its own interpretation, and the sneaky notion that there is only one correct interpretation of the meaning of scripture which will be blatantly obvious to all people irregardless of gender, socio-economic status, race, sexual orientation, etc.
(At the point in time, a quip repeated by Deryn Guest in When Deborah Met Jael comes to mind. If the audience of the verse: “You shall not lie with a man as with a woman” is a lesbian woman, the answer is a hearty “well, of course!” At this point in time, I ask – how are we defining man and woman in this context? The social location of the person reading the text – it’s quite important.)
You can guess where I fall on the question. Firmly on the side of being an overly intellectual smart-ass.
But I think the absence of an idea of a process of discernment is also an effect of the CofC’s take on the priesthood of all [male] believers. For a long time, the idea of having a minister paid by the congregation was heresy. A preacher should have a job on the side to support himself (and his family). This is less en vogue today, but there’s still this assumption that every boy in the congregation should aspire to hold a church office. More likely the pressure is to aspire to be a deacon or an elder – the notion that God might call certain people to these positions and not others appears to be non-existent. (The notion that God might not be calling all persons in possession of an uterus to marriage and children is even more non-existent.) There is, however, a lot of effort put into training all the little boys for their roles in public worship. The attitude might be well described as: of course, God is calling you to lead the church, why would you need to discern that?
Of course, I’m not at all convinced that the Divine works like that. Nor am I convinced that view of the Church is Biblical, if we’re placing a great deal of emphasis on that element.
And, now, I’m off to continue looking for a good heuristic device to make off with. Lock up the techniques of discernment, my friends, Metra is breaking out the hunter's camo!
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Embodiment, bodies, resurrections, all that fun stuff.
If you're looking for something thought provoking to read, you should check out this article on debates over the practice of cremation in Judaism. It raises a number of questions about the psychological benefits of funerals, the problems with modern burial practices, and the ecological impacts thereof.
Monday, May 19, 2008
And all the Whos of Whoville
Go read this article: "Horton Hears a Religious Left."
And I agree, what's up with this misinformation that the Founding Fathers were all about the "sanctity of life" and "preserving marriage?" I can buy the interested in religious freedom bit -- but for some reason, I suspect that the FFs had a somewhat different conception -- if indeed, we can even treat the FFs as a monolith who all agreed with each other. (p.3)
And I agree, what's up with this misinformation that the Founding Fathers were all about the "sanctity of life" and "preserving marriage?" I can buy the interested in religious freedom bit -- but for some reason, I suspect that the FFs had a somewhat different conception -- if indeed, we can even treat the FFs as a monolith who all agreed with each other. (p.3)
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Deus Ex Machina makes for Cool Special Effects
I dragged the siblings out to see Prince Caspian on Friday.
I should note that I don't remember much of anything from the novel. I didn't bother going to see The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. But Eddie Izzard is the voice of Reepicheep -- who is basically the only character I remember from the novel. So, yes! (And if Eddie Izzard is involved, the fundies can't be too involved.)
After I got the bits of my mind that are familiar with post-colonial theory and feminist theory to shut up, I enjoyed the film quite a bit. The special effects were superb. The casting and the acting were both quite good, and I was just jonesing for some sword and sorcery action, of which there was plenty, convincing shot while still managing to avoid extreme gore. (I was impressed with how the violence was handled -- it didn't feel like a PG rated movie at all.)
That said -- you could tell that Mr. Lewis was a citizen of an empire. The Narnians (all magical creatures) need human leaders -- because apparently, Narnia has never been right except when sons of Adam and daughters of Eve are in charge of things. Uh-huh . . . yeah. This is not a movie about Narnia gaining independence -- this is a movie about Narnia fighting to have an benevolent dictator ruling over them.
Trumpkin the dwarf was a delight in the film. He's cynical and sarcastic. He raises the difficult theological and ethical questions of the film. (Unfortunately, the film chooses not to deal with these questions.) He questions the existence of Aslan, asking where he has been and why he hadn't come to the aid of the Narnians before now. He calls out the pretensions of the Pevensie siblings. One of the best lines in the movie is when he overhears Lucy refer to him as the DLF (dear little friend), stops short and yells back, "Don't you think that's a bit patronizing." He and Lucy do form a true friendship in the course of the growth of both characters. Unfortunately, his resolution with Aslan doesn't share the same charming sense of mutuality. He reluctantly kneels, and Aslan roars establishing his dominance.
I'm also a bit hesitant to award the film firm feminist credentials. Lucy is goodness itself -- the eternal feminine. She's charming, but ultimately well on her way to climbing up on the pedestal of the cult of true womanhood. There's no edge to her, no bite, no kick. She's no Lyra Belacqua (of the excellent novels, not the travesty of a film).
Susan's portrayal is even more disturbing from a feminist angle. Certainly, the girl can kick some ass and demonstrates as much courage as her brothers. I can even justify the scene where Caspian rides in and rescues her from Telmarine soldiers (the odds of her winning that fight on her own where none). However, as best I can tell, the lesson Susan needed to learn from Narnia is nothing more than anti-feminist backlash.
The film opens with Susan shutting down (rudely, yes) a boy who is trying (badly) to ask her out. He comments that Susan is a bit of loner. Over the course of the time in Narnia, Susan begins crushing on Caspian, kissing him before being returned to our world. Aslan comments that she and Peter have learned what they needed to in Narnia. And in Susan's case, this lesson is, apparently, that she does need a boy in her life -- or in the terms of religious fundamentalism, she comes to terms with complementarianism. Returning to London, she gives the boy she blew off a smile.
Oh, please . . . and Philip Pullman has pointed out, Susan is later excluded from Narnia because she's too interested in boys. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Poor girl.
So, in sum, go to see Prince Caspian because it's got cool special effects, well-written dialogue, sword and sorcery goodness, and Eddie Izzard. But beware the subtext.
I should note that I don't remember much of anything from the novel. I didn't bother going to see The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. But Eddie Izzard is the voice of Reepicheep -- who is basically the only character I remember from the novel. So, yes! (And if Eddie Izzard is involved, the fundies can't be too involved.)
After I got the bits of my mind that are familiar with post-colonial theory and feminist theory to shut up, I enjoyed the film quite a bit. The special effects were superb. The casting and the acting were both quite good, and I was just jonesing for some sword and sorcery action, of which there was plenty, convincing shot while still managing to avoid extreme gore. (I was impressed with how the violence was handled -- it didn't feel like a PG rated movie at all.)
That said -- you could tell that Mr. Lewis was a citizen of an empire. The Narnians (all magical creatures) need human leaders -- because apparently, Narnia has never been right except when sons of Adam and daughters of Eve are in charge of things. Uh-huh . . . yeah. This is not a movie about Narnia gaining independence -- this is a movie about Narnia fighting to have an benevolent dictator ruling over them.
Trumpkin the dwarf was a delight in the film. He's cynical and sarcastic. He raises the difficult theological and ethical questions of the film. (Unfortunately, the film chooses not to deal with these questions.) He questions the existence of Aslan, asking where he has been and why he hadn't come to the aid of the Narnians before now. He calls out the pretensions of the Pevensie siblings. One of the best lines in the movie is when he overhears Lucy refer to him as the DLF (dear little friend), stops short and yells back, "Don't you think that's a bit patronizing." He and Lucy do form a true friendship in the course of the growth of both characters. Unfortunately, his resolution with Aslan doesn't share the same charming sense of mutuality. He reluctantly kneels, and Aslan roars establishing his dominance.
I'm also a bit hesitant to award the film firm feminist credentials. Lucy is goodness itself -- the eternal feminine. She's charming, but ultimately well on her way to climbing up on the pedestal of the cult of true womanhood. There's no edge to her, no bite, no kick. She's no Lyra Belacqua (of the excellent novels, not the travesty of a film).
Susan's portrayal is even more disturbing from a feminist angle. Certainly, the girl can kick some ass and demonstrates as much courage as her brothers. I can even justify the scene where Caspian rides in and rescues her from Telmarine soldiers (the odds of her winning that fight on her own where none). However, as best I can tell, the lesson Susan needed to learn from Narnia is nothing more than anti-feminist backlash.
The film opens with Susan shutting down (rudely, yes) a boy who is trying (badly) to ask her out. He comments that Susan is a bit of loner. Over the course of the time in Narnia, Susan begins crushing on Caspian, kissing him before being returned to our world. Aslan comments that she and Peter have learned what they needed to in Narnia. And in Susan's case, this lesson is, apparently, that she does need a boy in her life -- or in the terms of religious fundamentalism, she comes to terms with complementarianism. Returning to London, she gives the boy she blew off a smile.
Oh, please . . . and Philip Pullman has pointed out, Susan is later excluded from Narnia because she's too interested in boys. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Poor girl.
So, in sum, go to see Prince Caspian because it's got cool special effects, well-written dialogue, sword and sorcery goodness, and Eddie Izzard. But beware the subtext.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Continuing Commentary on Mary Winkler
...from your friendly neighborhood Restoration Movement feminist guerrilla.
In latest news, the custody battle for the girls continues. I've said before that I'm not certain what would be best for the girls. There needs to be substantial proof that Ms. Winkler's mental health has stabilized before full custody for her should be considered, and I haven't heard anything that isn't a rumor to suggest that the girls aren't being well cared for by their grandparents. (I do think that visitation rights for Ms. Winkler are in order at this time and am delighted to here that she's been visiting with her daughters.) In any case, my sympathy is first and foremost with the girls.
That's not what I want to talk about. I want to talk about how Ms. Winkler has been subtly condemned by the media. Case in point, today's article from the Commercial Appeal.
The first paragraph identifies Ms. Winkler as "the woman convicted of killing her preacher husband" (emphasis mine). Now, in the area in which the CA circulates, identifying Matthew Winkler as a preacher is automatically going to build up sympathy for him. The fact that Ms. Winkler was only convicted of voluntary manslaughter because she was able provide sufficient evidence to back her witness that Matthew Winkler was abusive is not mentioned until the third paragraph. The order in which the information is presented is a subtle sign that the media has condemned Ms. Winkler and privileges the image of the "preacher husband" over her testimony.
Yes. I find it a bit problematic.
In latest news, the custody battle for the girls continues. I've said before that I'm not certain what would be best for the girls. There needs to be substantial proof that Ms. Winkler's mental health has stabilized before full custody for her should be considered, and I haven't heard anything that isn't a rumor to suggest that the girls aren't being well cared for by their grandparents. (I do think that visitation rights for Ms. Winkler are in order at this time and am delighted to here that she's been visiting with her daughters.) In any case, my sympathy is first and foremost with the girls.
That's not what I want to talk about. I want to talk about how Ms. Winkler has been subtly condemned by the media. Case in point, today's article from the Commercial Appeal.
The first paragraph identifies Ms. Winkler as "the woman convicted of killing her preacher husband" (emphasis mine). Now, in the area in which the CA circulates, identifying Matthew Winkler as a preacher is automatically going to build up sympathy for him. The fact that Ms. Winkler was only convicted of voluntary manslaughter because she was able provide sufficient evidence to back her witness that Matthew Winkler was abusive is not mentioned until the third paragraph. The order in which the information is presented is a subtle sign that the media has condemned Ms. Winkler and privileges the image of the "preacher husband" over her testimony.
Yes. I find it a bit problematic.
So I'm a bit late...
but can we get a AMEN!
California Supreme Court Affirms Equal Marriage Rights for Gays and Lesbians!
Good news -- I like it!
California Supreme Court Affirms Equal Marriage Rights for Gays and Lesbians!
Good news -- I like it!
Monday, May 12, 2008
I is bored
so I steal meme from enGender
A couple of recent memes:
- What is your favorite word? koneshno
- What is your least favorite word? hush
- What turns you on? hmm...
- What turns you off? theological fellatio
- What is your favorite curse word? currently, k cherty, which is a fairly mild russian curse
- What sound or noise do you love? rain on a tin roof
- What sound or noise do you hate? crickets
- What profession other than your own would you like to attempt? film director
- What profession would you not like to attempt? business
- If Heaven exists, what would you like to hear God say when you arrive at the Pearly Gates? rock on
and
- If you get something out of a vending machine, it’s most likely the: highly caffeinated citrus soda
- A word you sometimes catch yourself misspelling: secede -- yes, I'm a sorry excuse for a southerner
- You least want people to see you as: normal
- You’re a little scared of: walking alone
- The least attractive thing you do in your sleep: drool
- The number of contacts in your cell phone: i haven't the foggiest
- How many of them are relatives: relatively few
- You lose your cool when someone: paraphrases Bill O'Reilly
- When you go to the drugstore, you often can’t leave without buying: chocolate
- Your dance moves can best be described as: sugar high or drunk
- The majority of your underwear is: hipster cut
- Something you eat even though you hate how bad it is for you: soda pop, soda pop
- You think you’re really not a great: artist
- How much cash is in your wallet right now: eighty something
- The majority of your shoes are this color: hmm...black
- You don’t think you’ll ever be able to get rid of your: book-collecting habit
- If your breath is bad, it’s most likely because you had the: soda pop
- You feel embarrassed when you: completely mispronounce words
- The last public place where you used the restroom: EV Lodge
- Something you don’t like to debate in mixed company: you know, I'll pretty much debate anything anywhere
- You don’t think you can pull off wearing: short skirts
- Something you own entirely too much of: books? no, there can not be too many books
- Someone you would love to see in concert who might bring down your street cred: umm...Depeche Mode
- The last thing that you spilled on yourself: soy sauce
- If you were on a reality show, the producers would likely portray/characterize you as the: I'd say holy fool, but that might be a delusion of grandeur -- um, the screwball intelligent
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)