Babette's Feast

So, the Barkeep would want me to mention that Babette's Gaestebud was directed by Gabriel Axel, and won the 1987 Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film. The original short story was written by Karen Blixen (Wikipedia also notes Isak Dinesen, with Blixen in parentheses - I'm going with the name in the credits), who also wrote the (oddly) familiar Out of Africa. I don't think I've seen it, but I've sure heard of it.
It occurs to me as I begin this post that I don't know exactly what I'm reviewing for. I'm tempted to just start with numbers, because they're much easier to spout, but that's not real criticism, so in spite of my temptation to award the thing "Four and a Half Jesuses," I'm going to try to confine the discussion to each film's theological message for me personally.
So the big word of the day is "balance." There's a temptation in Christianity towards "antinomianism," that is, a complete reliance on spirit in the body/spirit divide. We've been having trouble with various sects of this persuasion since slightly after the death of Christ, while at the same time we try to react against the materialist obsessions of the (insert decadent civilization here). Body matters, we want to say, but body is not all. Christ had a body - he also had a meaningful divine spirit.
From my end, Babette's Feast is a classic walking of the line. There is no condemnation of the piety of the community (while at the same time not quite endorsing it), and there's no overt endorsement of the delightful banquet - just a view of the pleasant results. The film seems to imply that there's room for both perspectives in a truly balanced view of the world.
I realize that's pretty surface, but I'm running on empty - I'll see if I have more for you tomorrow.

Film!

So, my class this J-term is "Theology in Film." I am the screener for the class, (I'm getting paid anytime there's a movie on, I think), and I get to watch a ton of movies, none of which I've ever seen before. Can't beat that with a stick.

So, this is my film review blog for the whole month of January. Expect multiplicities of posts! Scads of content! Ponies! Links! Ideas! Criticism out the Wazzoo From Which Criticism Should Not Come!

As a special bonus, the inhabitants of the House of Calamitous Intent have requested a movie outside of my class syllabus - I expect to oblige them on the second weekend of term. The Barkeep has been solicited for a further one - does anyone else have any theological film review requests? If you want me to talk about the place or treatment of God in a cinematic expression (including TV episodes), your wish is my command. I'm jazzed, you see.

So - that's the plan, starting tomorrow night, probably during my second viewing of Babbette's Feast.

(I might have lied about the ponies)

Guiltpost

Dawn has guilted me into posting. With her guilty ways. Now I'm ashamed and covered in gold paint. Ah, well.

I've taken on the role of Super-Uncle for a chunk of this Christmas break. You learn things, in this process.

A) Three is an age that all actors should observe carefully. We talk a lot about objective and strategem (whatever the fashionable language about it is now), and three year-olds are practically case studies in objective and strategem. Stuff they want, but can't get. Tantrums, wheedling, all manner of different tricksiness. Parents are also a good study - how does a parent get a kid to do what she wants? Or what the kid needs, but can't articulate (a decent hissy fit usually indicates that you missed your window for getting them properly fed).

B) There is very little which cannot be endured with other, participating adults by your side.

C) It is difficult to type and hold a baby at the same time.

Since I currently have a baby on my lap, that's about all. More, perhaps, if there is break theology.

Teach 2.0

So, I've been bouncing around a bit the idea that what I really am interested in is "technology in ministry." But, today, essentially, I've nailed it down even further. Hey - zeroing in on a life! It's like Zeno's paradox. With my soul.

So - the single thing about which I am most excited, and into which I pour most energy, is the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus, the Anointed One of God. Going to be a pastor, and praying that I learn more every day how to live and be the gospel for those around me.

Among the other things that get me excited (science fiction, games, romance, LEDs, semiconducting polymers, movies, books, etc.), one of the key elements recently has been technology broadly, and Web 1.5/2.0 specifically. (Yes. Web 1.5. Got a problem?). In the last few months, I have acquired twitter, del.icio.us, resurrected my blog, gotten neck-deep in facebook, and started communicating with my family and friends in whole new ways. (this connects to World of Warcraft, also, which is a whole 'nother post).

The best part of my day, though, is not compulsively checking twitter. Or facebook. Or my e-mail. The best part of my day is when someone says to me "what is twitter?" and I get to show them. The using of this stuff is fun. The teaching of this stuff gets me totally fired up. I had nearly forgotten that my best days at the Middlebury Helpdesk were the days when I got to explain a new concept to a student or faculty member.

So - I see myself, at least for a bit, traveling around, showing off new technologies to people, getting churches fired up about how they can talk to one another. Because, at bottom, that's the discussion. We, as people, as Americans, as Christians, have so many ways to speak now, even when we're far apart. We need to be sure not to lose the face-to-face interactions, but I'm thrilled about our new opportunities for building a wider community.

Finis Incepti

The beginning is over. Just had my last class in my first long term at Princeton. A lot has happened in the last three months (my stars, has it really only been three months?). Since this post is, at least in part, for the benefit of my session, it'll be fairly full, but now's the time for good review. While it's still, y'know. Fresh.

On all of my class evaluations, they asked what the most important single thing you learned from the class was. I thought it was a great question, so I'm going to spend some time elaborating on the answers here, and hoping that that answers any questions you may have about the classes.

Systematic Theology: "Theology is a science of mysterious tensions." I wrote that on this blog a while back, and it keeps rattling around in my head. Theology - an argument or study of God. Science - a system of knowledge. Mysterious - as opposed to logos, impenetrable truth; knowledge that surpasses rational understanding. Tensions - a dynamic state existing between two bodies, in this case, two facts. A couple of quotations and thoughts to illustrate this point:

"God is light, but God is unlike any light that we know." - Irenaeus

"...one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation..." - Definition of the Council of Chalcedon

And the like. Over and over. To understand truly the doctrines of the early church, we must hold in dynamic tension many of the fundamentals of our faith. God is three. God is one. Yes.

Pastorally, I think this will show up in the moments when it's needed. In times when someone is considering an ill choice, it may be best to talk about human free will. In the passing of a loved one, it may be best to discuss God's providential plan. It sounds ludicrous, but it's how we must live our faith, in the space between the truths that God has revealed to us.

Theology of John Calvin: "Context matters - especially for theologians." I talked about this, too, in a previous post. Calvin's current context deeply affected his theology - predestination, the eucharist, church structure, all were set up in reaction against the excesses (perceived and real) of Rome. (Increasingly, by the way, I'd like to sit down with some Catholic friends of mine again and dig into why we disagree). So, how does my context as a theologian affect my theology? I'm very conscious of my American-ness when I talk to the Korean and Malawian fellows in my Calvin precept. Their theology has been shaped by their contexts - so has mine. How? How as a pastor can I faithfully respond to my own background in the proclamation of the gospel?

Introduction to the Old Testament: "Scripture is changed profoundly by the lens through which we look at it, and is itself our own lens for looking at the world." Disclaimer: I believe that the Holy Scriptures, as they are received and affirmed by the councils of the church and the great reformers, are the divinely inspired and authoritative Word of God. However, I also believe that humans are weak and error-prone vessels, whose understanding of the scriptures will always be imperfect, not because of any fault of scripture, but because of the faults of finite beings. We all bring preconceptions and assumptions to our readings of the Bible that we cannot escape. But, through careful study, consideration, deliberation, and prayer, we can come to an understanding of the positions of other wise interpreters, both modern and ancient, and to some sort of consensus about how Scripture must be read.

Introduction to Speech/Communication: "God has given you gifts - be sure you keep working on them. Don't let the important ones slide." Not too much more to say on that one. It's a really fun class - I'm looking forward, always, to more guidance about how to be an effective speaker.

So - that's the academic story. For the more personal side of life...well...come back tomorrow. I have to leave work quite soon.

PS - http://twitter.com/evangelius

Consistency? Ha!

Yes, well, I tried. I really did.

Don't be too down-hearted, though. I'm not going to shut the blog down. I'd love to say that I've been too busy to post, but that would be a lie. It's more that I'm uninspired.

It was a revelation to me that blogging is actually writing. (I know. Who'da thunk?) It used to just be me sort of talking for a while. Then, I tried to systematize it, and suddenly it was work. And work like doing other kinds of writing. I was surprised. And I have, believe me, been doing enough writing. So. The blog suffers.

My big story of late has been that I've learned a lot. (More words from Proverbs' fool). My mother called and asked me about the Trinity. I talked about the Trinity for easily half an hour. I could have gone on. I know a lot about it. And the same is true of free will, grace, the Old Testament, and the works and life of John Calvin. I didn't know it, but it's true. I've learned a ton.

That's the good news. Bad news? Well, that will have to wait for another post.

Yes, as a matter of fact, we can

The hour is now. The day has arrived. Our president-elect and the senator from Arizona have sounded the challenge. Are you ready for unity?

I am.

I want to work with you, whoever you are, to fix the deeply rooted problems in our country. We may disagree about how to go about doing so, but I desperately want this to be collaborative. We can't do this alone - we're too limited. We need to listen to one another, and whatever your perspective, I want to listen to you.

There are a lot of folk out there pretty excited, and I'm happy about that. There is American pride the likes of which I've never seen among my friends. But there is a seductive danger, my brothers and sisters. Do not be tempted by the sentiment "Yes, we did." I have seen it again and again today.

We haven't. Not yet. We've started, but now more than ever I wish to give praise to the power of possibility. We have opened doors long thought securely locked, and behind those doors we have found...more doors. More opportunities. More challenges.

Today I say to you, yes, we can. We are not finished. We may never be finished. We will keep exploring our possibilities, keep working together, keep listening and speaking until the final hour of human time. But to this story there is no end.

We have not. We did not.

We can. We will.