Welcome to mistersite.net, home of... well, something unique, I hope. Be sure to check out all those lovely links to the left to see who I am, what I do, and what I like. Read my blog too... it's right under this paragraph. And leave a comment, so I know you've visited.
Is George W. Bush the only Christian choice for president?
Economic Policy
My father has commented that he believes God has chosen George W Bush for President. Many also believe the same; that because George W Bush espouses Christianity and prays and reads the Bible, that this makes him a “more Christian” choice for President (whatever that means) and that we as God’s people should vote for him.
But it is not enough for someone to simply say one is a Christian; the Bible says in many places that one can tell Jesus’ followers by what they do, that “by their fruits shall we know them.” Thus, we as Christians should test George W Bush by God’s standards as we know them – by the Scriptures and by the historical ethical teachings of the church, the Spirit-led bride of Christ. Now I do not claim to be the arbiter of absolute Biblical truth – as if my perspective was somehow the One True Perspective on the Bible and on the ethics it calls for. But I do my best to discern the Bible, and I make no apologies for my interpretation, or for my holding the leaders of my country – particularly those who profess Christianity to the level George W Bush professes it – to the ethical standards I understand the Bible to have.
It should also be noted that I’m not judging George W Bush’s relationship with God, because that’s not my place. I don’t know him personally, nor do I have any idea what his relationship with God is like. George W Bush the private man is not my concern. My concern is with George W Bush the President of the United States and the extent to which he mirrors what I believe Christ asks of his followers.
With all that in mind, today I continue my broad and probably too shallow survey of what George W Bush has done and said as a public figure with an analysis of his policies towards economic issues, particularly wealth inequality. We have to understand that economic issues don’t act in a vacuum; perhaps the greatest impact of economic policy is on families. I believe that families are stronger when they are economically secure, that an economically just society is intrinsically better for the family than an unjust one. This belief is borne out in statistics that show that out-of-wedlock childbirth, crime rates, and educational quality are directly correlated to socioeconomic demographics; namely, that poorer people are statistically more likely to experience a number of things which can tear the family apart, or prevent its coming together in the first place. The condition of the family is so linked to the economic condition of the nation, in my opinion, that we can’t even begin to approach other issues touching the American family until we start to address the issue of economic inequality.
So what has George W Bush done to address economic inequality? It is clear to me that under his watch, it has only increased. The rich continue to get richer, while the poor find it harder and harder to make ends meet. Aided by tax cuts and increases in the stock market, the rich can afford to live in greater ease and luxury than ever before; the poor, faced with unemployment, a sour job market, spiking real estate costs, and deeper and deeper debt, are not doing terribly well.
The Bible has a great deal to say about economic injustice. In fact, the entire book of Amos is a scathing prophetic word against those in Israel who sat in comfort and luxury while those around them starved. Isaiah too prophesies doom on the rich and comfortable in Israel. Jesus’ coming is heralded as fulfilling the prophecy of Isaiah, “good news for the poor.” Elsewhere Jesus tells the rich young ruler to sell all he has and give to the poor, says “blessed are the poor,” and refers constantly to Isaiah which proclaims a kingdom of economic justice. It is clear that poverty is an affront to God, that God calls those who have to give freely and with excess to those who have not.
Why, then, has the Bush administration not done something about the massive poverty in our own nation, as well as around the world? Why has he cut taxes for the rich – twice – while leaving the middle class virtually alone? Why is he cutting social welfare programs, refusing to fund his No Child Left Behind educational initiative, gutting AmeriCorps, and giving tax breaks to companies that relocate workers and headquarters offshore? It isn’t that the Bush administration just isn’t helping the poor – they’re actively supporting and aiding those who hurt them further, those who would move well-paying jobs offshore in order to make them not so well-paying, those who would make themselves rich at the expense of the lower class in America and with the exploitation of those who are much poorer outside our borders.
An explanation for much of Bush’s economic policy is that he believes that the government shouldn’t help the poor, that that is the role of private charity. But he has not called on the rich – those with the means to help the poor – to give more to charity. He has not said that the tax cuts should spur the rich on to give more of themselves – to deny themselves that extra car, that bigger mansion, in order to help their hungry brothers or sisters to eat or find work. In fact, Bush has asked no sacrifices whatsoever of the rich. My question: We as Christians are called to emulate Christ… don’t you think that Christ would be calling very loudly and very clearly for the rich to give up their possessions and help the poor? I certainly do.
I think it is clear that George W Bush has no interest in promoting social programs that will help the poor, and certainly has not displayed any interest in really calling those who have money and power in this country to use that to help those who have none. I think it is clear that George W Bush is in fact supporting and enabling those who would keep the lower class down for their own benefit and gain. And I think it is abundantly clear that Jesus Christ calls us to do the opposite; to give freely of ourselves, and call others to do the same, to do everything in our power to help those who are poor, to take up our cross daily and die to ourselves, to our possessions, and to our power and put them in God’s hands. I think that it is clear that George W Bush is being most un-Christlike in his silence and inaction regarding, and his support for the promoters of, economic inequality.
posted by jimmy at 22:03 -
Read comments here!
Is George W. Bush the only Christian choice for president?
The Abortion Question
Boy, this is about to make a lot of people very mad.
The root of this and the subsequent few posts is that I'm rather angry with those within the Christian community who claim that because George W. Bush is a born-again Christian, we should vote for him; they suggest, sometimes explicitly, that GWB is somehow the "moral Christian" choice for president. Putting aside the obvious foolishness that there would be only one way in which a Christian could morally vote - as if there was one Christian position on every issue - I'm going to take a look at GWB's actions and how they relate to the teachings of Christ and the teachings of the church throughout history, in order ultimately to examine the extent to which a vote for GWB is furthering the progress of Christianity, if at all. This'll take a few entries, but tonight I'm going to tackle the big kahuna.
Please let it be known that I am not in any way discussing GWB's relationship with God and/or Jesus. I don't know GWB well enough to know how he's doing with God, and even if I did it wouldn't be my business. I am simply comparing his actions and statements with what I believe about God and Jesus as revealed both in the Bible and in the historical positions of the Church. Your opinions may - and knowing some in my audience, probably will - vary.
Also please let it be known - and it can't be emphasized enough - that I am very much anti-abortion. I may have played devil's advocate with some in discussions in the past - most notably my family - but my belief that abortion is wrong is totally solid. It is because of my opposition to abortion that I'm committed to discussing strategies and ways to make it ultimately unnecessary in our society. Please keep in mind as you read this that this isn't a discussion on whether abortion is morally right or wrong, because I'm going to assume that my audience agrees with me that it is wrong. This is a discussion on what effect, if any, the person in the president's office will have on actual abortions on the ground.
Now, let's get the big 'un out of the way: Abortion. According to the evangelical world, this is almost the only issue that matters in any election, and certainly will come into play here. Now GWB is pro-life, and has said that he would only appoint judges who shared his viewpoint on this matter. But what does that mean?
Basically, it means that GWB wants to outlaw abortion; if he's like the rest of the pro-life crowd, probably from the first trimester on. Several thoughts come to mind on this matter:
(a) He hasn't said anything about forms of birth control that rely on non-implantation to prevent birth. Would these be outlawed too?
(b) While he could appoint judges to the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe v. Wade, that wouldn't make abortion illegal throughout the country, and if it's anything like murder statutes (which is how the pro-life movement paints abortion) he couldn't get a federal law passed banning abortion throughout the whole nation - just like you can't get federal murder charges except under certain circumstances. Therefore it would be up to each individual state to legislate about abortion as it wished. Now presumably there would be some states that would outlaw it entirely, others that would outlaw after, say, the first trimester, and some that would keep abortion totally legal. What this would mean is that we'd have a situation in which persons of means would be able to go to a pro-choice state and have an abortion performed, while those without means would have to carry the baby to term (at which point, considering that they couldn't buy a plane ticket to another state, they would presumably be unable to support the child without assistance from the state) or perform their own abortion, at considerable risk to their own lives. This is an undesirable situation, and certainly would further underline the class differences already present in this nation. How would GWB and the pro-life crowd avoid this caveat without heavy-handed federal action, an unlikely scenario in that it would be very difficult to get a majority in both legislative houses to support it, and would be Constitutionally-questionable (on jurisdictional grounds) even if it were to go forward?
Keep in mind here that I'm not some pro-abortion activist. I strongly oppose abortion; I want all abortions to end and every baby to be both wanted and carried to full term. But is illegalizing it the best way to stop it, or would it just create more trouble and risk? Is abortion in itself a disease, or merely a symptom of a larger problem? I'm more inclined to look at the abortion issue in the context of the larger crisis facing the American family as a result of rampant consumerism, individualism, and the breakdown of community. Simply put, I'd like to look at the causes of abortion.
Many will posit that the only, or main, cause of abortion is selfishness: that abortion is an act of convenience, that those who get abortions do so because they simply don't want a baby in their lives. While this does create a nice and easy strawman to burn down, and certainly allows for caricatures of women who choose to have abortions, I don't think that tells the whole story. Is every abortion that happens in this country essentially a result of selfishness? I would submit that the answer is no.
While there are undoubtedly many cases in which abortion is a matter of convenience - a realization which could and should trigger insight into the role of consumer culture in our family life, where a baby is not a person but an acquisition, an end result of the commodification and quantification of everything in our lives - we have to admit that the real picture of abortion is much bigger than this. Surely a pregnant teenager isn't just being callously selfish when she has to decide about her pregnancy. Certainly, this does not represent a choice easily made, but a crisis point in her young life. At this point, I think, she doesn't need laws, she needs friends, family, community to rally around her - instead of shunning her as a sinner or a "whore," or (more often in American culture) not having been present in her life at all in the first place. There is, after all, a reason that pregnancy counseling centers are called "crisis pregnancy centers." While I'm not a woman, and never have been, I know enough women who are or have been pregnant, to know that ending a pregnancy is not a choice made lightly or callously.
So we have to look at abortion not as an isolated issue in and of itself, but one which is tied to other problems - most notably, I think, to the breakdown of supportive communities and the rise of individualism. It would be too easy to blame this on consumer culture, on advertising, on capitalism - all of which I know play a role - but I think that the ultimate cause of the breakdown of community and family ties in America is ourselves. How many of us know our neighbors? The mail deliverer? The trash collector? How many of us know the name of the barista who serves us coffee in the morning? How many of us have opened our homes to the members of our communities - not just the people who believe the same things as us, or share our socioeconomic level, but everyone? How many of us really talk to one another, really take the time to get to know one another, instead of forming massive networks of superficial relationships? How many of us live in the suburbs, a place where it's easy to go through life without having to know the people around us, where we can easily ignore those who are poorer, or less safe, or in more crisis than we are? How many of us take advantage of that fact to remain blissfully ignorant of the sufferings of others? I'm as guilty of this as anyone - probably more so since I'm an introvert.
But getting back to the political side of the equation, I don't think that just stamping down the mighty boot of authoritarianism - as many in the pro-life crowd, including GWB, desire - is going to do the trick. I don't think that waving signs in front of abortion clinics is going to have any effect either. The chain of life? It's been going on for twenty years now (I think) and still hasn't done a darn bit of good. Abortion, like race, is one of those issues where massive political campaigns to change the minds of a vast body of people isn't going to help anyone, because it's personal for everyone. While I do strongly oppose abortion as a moral wrong, I know enough pro-choice people to know that many are just as passionate and their motives just as pure as any pro-lifer. Certainly there are pro-choice people who are selfish, think of the fetus as a meaningless piece of flesh, etc., just as there are "pro-lifers" who like to plant bombs in abortion clinics and shoot abortion doctors. The only way to end abortion, in my opinion, is to be in people's lives - to be friends, to be brothers and sisters, to be in community. We need to be what Christ calls us to be - not wielding the sword and shield, eager to stamp out abortion like one swats a fly on the wall, but to be poor in spirit, humble, not self-righteous, not judging, giving of ourselves to our community and to those in need. Christ didn't say anything about Christians in government; but he did say something about Christians in community, and that is that we are to love one another.
I know I've gotten a bit off-topic here, but here's the kicker: Will GWB's proposals end abortion? Note that the question isn't whether he opposes abortion, because it's clear he does, but will what he proposes end abortion? I would submit that despite his authoritarian opposition to abortion, the end result of his social policies - a nation saddled in deficit, a war contributing to a devaluation of human life, his lack of support for community-service and volunteerism, and policies which seem to promote suburban rather than urban life - ultimately perpetuate the conditions which cause abortion, namely, ignorance and individualism.
What I'm saying here isn't that he's an immoral person or that he has no convictions - because it's clear that he follows a moral code of some sort (his differs from mine when it comes to war and death, which I'll get to in a few days), and that he's very committed to it - or that voting for the other guy will somehow end abortion. I don't think anyone can end it but us, and that the way we can do it is by following Jesus' command to "love our neighbors as ourselves." What I'm saying, in the end, is that there isn't a government thing in the world that's going to solve abortion, especially if it's the symptom of the larger problem of broken community - and that in this matter, your vote doesn't count for nearly as much as the rest of your life does. What I'm saying is that if you're truly committed to ending abortion, the answer doesn't lie in who you vote for, but who you love.
posted by jimmy at 21:21 -
Read comments here!
Yeah.
So, a lot has happened in the last eleven days. I've been rather busy.
First, Arts Fest... it went really well. The Community Canvas was spectacular (I hope to have pics as soon as the person who was archiving the project sends them to me), Open Mic went quite well, and Beautiful Mess night went off without a hitch... pretty spectacular considering how many different ways that could have been screwed up.
And Alisa came, which was also wonderful. I'd been having some doubts about the relationship before this weekend, but we had a really good talk on Saturday night about things like how we can afford to do the things we want to do, etc. and all is well now. Unfortunately, the way money things are going, I'll probably end up having to turn down Huron this summer, but ah well... sacrifices have to be made, especially when one is poor and living in an expensive place like Pasadena. On the plus side, I get to spend the summer in SoCal, near the ocean.
Alisa and I also went to Six Flags Magic Mountain, which is kind of like Cedar Point, only it's in the desert, the rollercoasters aren't as good, and it's a lot dirtier and less friendly. So I don't think we'll be going back there. Our next amusement park excursion will probably be to Knott's Berry Farm, which gives me great hope because it's owned by Cedar Fair LP - the same people who completely revitalized Cedar Point.
We've been getting a little taste of summer over the past two days. Yesterday got up to 95, today it was in the 100's. Rather warm, but as Michelle and I were talking about earlier today, once you hit about 95 degrees or so, you really can't tell the difference between 100 and 110... it all just becomes "really freaking hot." Our apartment doesn't have A/C either... but the school does. I think I'm going to be spending a lot more time there if this heat comes back, and it probably will. It's supposed to get back down into the 80's tomorrow, though, so this little heat-wave is over.
CUBBIES UPDATE: Been a while for this, too... we had this nice 6-game win streak going on, all was well, and then, BAM! It's Arizona, and we've lost two in a row with almost no offensive output and questionable pitching. We'll come back from this, though.
posted by jimmy at 22:27 -
Read comments here!
Wow.
Excitement at Wrigley: Cubs 11, Reds 10. The wind in the Windy City was blowing out, both managers got ejected, and two ninth-inning home runs saved the day (one of which was Alisa's boyfriend hitting it out for the second time today.) We've got offense, that's for sure. All we need now is for Prior to get well and get our starting five some momentum, and we'll be so good even a stadium full of Steve Bartmans can't beat us.
My car broke down, and it's going to cost over $1000 to fix it. So it looks like I won't be able to afford that new Queer Eye wardrobe I was going to get for the time being. (Relax, Mom, I'm kidding. About the wardrobe. The bit about the car is unfortunately quite true.)
Fuller Arts Festival is next week, and my plate is more than full with things like running the Community Canvas and producing the "Welcome to the Beautiful Mess" performance night. Not to mention that Alisa's coming in on Thursday, and Kara and I are playing at the open mic Thursday night, and I'm playing for Alisa at the open mic, and Alisa's going to face character auditions at Disney on Saturday, and I still have that whole school thing going on, and I'm getting even more hours at work... sheesh. I'll be lucky if I have time to breathe next week. Maybe I can put that off for a while.....
posted by jimmy at 17:22 -
Read comments here!
The sports page
CUBBIES UPDATE: It's a Home Run Derby at Wrigley this week. We lost big in Game 1 against the Pirates, but back-to-back blowout wins - with seven homers over the past two days, including 2 by Michael Barrett, Aramis Ramirez, and Alisa's boyfriend Moises Alou - are proving that we can put runners across the plate when we want to. We've got Cincy at home next... they're hot, but we can take 'em. We're over .500 again - it's time to get some momentum.
The subject of discussion in two of my classes yesterday was the historical persecution of Christians in ancient Roman society. Hearing about how people were mutilated and killed for their faith (a) filled me with admiration for what they went through for Jesus, (b) convinced me even further that Christianity was stronger before it was tainted by political legitimacy, and (c) made me even more angry at Americans who like to act like Christians are some kind of persecuted people in the USA. Sure, we get made fun of a lot, and it's not cool to be a zealot, but that's because we're in power - because GWB (for better or worse) professes Christianity, because every President and most Congresscritters we've had have been ostensibly Christian, because the first Eurosettlers on this continent were here to set up a theocracy. Acting as if Christians are some kind of endangered species in the USA is ludicrous.
Now in other parts of the world there still is religious persecution against Christians... but keep in mind that in the "Christian" parts of the world there was, even into the last century, widespread persecution against persons of other faith. When we talk about religious persecution, we don't exactly do it with clean hands. And make no mistake, I would love to see change so that Christianity is legal everywhere in the world. But I also think that it'll be a good thing once Christianity isn't in power anymore, even in the USA - where we elect leaders of all faiths who will govern wisely, and where Christianity is just one religion among many with no more political power than any other. I don't think Christianity was intended by God to be a religion of state power, and I think that's for a reason.
Anyway, just my thought. It's religious and political. Guess I'm not getting invited to any more parties.
posted by jimmy at 16:27 -
Read comments here!
Things move along.
It's Tuesday. I don't know why that's important, but it is.
For some reason recently I've been wanting to get in touch with people I went to college with. But when I send out big massive emails, nobody writes back. Now it has come to my attention that some of you ("you" being, of course, college people) lurk on this page from time to time... just reading, never commenting, never emailing. So you get to keep up on my life, and I'm left here wondering exactly how large the chasm was that you fell into. Now that's just not fair. So you whom I know from college, who read this page - and you know who you are - I'm asking you to comment, or email me, or something, because I want to know if anyone else I went to college with has gotten a real job yet.
Why did I sound like an NPR pledge drive right there? I scare me.
In other news, I basically have to make a decision in the next two weeks or so as to whether or not I'm going back to Huron this summer. I mean, I want to go, because Alisa's going to be there and all, but at the same time there's so much going on here over the summer - not to mention the fact that I could get a better-paying job and take more classes - that I almost have to wonder if it'd be better for me to stay here. I kinda don't want to do the 14-hour-days-for-not-much-money thing at Huron again, but I also don't want to do the not-seeing-my-girlfriend-all-summer thing. So that's a huge decision I have to make, among others.
I'm working more now, though... getting 6 hours a week as an on-call techie for the seminary, and 5 hours a week working tech for the chapel, so that's good money. I'm not rolling in it or anything, but it's better than not working at all.
I have no witty or pithy comments at this time.
posted by jimmy at 17:30 -
Read comments here!
An incredibly pleasant weekend...
First, happy Easter. I'd have some reflections on that, but I'm all reflected out after Good Friday. I'm just happy it's here, and that it's been here for the last 1,974 years or so. Christ is risen. That's good news.
A Cubbies update... well, we're 3-3. .500 isn't a fun place to be when you know you can be better. But today's game - a 10-2 win at Atlanta, with four homers and Kerry Wood pitching 10 strikeouts - fills me with hope. And we've got Pittsburgh at home this week. That also fills me with hope.
This weekend has been wonderful. On Friday night a bunch of us went to a coffee shop to hear a concert by none other than Robby Cox. Yes, that Robby Cox, from Deliverance, Robocop, and that two-part episode of Star Trek. I was surprised to find that he's an incredible folk storyteller, and an excellent guitar player, and his band's really good too. The fact that the room only seated 47 - an incredibly intimate space - only made the experience better. I think that's as much fun I've had at a concert in quite a while... made more fun because Robby is so personable. He and his band spent about 45 minutes after the concert just hanging out and chatting with the audience. After that, Michelle, Justin and I went out for Mexican food and drink.
Last night Michelle and I went to the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels to look at the tapestries, and then to a concert called "Jazz in the Spirit" in West LA. Despite the fact that we were virtually the only white people in the audience, and the sound system made my ears ring because it was poorly mixed, it was an incredibly Spirit-filled and incredible concert. It was kind of a mix betweeen smooth jazz, Gospel, and funk music, variations on popular hymns. The lead guy - Ron Brown - played alto and soprano sax, and he was surrounded by singers and other instrumentalists. It was good worship.
That's about all. I slept until noon today, and I'm going to the Tribe Easter feast this evening. All is well.
posted by jimmy at 13:00 -
Read comments here!
Good Friday
My meditations soon, but you should first read my friend Will's journal for today, because it's really quite excellent, and leads into my thoughts rather well.
Last night, as I was falling asleep, I had an... experience. That's really the only way I can put it. It was like a panic attack, only I was mostly asleep, and I wasn't thrashing about or anything. At first it felt like a wind rushing in my face - I thrust my arms out, or thought I did, to block it, but couldn't. I screamed, or thought I did, but no sound came out. The most striking thing about this experience, though, was the feeling of complete exposure - like there was nothing around at all, like I couldn't even move, like I was just stretched out there, completely alone, vulnerable to whatever the wind should throw at me. I slipped in and out of sleep for about twenty minutes with this feeling until finally my mind regained control and jerked me awake.
I've also been taking a Gospels class, and in that I've learned that many scholars believe that Jesus wasn't omniscient while he was incarnated... that he took on all the limitations of a human, including the fact that his mind was limited. There are a few points in the Gospels where Jesus doesn't know things, where the limitations of his mind - only while he was human, of course - were revealed; I don't want to get into it now, because that isn't exactly the point of this.
I was thinking this morning about Good Friday and the Passion (the actual Passion, not the film thereof) and what Jesus went through. I've been told - and believe - that the deepest suffering of Jesus on that day wasn't that he got the living crap beat out of him, but that he had to endure being abandoned and disowned by the Father. "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" were some of his last words (depending on which Gospel you're reading) - Jesus suffered the separation from God that would be our lot were we left on our own.
And as I thought about how Jesus talked earlier about his own death and resurrection, how he knew that his death wouldn't be a permanent one... and it was because of that connection to his Father. That's why I think he sweated "like drops of blood" in Gethsemane on the night he was betrayed... not because he was afraid of the physical torture, although he likely wasn't looking forward to that, but because he knew that this was his last chance to be with his Father, before he was disowned. His Father gave him the strength and conviction he needed to do what he had to do.
But on that last day, with the connection severed, completely rejected by everyone including his Father, I have to think that Jesus started to have some doubts. Would the Father raise him up, as He'd promised? Would the connection be restored? The source of Jesus' strength was gone, the power he had tapped into while in this mortal coil had turned His back on the Son. The limitations of his human mind - which had been strengthened by that connection to the Father - were now more evident than ever, and one of those limitations was that he couldn't see the future on his own. Would the Father, who had abandoned him because He had to, restore him?
And it was then - as he endured the scourges and taunts of the Roman soldiers, as he carried the cross down that Jerusalem road, as he hung exposed and alone - that Jesus, God Incarnate, the Son of Man, experienced humanity in its fullest; it was then, when all hope seemed lost, that Jesus had to have faith.
Any thoughts?
posted by jimmy at 10:54 -
Read comments here!
Yesterday's scores...
Cubs 7, Reds 4. Good start to the season... Kerry was a bit rusty, and Sammy couldn't get it done, but a win's a win.
I don't know if I can report the scores of every game, especially if I go back to Huron for the summer, but I'll try. I don't know why I'll try, since you're already on the internet and therefore have access to a number of other sites that could tell you what happened, but just go with it.
Things are well. AirAmerica is on. I like Franken, I don't like Randi Rhodes (she's a bit too conspiracy-theory for me, which is also my problem with Michael Moore)... I just wish it wasn't on a three-hour tape delay from NYC, on a low-power station in the city. I'm getting static even in Pasadena... sure, they've got another station in the Inland Empire, but that doesn't change the fact that many in LA will find it difficult to listen. Alas... you can't start with a media empire.
We started shooting for our short film over the weekend... got most of the exterior stuff done, and we're only going to have to reshoot a few lines of dialogue. That's pretty good for my first time as a DP, and Scott's first as a director. I'll post screenshots from the film once we've got it finished and edited.
Oh, and the Tigers are above .500 for the first time since April 8, 2001.
posted by jimmy at 11:46 -
Read comments here!
More The Passion...
My roommate Damian just expressed something else about The Passion that I had felt but hadn't quite been able to put my finger on... isn't the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ supposed to be good news... in fact, the Good News? If it is, then, why did Alisa and I leave the theatre feeling like absolute crap? Shouldn't any film which captures the very essence of the Good News - Christ's death and resurrection - leave audiences feeling, y'know, joyful? Jubilant, even?
Man, The Passion would have been a good movie if it wasn't about Jesus.
posted by jimmy at 12:16 -
Read comments here!
April Fool's...
...I'm actually updating!
I had intended to make this a big blockbuster blowout entry, with pictures from Spring Break and stuff, but then after putting that off for a long time I just decided I should update and just get it over with.
First, the end of Spring Break... it was cool. Alisa and I went to the Grand Canyon, saw the Cubbies, and went to Disneyland again. She also hurt her neck, and we saw The Passion. More on that later.
Second, the new quarter... already in full swing. I have some pretty cool classes, most notably a class on postmodern theology and film. I'm looking forward to the whole "school" thing.
Third, it rained here in LA... the first time since we moved into our new place a month ago. We found out that when the gutters get clogged, our front "yard" collects about an inch of water. I had to go up to the second floor inside the courtyard, get on a ladder, and clean out the drains as best I could. It was cold and unpleasant.
So... The Passion. After weeks and months of talking about it as a cultural phenomenon, I finally went and saw it. I went with Alisa, and after the film was over we didn't talk for 45 minutes, just sat there in silence. It's a powerful film.
But quite frankly, looking back, I'm rather ambivalent about the film.
For one thing, it tried to make Jesus special not by showing who He is, but by acting as if He went through some kind of special physical suffering nobody else had gone through. We know from history that anyone who was crucified - and there were thousands if not millions who received the punishment under the Persians and Romans - pretty much went through the same things Jesus did in the film. The idea that he'd be all bloody and torn up, while the two other guys on the cross were only nailed up there and not whipped and beaten beforehand, is incredibly inaccurate, and certainly plays into the whole anti-Semitic charge of the film.
Also, I don't think the impression was left from just the film that Jesus was all that special a guy on his own - you really have to come into the thing with some prior knowledge or feeling about Jesus in order that you'd see him as "the Christ." We didn't see His love, or really any of his life, save a few flashbacks. We didn't get much of the Sermon on the Mount, didn't get any of the healings or the raisings or the loving actions. If I didn't know anything about Jesus before the movie, I'd have gotten the impression that the only thing this guy ever did that meant anything was die... and that doesn't mesh with anyone's incarnational theology.
The blood and guts, I think, while technically "historically accurate," certainly played into this. It was kind of sadistic... I mean, I see what the point was in showing all of that, and I understand that it's what actually happened, but why do we need to have it in slow motion, for two hours? The guys from South Park kinda had a point... it was basically a two-hour snuff film about Jesus. Why couldn't Mel concentrate on the life of Jesus - on His incredible and passionate love, on His kindness, on the radical teachings about God and humanity, about Jesus' close relationship with His Father? Why do we have to spend two hours on His death, and still miss the most important and special thing about His sufferings, which was that He took on the sins of the world and actually was separated from his Father? It's like Mel missed the memo or something. Alas.
All in all, I think, if you don't already come in with some knowledge or idea who Jesus is, all you're going to see is a reasonably nice guy getting the living crap beat out of him for two hours... which is fine, but for Newmarket, Icon, and the Evangelical Protestant world to promote this film as the Best Evangelism Thing Ever (whatever happened to the whole "Christians doing their jobs and living lives of love and service" thing as the Best Evangelism Thing Ever, I wonder?) is rather shortsighted and misses the point of the movie.
Was it an excellent piece of art? Yes. The acting, the directing, the cinematography, the art direction, were all wonderful. If this movie had been about anybody other than Jesus I'd be a lot more positive about it. But it being about Jesus Christ - someone I like to think I know personally, at least to a certain degree - it really presented an incomplete, and rather inaccurate, picture of His sufferings and the whole point of His life and death.
"Dot dot dot."
posted by jimmy at 18:08 -
Read comments here!
Log
Archives:
After
2.9.2003
9.23.2002-2.6.2003
6.1.2002-8.21.2002
