Death is an Interruption of Life

"Death is an interruption of life."

You'd think it would be obvious. But the way we tiptoe around death, it apparently isn't.

I just got home from the funeral of my best friend from preschool. BJ was my hero back in the day. For a toe-headed, wimpy pole of a kid, "big and tough" BJ always let me know he had my back (unless of course, I was a threat to his kid sister). Over the years, as things sometimes go, BJ and I fell away from one another: no fight or anything, just a change in geography and different paths in the journey of life.

Thirty-one-year olds are not supposed to die.

But that's kind of why we call it "death."
Death supplants life. It robs us of the way we think things should be.
And we kinda need to acknowledge this so that we can tell it to go to hell where it came from.

I think a lot about death. Don't call a psychologist as I'm rather comfortable with the notion. My craft demands that I wrestle with it. I don't invite it, but I certainly don't fear it. It ticks me off sometimes. It definitely interrupts my life.

But it will not reign. No, it will not reign.

Wesley, Logic, & Deism

"I could not study, to any degree of perfection, either mathematics, arithmetic, or algebra, without being a Deist, if not an Atheist. And yet others may study them all their lives without sustaining any inconvenience. None therefore can here determine for another; but every man must judge for himself, and abstain from whatever he in particular finds to be hurtful to his soul." - John Wesley, Sermon L, The Use of Money

I knew I liked that guy.

I was a mathematics major in college. Still not sure how that happened. I mean, I know the path that took me to math, but I'm not sure how I actually graduated with the degree. Regardless, I am a rather logical thinker. It's been a detriment to faith. But I have often overcome it. For instance, I have no quibbles with evolution, the notion that God doesn't know the exact details of the future, and no longer need the stories of scripture to be historical to have faith in them and live as though they are true. The distinction between "fact" and "truth" has become very important to me. I don't mind living according to things that are outside of my experience and ability to "figure out," because my faith rests in truth and not in fact. (This is a good thing considering how often I've been wrong!)

I don't think that I totally divorce faith from knowledge, but they certainly aren't the same thing for me. Knowledge and empiricalness inform my faith, but they don't hold it together.

It seems to me that a great number of professing theists (those who believe in God) are actually inadvertent deists - those who believe in God, but don't live as though God makes any difference in their lives. I can't really blame them. But where I am similar, I challenge myself to believe with a hope that goes beyond figuring it all out. Otherwise - for myself - I'm not sure I could call it "faith."

I know...I'm so ignorantly idealistic.

And I'm still learning.

Truth & the Facts

This has been sitting in my email for months. I'm not even sure where I first got it (might have been a Scott Daniels sermon). Anyway, I'm sharing:

 The chief priests’ and elders’ question has been repeated through the centuries of Christian history. Attempts to answer the question as posed inevitably result in diverse forms of Christian heresy, for the attempt to establish grounds more determinative than Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection for why we should believe in him results in idolatry. If one needs a standard of truth to insure that Jesus is the Messiah, then one ought to worship that standard of truth, not Jesus. There is no place one might go to know with certainty that Jesus is who he says he is. To know that Jesus is the Son of God requires that we take up his cross and follow him. Having taken up the cross, Christians discover they have no fear of the truth, no matter from where it might come.

 – Stanley Hauerwas

The Hunger Games Review

If you're reading this, I might imagine what you're thinking: "Jeremy is finally breaking his blogging absence by reviewing a teenaged-hyped movie?" Yes...yes, I am, actually.

-----------

I remember that when my wife was first reading the Hunger Games trilogy, she was slightly disturbed by the content. I think I recall her asking me something about them, but I just passed the books off as the next Twilight. Despite that I now reject the comparison of the two series for the most part (having read them all), the first movie went to pathetic lengths to imply similar themes. If the scenes that flash Gale's reaction to Peeta & Katniss' interactions were meant to bring forth the whimpers of teenage girls, the directors were successful (at least judging from the row of them that sat in front of me at the theater last night). And though I've not read the Twilight books and only suffered through one of the movies, even I can see the resemblance between the character cast as Gale and the one I think is the werewolf dude in Twilight.

I decided to read the books after a Mennonite pastor whose blog I read suggested that those drawn to the peaceable Kingdom (or the "nonviolence of Christ') would do well to interact with the themes. I read the first and was hooked. I couldn't wait for the movie. After initial reviews came out, including a not-so-good one from the afore-mentioned pastor, I was worried that what I valued in the series would be absent from the film.

While there were several things that I didn't like, overall, I thought the movie did very well with the story.

The casting and performance of Katniss was great. I've been sorely disappointed when characters formed in my mind while reading a book were drastically different when cast in a movie. The girl who played Katniss, while beautiful, was not "perfect" in the sense of today's magazine cover teenager. And she played the role of Katness wonderfully.

I had been warned that the effect of violence was not present in the movie in the ways it was in the book. However, I found Katniss' response to Rue's death wonderfully-depicted. The result and response to fear and violence in the books was what made them worthwhile to me. I believe we need to wrestle more with the agony of death and our role in it.

That said, Katniss was a bit too "innocent" for me. One of the things I valued in the series was the inner turmoil she had with the notion of killing. Short of a narrator-like over-voice in the movie (which would have had the potential to be horrible), much of this was probably impossible to portray. Hopefully, the forth-coming movies will not remove this important part of the story. I can envision a director making the final killing scene of the series one of revenge rather than the confused, conflicted, and impulsive action of a young woman devastated by the effects of violence.

What I'm saying is this: the main reason I even "enjoyed" the series were the implications of "power by fear" and "fear by [the threat of] violence". While the state and situation of Panem might seem far-removed from 21st century America, the notion of out-sourcing violence isn't so much. Do we ever really wonder just how it is that America is so "peaceful" while we every so often hear rumors of war, trial, violence, and death throughout much of the rest of the world?

Just how and why is it that we eat enough to get so fat that we spend billions in fat remedies while other parts of the world starve in hunger?

How and why would a bunch of human beings decide to board airplanes and exterminate themselves by kamikaze-ing them into our centers of commerce and government? Just what exactly breeds that passion and willingness to kill?

I don't think these are questions to leave to those who lead and who oversee power. In fact...the thought is rather scary.

But back to the movie: the interplay between scenes in the arena and in the control room (which was remarkably similar to one of my favorite movies: The Truman Show) or dialogue between President Snow/Seneca Crane/Haymitch was probably necessary, but it sure was a departure from the book. It seemed to blatantly tell the "progression" of power, rather than the guessed implications of what was going on through Katniss' thought processes in the book.

Movies like Wall-E and The Lorax are okay in that they demonstrate the effect of human ravaging upon all of nature. But the story of The Hunger Games does me better in showing the effects of humans ravaging one another.

While the arena and the idea of an annual event like the Hunger Games (a death-match to instill fear and maintain the "pax of Panem" disguised as entertainment's value) is again far-removed from our society, there are plenty of ways in which power is enacted or abused for entertainment's sake or one's own pleasure. These include the sex-trafficking trade, massive pornography industry, food over-consumption, sports industries, and certainly the whacko bi-partisan political scene which is little more than a spectator's sport at the moment.

Perhaps The Hunger Games will go beyond a teenaged romance triangle for some people.

In the end, I enjoyed the movie very much and look forward to the next. But as almost always...the book was better. :-)

Why I Don't Gamble

Last night, I had made eight not-so-serious predictions prior to the Super Bowl on Twitter. After, I jokingly tweeted: "Only two of my eight predictions for the #SuperBowl were correct. #fessingup #whyidontbet". An old friend responded via private message asking why it is that I don't gamble. I thought I'd share some of what I responded:

First of all, as with most things these days, I claim the spirit of Romans 14 in this. You asked my thoughts, so if you hear any legalism or forced piety directed at you within my response, check your filter. In other words, my conclusion on this is a non-essential and I'd be happy to sit at the table of Communion with someone despite our disagreement on this (and an ever-increasing list of other things).

There have been very brief times in my life when I've toyed with the notion of gambling. I've had some success with Blackjack and variant forms of online Poker. I believe that with patience and the proper amount of time spent, I could be a decent gambler and bring in more money than I'd lose. I can imagine myself being able to do that and while it may sound cocky, I generally believe it to be true.

But in the end, I see gambling as just another form of taking other people's money. 

I'm less concerned about becoming addicted myself (I do believe that is a possibility for anyone, though not a certainty for everyone). I'm more concerned that if I did indeed win, I'd simply be profiting from the impulsivity and addiction of others. That doesn't jive with my understanding of Christ. Even (and especially) when I win, I'm just contributing to the system. Put differently, gambling is just another way to confess my faith in power, specifically, the power of money (but also "winning" and "thrill"). That's something I'm trying to avoid as I try and understand the self-emptying of Christ.

Most people waste money in one form or another, and I am no exception. Sometimes I take my kids on the carousel. It costs $2.50 or so. I'm basically paying for the brief thrilling experience and - if I'm lucky - a small memory, because the money and the moment are both gone almost as quickly as a round of Blackjack. I could see how some say the same of gambling - they enjoy the thrill. I can understand that. But the overall picture I describe in the previous paragraph is enough for me to avoid this as a whole.