Think Ahead: Minds Needed, Minds Wanted

college-classroomThe church, particularly the evangelical Protestant kind, often has a strange relationship between faith and learning.  It as if one must necessarily cancel out the other.  And while I got more of a sense of that when heading off to seminary, I imagine it is also true for college, particularly in light of the myths/realities one hears about coming form campuses today.  In his letter to Christian college freshmen, Hauerwas will have none of it.

Don’t underestimate how much the Church needs your mind. Remember your Bible-study class? Christians read Isaiah’s prophecy of a suffering servant as pointing to Christ. That seems obvious, but it’s not; or at least it wasn’t obvious to the Ethiopian eunuch to whom the Lord sent Philip to explain things. Christ is written everywhere, not only in the prophecies of the Old Testament but also in the pages of history and in the book of nature. The Church has been explaining, interpreting, and illuminating ever since it began. It takes an educated mind to do the Church’s work of thinking about and interpreting the world in light of Christ. Physics, sociology, French literary theory: All these and more—in fact, everything you study in college—is bathed in the light of Christ. It takes the eyes of faith to see that light, and it takes an educated mind to understand and articulate it.

It really is saddening (and maddening) to hear people of faith compartmentalize their beliefs in a way that ultimately rejects the lordship of Christ over all of His creation.

It is, though, too easy to go too far in the other direction: where learning is more of a distraction than an in-road for what God has done and is doing.  And, as everyone since Paul’s time (and probably before) knew: knowledge tends to puff up.  As Hauerwas states, though, learning is good for many things in the church, including a sense of defense for the faith.  Even still, there is something else to keep in mind:

So, yes, to be a student is to be called to serve the Church and the world. But always remember who serves what. Colleges focus on learning; as they do so, they can create the illusion that being smart and well educated is the be-all and end-all of life. You do not need to be educated to be a Christian. That’s obvious. After all, Christ is most visible to the world in the person who responds to his call of “Come, follow me.” I daresay St. Francis of Assisi was more important to the medieval Church than any intellectual. One of the most brilliant men in the history of the Church, St. Bonaventure, a Franciscan, said as much. But the Church needs some Christians to be educated, as St. Bonaventure also knew; this is why he taught at the University of Paris and ensured that, in their enthusiasm for the example of St. Francis, his brother Franciscans didn’t give up on education.

(image from yourquizmaster.com)

Posted in Faith, Internet, Teaching | Leave a comment

Think Ahead: The College Calling

“The Christian religion,” wrote Robert Louis Wilken, “is inescapably ritualistic (one is received into the Church by a solemn washing with water), uncompromisingly moral (‘be ye perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect,’ said Jesus), and unapologetically intellectual (be ready to give a ‘reason for the hope that is in you,’ in the words of 1 Peter). Like all the major religions of the world, Christianity is more than a set of devotional practices and a moral code: it is also a way of thinking about God, about human beings, about the world and history.”

TheLogosSo begins “Go With God,” an “open letter” from Stanley Hauerwas to up-and-coming Christian college freshmen that was posted to First Things back in 2010.  I didn’t know that it existed until last week, when the site re-upped the letter on its Twitter feed.  It’s a great read that I thought I’d work through over the course of a few days.

It is interesting to reflect on “Christian thinking,” particularly in a culture that has (overly?) emphasized feeling as the prime faith disposition.  And while I would ultimately argue that its a false distinction, I do think it’s good to think about “thinking Christianly” as a particular muscle that needs exercise for many of us.  Hauerwas does a great job of helping us see that.

The Christian fact is very straightforward: To be a student is a calling. . .

It is an extraordinary gift. In a world of deep injustice and violence, a people exists that thinks some can be given time to study. We need you to take seriously the calling that is yours by virtue of going to college. You may well be thinking, “What is he thinking? I’m just beginning my freshman year. I’m not being called to be a student. None of my peers thinks he or she is called to be a student. They’re going to college because it prepares you for life. I’m going to college so I can get a better job and have a better life than I’d have if I didn’t go to college. It’s not a calling.”

But you are a Christian. This means you cannot go to college just to get a better job. These days, people talk about college as an investment because they think of education as a bank account: You deposit the knowledge and expertise you’ve earned, and when it comes time to get a job, you make a withdrawal, putting all that stuff on a résumé and making money off the investment of your four years. Christians need jobs just like anybody else, but the years you spend as an undergraduate are like everything else in your life. They’re not yours to do with as you please. They’re Christ’s.

Hauerwas is correct: it’s an odd thing to think of going to college as a “calling.”  It is an assumption for many high school students today, a necessary step to getting reach certain employment goals in a decent time-frame.  It is good to be reminded, though, that there is something special and humbling about getting to set aside a chunk of time to get the chance to think and read and learn and explore God’s creation and mankind’s interaction with it.  And then to say that, like everything else, those years belong to Christ?  Brilliant.

Christ’s call on you as a student is a calling to meet the needs of the Church, both for its own life and the life of the world. The Resurrection of Jesus, Wilken suggests, is not only the central fact of Christian worship but also the ground of all Christian thinking “about God, about human beings, about the world and history.” Somebody needs to do that thinking—and that means you.

You can read the whole letter here.  Next time we’ll look at what Hauerwas says about the intellectual life and the church.

(image from vipjackson.com)

Posted in Faith, Internet, Teaching | Leave a comment

LOST at 30 Rock

These days I’m enjoying a quick trip back through the fifth season of 30 Rock.  The wordplay throughout the season is amazing (particularly with the episode titled “College”).  It’s also interesting to see how often LOST was occasionally referenced in the show.  Here’s a quick montage of most of those moments (I think it’s missing some from the last season or two).

Ah, Kenneth and Jacob.  That’s a crossover that would’ve been interesting.

Posted in Internet, Television | Leave a comment

Two Things for the Toolbox

Yesterday I reflected some on a recent article by Alan Jacobs about “dropping clues in our technological society.”  I linked to the article in the hopes that you would take note of the last thing that Jacobs suggests as a way of approaching the Christian mission in today’s world.  That suggestion just showed up in an interview with James K. A. Smith, who, in the video below, talks about two things that Anglicans have in their “toolbox” that the rest of us would be wise to take note of.

I’ll be the first to admit the strangeness of terms like catholicity and even the Book of Common Prayer (though I’ve owned one and used it intermittently for over a decade.  But I also think that Smith and Jacobs are “onto” something.  Something that Baptists should navigate carefully, but navigate nonetheless.

Posted in Faith, Internet, Teaching | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Finding Dory: Into Darkness

doryLike many Americans, I spent a couple of hours in the theater this past weekend catching up with Dory, Marlin, and Nemo.  And by catching up with, I mean swimming far into the murky existential depths of the children’s movie that is Finding Dory.

Confession: I had so much exposure to Finding Nemo when it first came out on DVD that anything that made it special was truly lost on me.  So going into Finding Dory, I was simply hoping for a decent story with some great animation.  I went in assuming that, as children’s fare, the movie would be easy and breezy.  It really wasn’t, which is part of what K. Austin Collins makes note of early in his reflection on the movie at The Ringer:

Surprisingly and not, Finding Dory gets dark. Quite dark, when you think about it, but you have to look beyond the fabricated whimsy of the story toward all the tragic weirdness hovering just outside of it. You have to notice the surroundings: a sunken freighter, with its steel cargo containers crumpled along the seafloor like a kingdom of forgotten junk and the plastic soda rings that briefly ensnare an always-unsuspecting, freckle-faced Dory. You have to consider where Dory comes from: a marine life institute where (the voice of Sigourney Weaver tells us) scientists believe in the three R’s: “rescue, rehabilitation, and release.” Sounds dreamy — until an octopus named Hank (Ed O’Neill) explains he’s missing a tentacle thanks to the throngs of grabby children at said institute, making him, as Dory helpfully points out, a septopus, not an octopus. A septopus with toddler-induced post-traumatic stress disorder.

It’s insightful, darkly funny stuff, this trove of secondary details, all of it hinting at a weirder world of humans and other forces that exceed the eventual story’s needs.

Finding Dory is a great example, at least to me, of a movie that can be safely dangerous (as opposed to dangerously safe).  Dory’s memory issue make the journey that more uncertain.  Her slowly returning memories make the stakes that much higher.  When she ultimately hits “rock bottom,” she stays there for longer than expected.  And because of the nature of the character, achieving the intended goal is never the end of the adventure.

In his Ringer article, Collins asserts that it’s Dory’s “safe bet” status that should’ve allowed the movie to go weird places. For him, the movie might be an example of the dangerously safe.  That makes more sense when Collins reminds us of Dory‘s director’s previous work as writer and/or director on Wall-E, A Bug’s Life, and the Toy Story movies (which had moments very dark and very weird).

Too often, the utopias Pixar imagines for children are so much duller, morally and aesthetically, than the worlds those kids already live in. The pleasure of Finding Dory, for an adult, is its sense of the dangerous wonder of the wider world, as scary as it is irresistible . . .

The central irony of Finding Dory is that Dory is a risk-taker trapped in a movie that, for all its likability, won’t join her on whimsical leaps.

I remember hearing (perhaps reading) somewhere last week that Finding Dory really is the missing piece of the Finding Nemo story, that the idea of Dory finding her home was something that begged for resolution. I’m not sure that I would’ve agreed prior to seeing the sequel. I’m glad they told the story, though.  And I’m kind of glad that it’s dark and more serious than I expected (and much more subtle than a gang of toys trapped in an incinerator).  I also get Collins’ point. Perhaps, in that way, Dory is a missed opportunity.  We’ll see if Pixar dips its toes in the same water for a third time to meet that challenge.

You can read the whole Ringer article about Finding Dory here.

(image from wallpapershome.com)

Posted in Internet, Movies | Leave a comment

A Song for Sinners and Saints

Posted in Faith, Internet, Music | 1 Comment

The Back-Drop for the Age

This past weekend I had the opportunity to sit around a breakfast table and talk about James K. A. Smith’s You Are What You Love.  It was an interesting conversation for me, as I’ve been pretty invested in Smith’s thinking for a good while.  It was interesting to see what concepts and comments people grabbed onto.

One of the things that I take for granted when reading Smith’s newer work is the significance of his thinking on what is now called “our secular age.”  He talked about it a lot through the lens of Charles Taylor’s book, which is named for that age.  And while You Are What You Love stands well on its own (and even hints at Smith’s other work), it’s good to get a solid dose of “thinking about the secular.”  Here’s a recent video of Smith talking at a Q Conference about the back-drop for the age we live in, this secular age.

Posted in Books, Faith, Internet | Leave a comment

“For British Eyes Only”

I’ve got a number of friends traveling abroad this summer.  Two in particular are enjoying a couple of weeks in England.  Weird to think that I was just there a few months ago myself.  A version of Britain (known as Wee Britain) played a role in the third season of Arrested Development.  Here’s a fun little clip from Michael’s first trip to “the British section of the OC.”

Posted in Television, Travel | Leave a comment

Trailer Talk: Batman v Superman Extended

I may be one of the few to admit it, but I regret only seeing Batman V Superman once in the theater.  I feel that regret as soon as I hear the first musical notes in the trailer for the upcoming extended version of the movie.  I’m not expecting the extended version to “fix” anything: the movie is what it is.  And while it’s sensibilities are not mine, I think I get what Snyder was going for.  Here’s the trailer for the movie which “drops” a couple of different ways over the summer.

My two favorite moments from the trailer:  (1) Where Luthor mangles the argument for the problem of evil and God’s existence and (2) where WW comments on how mankind has created a world where it is impossible to stand together. I imagine that most of the rest of the additional material consist of lots of posturing and fighting.

Posted in Internet, Movies | Leave a comment

Klosterman Looks Back on Television

friends tvChuck Klosterman’s new book, But What If We’re Wrong?, dropped this past week.  The premise of the book is to cast thought forward a few hundred years and try and understand what we think we’re getting right now but might ultimately be getting wrong (ah, the time-space continuum).  The folks at The Ringer were kind enough to post the section of the book where Klosterman reflects on television (something of great interest to those of us from the time-before-the-internet).  The article’s opening paragraphs:

Television is an art form where the relationship to technology supersedes everything else about it. It’s one realm of media where the medium is the message, without qualification. TV is not like other forms of consumer entertainment: It’s slippier and more dynamic, even when it’s dumb. We know people will always read, so we can project the future history of reading by considering the evolution of books. (Reading is a static experience.) We know music will always exist, so we can project a future history of rock ’n’ roll by placing it in context with other genres of music. The internal, physiological sensation of hearing a song today is roughly the same as it was in 1901. (The ingestion of sound is a static experience.) The machinery of cinema persistently progresses, but how we watch movies in public — and the communal role cinema occupies, particularly in regard to dating — has remained weirdly unchanged since the fifties. (Sitting in a dark theater with strangers is a static experience.) But this is not the case with television.

Both collectively and individually, the experience of watching TV in 2016 already feels totally disconnected from the experience of watching TV in 1996. I doubt the current structure of television will exist in two hundred fifty years, or even in twenty-five. People will still want cheap escapism, and something will certainly satisfy that desire (in the same way television does now). But whatever that something is won’t be anything like the television of today. It might be immersive and virtual (like a Star Trekian holodeck) or it might be mobile and open-sourced (like a universal YouTube, lodged inside our retinas). But it absolutely won’t be small groups of people, sitting together in the living room, staring at a two-dimensional thirty-one-inch rectangle for thirty consecutive minutes, consuming linear content packaged by a cable company.

Much like the thinker Klosterman alludes to (McLuhan and the medium being the message), Klosterman has a good grasp of the particularly unique (and passing) place of television in culture.  Time changes things, and quickly.  I remember a couple of years ago watching the entire run of Friends and being surprised at how “present” the television was in the first two seasons.  If it wasn’t being used as a plot device, it was on in the background reminding viewers, if only in a meta way, of what was actually going on between viewer and television.

And so Klosterman sets out to determine “What is the realest fake thing we’ve ever made on purpose?” as it relates to television, which is an interesting task.  And while I might not agree with Klosterman’s conclusion, I can at least respect it.

You can read the whole article here.  And if you want to know why I refer to the “essay” as an “article” . . . you’ll need to read the book.

(image from quora.com)

Posted in Books, Internet, Television | Leave a comment