So, I'm dragging this old dusty blog out of retirement for the sake of a worthy subject and something like a challenge. David Zimmerman, over at his blog Loud Time, is starting a project based on the premise that many of us have lost touch with the perspective of the people and writers of the Bible. Read more about his challenge here. The short version is that much of the Bible is written through the perspective of the oppressed and marginalized. Once we adjust the lens in this way, many of us would have to admit we are more like centurions than the disciples. That seems as good a reason as any to re-examine the New Testament through a revised point of view. The following is my own meager attempt to contribute to this conversation. The challenge is to choose a chapter of the New Testament and interpret it online with the hashtag #PeoplesCommentary so David Zimmerman and other contributors can see what you found.The more the merrier, since "people" is part of the whole idea and happens to be a plural word. I chose Luke 1 and will highlight what stands out most to me in this perspective. Feel free to join in.
Luke 1:5-24
Gabriel announces the birth of John the Baptist to Zechariah, a priest in the order of Abijah. It's worth noting that priests were not like the clergy we imagine today, with fairly stable salaries and benefits. The Levitical law made provisions for priests to receive a part of the tithe along with the poor and needy, since not receiving a paycheck per se, they were poor and needy. Add the Eastern tradition of children taking care of their parents, and it's safe to assume the The Baptist parents weren't exactly secure financially. And we can't forget that Zechariah was a priest operating in occupied territory, making the limits of freedom a possible threat. All this to say, the prospect of having a son could have many implications for rectifying any of these situations. Instead of hope, however, he has settled on resignation.
In this passage, we see Zechariah losing his voice for being resigned to the fact that the promise of God's kingdom breaking through probably won't happen anytime soon. It is easy to just keep one's head down and accept the reality that very likely has been all one knows. Zechariah lost his voice because he had lost hope, or at least set it aside for later. He will regain it, when he sees the hope begin to come to life. Accepting the current realities of oppression and powerlessness can crush hope, which makes faithfulness impossible. Gabriel reminds Zechariah to keep hope alive.
23-24
Elizabeth would have been disgraced in her culture for being a woman who could not bear children, and Luke makes sure to mention her joy at having this "disgrace" removed. Even within the limited confines of cultural understanding, God is interested in bringing hope and joy to all. It is also worth mentioning that Elizabeth's immediate joy and hope are a stark contrast to Zechariah's resignation. This one verse reveals that the one who lacked the same access to the temple and privileges as a male priest showed the most faith and immediate obedience.
26-56
Mary questions Gabriel at his announcement that she will be the mother of the coming King, but she quickly accepts the new reality and like Elizabeth, embrace hope. Elizabeth says "You are blessed because you believe what the Lord has said." Luke takes extra pains to show the faithfulness of women in this passage, a group who was often marginalized and silenced at the time. And if that wasn't enough, Luke even includes a song sung by Mary herself.
"For He took notice of His lowly servant girl, and from now on all generations will call me blessed." It would be too easy to overlook the weight the perspective lends to this verse. Someone who is seen as lowly by her own culture based on something as arbitrary as gender is praising God for noticing those who the culture overlooks. Like Elizabeth, Mary knows the score. It's almost like Luke is trying to tell us these are voices worth listening to.
In verses 51- 53, Mary imagines a world in which earthly power is subverted. In God's Kingdom, those who hunger after power will become powerless, and those who fill themselves to the detriment of others will be sent away hungry. The hope of Christ is that justice will be restored, that the needy will have their fill and the oppressors will go home empty handed. A hope without this reality is incomplete and does not reflect God's vision for the world. As a member of an oppressed and marginalized group on many counts, Mary sees the reality of the need for this component of hope right away.
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
That's Not Funny (Is It)?
It's been a random year so far, and I've successfully sucked the fun out of that random goodness by neglecting to write about it. Today I decided since I probably already lost any semblance of an audience by not writing in this blog, this would give me the perfect chance to entertain myself by listing things that make me laugh. So here they are, in no specific order.
Things that only I Find Funny
1.Phrases that sound bitingly sarcastic but are not. For example, Anne of Greene Gables (I had two sisters so shut it) had a great experience and one of her friends cheerfully said "Why don't you write a book about it." The context of her facial expression suggested sincerity, but the words did not. See? I'm laughing my (rear) off right now and you don't know why.
2.Euphemisms that sound worse than just being crude and/or swearing. I won't give specific examples, this being a "safe for the whole family" blog (even though no one reads it as I stated above) but network TV excels at this. Uh, keep up the good work?
3.Charlton Heston movies. This might be a cheat, because I may not be the only one, but locally speaking (friends I encounter the most) I think I am. But for me, the Statue of Liberty scene in Planet of the Apes is up there with William Shatner's"Khaaaaaaan!"
4.Imagining rich people buying "golden" everything. This extends to the extreme image of prosthetic limbs. Hey, when employment is low and luxury car sales are up, nothing's too much of a stretch.
5.The third season of Arrested Development. What can I say? I'm a loyal fan to the end.
6.Sock puppets. I've used this image as a punchline a lot in my lifetime, and if you don't get why this is the funniest concept ever, well, I guess you're just not me.
7.Recent Simpsons episodes. I've seen a couple, or maybe a few, but they made me laugh. I guess that's me being a loyal fan again.
8.Referring to Back to the Future as "THE Trilogy." No, wait, that's not funny. It's just awesome. And accurate.
9. 2 Timothy 3:3 in the KJV. I don't care what it meant then, using the word "incontinent" to convey a lack of self control is priceless.
10. Writing in a blog no one reads. Yeah, that one was a cop out, but to make it funnier I'll ask a question that no one will answer. Because no one reads...yeah,you get the idea.
What are some things that crack you up?
Things that only I Find Funny
1.Phrases that sound bitingly sarcastic but are not. For example, Anne of Greene Gables (I had two sisters so shut it) had a great experience and one of her friends cheerfully said "Why don't you write a book about it." The context of her facial expression suggested sincerity, but the words did not. See? I'm laughing my (rear) off right now and you don't know why.
2.Euphemisms that sound worse than just being crude and/or swearing. I won't give specific examples, this being a "safe for the whole family" blog (even though no one reads it as I stated above) but network TV excels at this. Uh, keep up the good work?
3.Charlton Heston movies. This might be a cheat, because I may not be the only one, but locally speaking (friends I encounter the most) I think I am. But for me, the Statue of Liberty scene in Planet of the Apes is up there with William Shatner's"Khaaaaaaan!"
4.Imagining rich people buying "golden" everything. This extends to the extreme image of prosthetic limbs. Hey, when employment is low and luxury car sales are up, nothing's too much of a stretch.
5.The third season of Arrested Development. What can I say? I'm a loyal fan to the end.
6.Sock puppets. I've used this image as a punchline a lot in my lifetime, and if you don't get why this is the funniest concept ever, well, I guess you're just not me.
7.Recent Simpsons episodes. I've seen a couple, or maybe a few, but they made me laugh. I guess that's me being a loyal fan again.
8.Referring to Back to the Future as "THE Trilogy." No, wait, that's not funny. It's just awesome. And accurate.
9. 2 Timothy 3:3 in the KJV. I don't care what it meant then, using the word "incontinent" to convey a lack of self control is priceless.
10. Writing in a blog no one reads. Yeah, that one was a cop out, but to make it funnier I'll ask a question that no one will answer. Because no one reads...yeah,you get the idea.
What are some things that crack you up?
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
On Books (of a Spiritual Nature)
Not sure who's still reading these, but since this has always been more like a journal for me, I'll pretend not to care too much. But just in case there's still one or two of you, I'll clean up my language and try to keep the poop references to a minimum. All that aside, I've had a lot of thoughts on reading within the past couple of days, and many of them pertain to two books in particular. So, enjoy the ramblings of one trying to make sense of things, unless of course you're not reading this. In that case, as you were.
I read the Shack a couple of weeks ago, having heard good and bad about it, depending on whom I talked to. A lot of the bad was warranted (the author couldn't find an editor so it had a shaky start), and if you take this novel as doctrine, that criticism would be as well. But I enjoyed the storytelling with a dead-on perspective on forgiveness, and a God whom we'll never have all figured out. I didn't see universalism in it, as some claim, but I saw a human being challenged to step out of the judgement seat and forgive. This is powerful stuff.
The biggest problem with the depiction of God according to critics, if I understand it, is that He is shown in a form that's too human. That's funny, I thought, because that's what kept me from finishing Wild at Heart. The author of WAH was talking about men's insecurities while (gently, I guess) blaming them on women, and interjected at some point that God is always showing us that He has what it takes. Wait a minute, I said to myself(in my head because I'm crazy, but not THAT crazy) is he saying God is insecure and needs to prove himself? Does God gloat at the mighty oak and hope we don't notice asparagus? Or, if we do notice,does he mutter something to the effect of "size doesn't matter?" I guess what I'm asking is, do we think God is a man, insecurities and all?
This (perceived) limitation of God to human form (and half that, since humanity is made up of two genders)led me to do what I do best: criticize. So if others found good in it, and insisted it helped them to be better husbands, fathers, or men of God in general, I turned a deaf ear. As Jerry Springer would say, I had baggage.* In the meantime, God spoke through whatever means He chose and encouraged me to shut up and let Him talk.
I don't think I'll finish reading Wild at Heart, but if you do, and it encouraged you, God bless. But whatever we read, whether it be by Eldridge or Young, we should be challenged and encouraged by the good, while realizing the limitations of human authors trying to catch a glimpse of the divine. And whatever it is, we need to remember the only safe reading, regardless of the author, is done with discernment.
What do you think? As always, all opinions are welcome.
Where do you draw the line with reading selections? Are some books safer than others?
*If you don't get this game show reference, you are fortunate indeed.
I read the Shack a couple of weeks ago, having heard good and bad about it, depending on whom I talked to. A lot of the bad was warranted (the author couldn't find an editor so it had a shaky start), and if you take this novel as doctrine, that criticism would be as well. But I enjoyed the storytelling with a dead-on perspective on forgiveness, and a God whom we'll never have all figured out. I didn't see universalism in it, as some claim, but I saw a human being challenged to step out of the judgement seat and forgive. This is powerful stuff.
The biggest problem with the depiction of God according to critics, if I understand it, is that He is shown in a form that's too human. That's funny, I thought, because that's what kept me from finishing Wild at Heart. The author of WAH was talking about men's insecurities while (gently, I guess) blaming them on women, and interjected at some point that God is always showing us that He has what it takes. Wait a minute, I said to myself(in my head because I'm crazy, but not THAT crazy) is he saying God is insecure and needs to prove himself? Does God gloat at the mighty oak and hope we don't notice asparagus? Or, if we do notice,does he mutter something to the effect of "size doesn't matter?" I guess what I'm asking is, do we think God is a man, insecurities and all?
This (perceived) limitation of God to human form (and half that, since humanity is made up of two genders)led me to do what I do best: criticize. So if others found good in it, and insisted it helped them to be better husbands, fathers, or men of God in general, I turned a deaf ear. As Jerry Springer would say, I had baggage.* In the meantime, God spoke through whatever means He chose and encouraged me to shut up and let Him talk.
I don't think I'll finish reading Wild at Heart, but if you do, and it encouraged you, God bless. But whatever we read, whether it be by Eldridge or Young, we should be challenged and encouraged by the good, while realizing the limitations of human authors trying to catch a glimpse of the divine. And whatever it is, we need to remember the only safe reading, regardless of the author, is done with discernment.
What do you think? As always, all opinions are welcome.
Where do you draw the line with reading selections? Are some books safer than others?
*If you don't get this game show reference, you are fortunate indeed.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Media and Marriage: Round 2
In the last post I talked about marriage and how tough a subject it is to capture successfully on film. Many are comforted by the redemption in Fireproof, and I agreed that it has helped people regardless of whether I like it as art, especially since most attempts at brutal honesty put too much emphasis on the brutal part. Which movies are honest, yet show hope?
I'm expanding the list to include TV shows, as this question I can handle. I'll share a few of my favorite TV marriage counseling sessions as it were, and feel free to share yours as well. Here they are, in no particular order.
1. Breaking Bad. This is darker fare about a scientist who starts a meth lab to pay medical bills. He keeps it from his wife who naturally at first thinks he might be having an affair. Through the course of three seasons they have fought for power in their relationship, both come out fairly empty, and separated. At one point Walt (the main character) refused to move out or sign divorce papers and I began to question. Is...this...a...love...story?* Time will tell on that one, but the struggle for control is a real one and (so far) handled fairly effectively. I look forward to seeing how it turns out. Of course, it is a darker show, so maybe I don't.
2. Modern Family. I've heard many complaints that men in sitcoms are idiots. Well, sometimes we (men) are, and comedy is exaggeration. However, the old fashioned "guy screws up the world and apologizes" plot does get tired fast. That's what I like about Modern Family. Everyone screws up. The Dumpheys are one of my favorite couples to watch, because a lot of their mishaps(such as the husband saying the opposite of what his wife said about needing to lie to their children and proudly admitting it's because he wasn't listening) are relatable. Yet you have the sappy group hug moments in the end and somehow they work. Maybe it's because Phil says "Don't apologize (for crying). I love it when you're human." Played for laughs, but it works.
3. The Simpsons. Yes, the Simpsons. Again, it's comedy, and add to that satire and a cartoon. All flaws will be exaggerated, Homer's included. His just tend to get the most attention because he's the funniest. Marge is the characterization of the boring uptight nag, so I wonder why that hasn't got more complaints. Still, no matter how many screw-ups all these characters endure, these two stay together and actually seem to enjoy the ride, at least as much as two drawings can.
I'm out, but I'm sure there are more. What do you think? Did you like Fireproof? What did you enjoy about it? What TV show, movie or book has your favorite married couple?
* The "..." represent insecure pauses. Some of us hate being wrong, even when asking questions.
I'm expanding the list to include TV shows, as this question I can handle. I'll share a few of my favorite TV marriage counseling sessions as it were, and feel free to share yours as well. Here they are, in no particular order.
1. Breaking Bad. This is darker fare about a scientist who starts a meth lab to pay medical bills. He keeps it from his wife who naturally at first thinks he might be having an affair. Through the course of three seasons they have fought for power in their relationship, both come out fairly empty, and separated. At one point Walt (the main character) refused to move out or sign divorce papers and I began to question. Is...this...a...love...story?* Time will tell on that one, but the struggle for control is a real one and (so far) handled fairly effectively. I look forward to seeing how it turns out. Of course, it is a darker show, so maybe I don't.
2. Modern Family. I've heard many complaints that men in sitcoms are idiots. Well, sometimes we (men) are, and comedy is exaggeration. However, the old fashioned "guy screws up the world and apologizes" plot does get tired fast. That's what I like about Modern Family. Everyone screws up. The Dumpheys are one of my favorite couples to watch, because a lot of their mishaps(such as the husband saying the opposite of what his wife said about needing to lie to their children and proudly admitting it's because he wasn't listening) are relatable. Yet you have the sappy group hug moments in the end and somehow they work. Maybe it's because Phil says "Don't apologize (for crying). I love it when you're human." Played for laughs, but it works.
3. The Simpsons. Yes, the Simpsons. Again, it's comedy, and add to that satire and a cartoon. All flaws will be exaggerated, Homer's included. His just tend to get the most attention because he's the funniest. Marge is the characterization of the boring uptight nag, so I wonder why that hasn't got more complaints. Still, no matter how many screw-ups all these characters endure, these two stay together and actually seem to enjoy the ride, at least as much as two drawings can.
I'm out, but I'm sure there are more. What do you think? Did you like Fireproof? What did you enjoy about it? What TV show, movie or book has your favorite married couple?
* The "..." represent insecure pauses. Some of us hate being wrong, even when asking questions.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Movies and Marriage: Either Way, a Lot of Work
It's no secret to most how I feel about Fireproof and other movies labeled Christian. In evangelical circles it's kind of hard to dislike something with that label, as I'm also not a fan of feeling guilty(about potentially quenching the Holy Spirit, among other sins), so I usually respond to positive reviews with a smile and some other non verbal(possibly muttered) response. That being said, the article below has a lot of good to say about it.
http://burnsidewriters.com/2010/09/20/fireproof/
I guess if I say you can find redemption in Dinner for Schmucks,I should agree you can find it in Fireproof. I stated my thoughts in a comment to the article acknowledging that I'm not the audience and movies like this can help those who are. Before I said that, I mentioned how few movies, secular included, successfully explore marriage. Revolutionary Road got close, but it became too brutal for me to call it honest. Honestly, there's hope.
Another commenter said Marley and Me and Up were two of the best movies about marriage, even though they weren't marketed as such. I haven't seen the former, but the latter proves my point.(Warning: the following may contain spoilers if you haven't seen Up.) Up is an excellent movie, and I hope I have opportunities to watch it at least a dozen more times. However, as anyone who sees the beginning can tell, it sort of takes the "easy way out" with the theme of marriage early on in the film. Call me cynical, but it's easier to love a memory of a person than love the actual person. That being said, it's realistic for the main character to remember what he does, focused as he is on sharing adventures. It's a fine film and captures what it does of marriage well. But what about the day-to-day fights over eyes that may or may not have rolled or whose job it is to clean the toilet? That film I've yet to see.
So I end with a question: what is the best movie you've seen that explores the theme of marriage? What makes it good/what do you like about it?
http://burnsidewriters.com/2010/09/20/fireproof/
I guess if I say you can find redemption in Dinner for Schmucks,I should agree you can find it in Fireproof. I stated my thoughts in a comment to the article acknowledging that I'm not the audience and movies like this can help those who are. Before I said that, I mentioned how few movies, secular included, successfully explore marriage. Revolutionary Road got close, but it became too brutal for me to call it honest. Honestly, there's hope.
Another commenter said Marley and Me and Up were two of the best movies about marriage, even though they weren't marketed as such. I haven't seen the former, but the latter proves my point.(Warning: the following may contain spoilers if you haven't seen Up.) Up is an excellent movie, and I hope I have opportunities to watch it at least a dozen more times. However, as anyone who sees the beginning can tell, it sort of takes the "easy way out" with the theme of marriage early on in the film. Call me cynical, but it's easier to love a memory of a person than love the actual person. That being said, it's realistic for the main character to remember what he does, focused as he is on sharing adventures. It's a fine film and captures what it does of marriage well. But what about the day-to-day fights over eyes that may or may not have rolled or whose job it is to clean the toilet? That film I've yet to see.
So I end with a question: what is the best movie you've seen that explores the theme of marriage? What makes it good/what do you like about it?
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Those Funny Conservatives
I should preface this by saying this isn't about politics. Well, it's in there, but more like a supporting character if anything. So before that vein pops out in your head, tell it to relax until it hears me out. Then it can do whatever it wants.
I've been thinking about politics a lot lately, since we came back to the US after living overseas a few years. Many older, conservative leaning friends are concerned we need to care more about politics, and if we don't, we must be liberal. I'm not quite sure how that works, but there it is. This being the case, I've been surfing cnn's (biased?) website and comparing to fox news'. One complaint from my friends was that the liberal media never covers the tea party. This being the case, stories like the one below caught my eye and steered my thoughts toward the real topic of this piece.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/08/04/tea.party.express.conference/index.html?hpt=T2
I'll say this first: I'm getting tired of hearing some one throw the "r" word around like a velcro nerf ball. Fox News got the label, and it seemed a bit of a stretch. Call them biased, since all media is. But you're stretching pretty far to call that bias hateful.
That being said, the "satire" mentioned in the article is hateful. It reminds me of a joke conservatives told me with the gist of the punchline including everyone with an accent or non Western last name being a terrorist. This was punctuated with "We're not racist." Maybe not, but the joke is. And this leads me to believe (WARNING,watch for the vein now)conservatives just aren't that funny.
Mind you, I have conservative friends who have great senses of humor and crack me up daily. I am also aware that Kelsey Grammer either is a conservative or just played one in a movie, and he's funny in that full-of-himself-Sideshow-Bob kind of way. However, when the humor turns political and tries to make a point, the gloves come off revealing some ugly, ugly fingers. Generalities are common in humor, but jokes like the ones I mentioned reveal a complete lack of common sense.
Friends will mention the Jon Stewarts out there who generalize the right. That's true, and as I realize it breaks the "don't make fun of a group you're not a part of" rule, I'm finding those jokes less funny than I used to. But this is still a far cry from attacking a group based on names or skin color. Many of these people have to put up with far too much crap as it is, regardless of their beliefs or actions, and B.S. like this doesn't help.
I'm not saying the Tea Partiers need to go to Comedy College. On the contrary, I hope members who make jokes like this continue to do so and as a consequence get disassociated from the rest of the group. Jokes like this reveal a soul I had previously thought only existed in cartoon villains. Only I believe real people can learn if their issues aren't ignored and they suffer the consequences of their actions. Kick them out of the group, because there are a few things I can't stand, and a bad sense of humor is two of them.
I've been thinking about politics a lot lately, since we came back to the US after living overseas a few years. Many older, conservative leaning friends are concerned we need to care more about politics, and if we don't, we must be liberal. I'm not quite sure how that works, but there it is. This being the case, I've been surfing cnn's (biased?) website and comparing to fox news'. One complaint from my friends was that the liberal media never covers the tea party. This being the case, stories like the one below caught my eye and steered my thoughts toward the real topic of this piece.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/08/04/tea.party.express.conference/index.html?hpt=T2
I'll say this first: I'm getting tired of hearing some one throw the "r" word around like a velcro nerf ball. Fox News got the label, and it seemed a bit of a stretch. Call them biased, since all media is. But you're stretching pretty far to call that bias hateful.
That being said, the "satire" mentioned in the article is hateful. It reminds me of a joke conservatives told me with the gist of the punchline including everyone with an accent or non Western last name being a terrorist. This was punctuated with "We're not racist." Maybe not, but the joke is. And this leads me to believe (WARNING,watch for the vein now)conservatives just aren't that funny.
Mind you, I have conservative friends who have great senses of humor and crack me up daily. I am also aware that Kelsey Grammer either is a conservative or just played one in a movie, and he's funny in that full-of-himself-Sideshow-Bob kind of way. However, when the humor turns political and tries to make a point, the gloves come off revealing some ugly, ugly fingers. Generalities are common in humor, but jokes like the ones I mentioned reveal a complete lack of common sense.
Friends will mention the Jon Stewarts out there who generalize the right. That's true, and as I realize it breaks the "don't make fun of a group you're not a part of" rule, I'm finding those jokes less funny than I used to. But this is still a far cry from attacking a group based on names or skin color. Many of these people have to put up with far too much crap as it is, regardless of their beliefs or actions, and B.S. like this doesn't help.
I'm not saying the Tea Partiers need to go to Comedy College. On the contrary, I hope members who make jokes like this continue to do so and as a consequence get disassociated from the rest of the group. Jokes like this reveal a soul I had previously thought only existed in cartoon villains. Only I believe real people can learn if their issues aren't ignored and they suffer the consequences of their actions. Kick them out of the group, because there are a few things I can't stand, and a bad sense of humor is two of them.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Taking a Break
While I enjoy the irony of using a blog to say it, this seems the best way to communicate the following: I'm taking a hiatus from blogging. I'm doing this for several reasons and here's two of them.
1. I have nothing to say. It's a harsh self-judgment, but lately listening has worked much better for me. I'm leaving up the blog and the list of blogs I'm following. Check them out for some good reads. I especially enjoy Britt's blog (Drunken Mystic), Stuff Christians Like and the Church of No People. They have a great way of communicating ideas better than I ever could.
2. I care too much. I don't worry too much about comments on Facebook or Twitter, but blogs for some reason feed a concern for validation that is unnecessary. I'll be in touch using Facebook or Twitter (reeseseater), so check it out if you wish. Either way, I wish you all the best. God bless.
1. I have nothing to say. It's a harsh self-judgment, but lately listening has worked much better for me. I'm leaving up the blog and the list of blogs I'm following. Check them out for some good reads. I especially enjoy Britt's blog (Drunken Mystic), Stuff Christians Like and the Church of No People. They have a great way of communicating ideas better than I ever could.
2. I care too much. I don't worry too much about comments on Facebook or Twitter, but blogs for some reason feed a concern for validation that is unnecessary. I'll be in touch using Facebook or Twitter (reeseseater), so check it out if you wish. Either way, I wish you all the best. God bless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)