The Ark and The Dove

Helltoy

Perhaps you read about the Methodist pastor who is in hot water over denying the possibility of Hell. His argument, which is hardly a new one, proposes that Christ died for all of our sins...so why wouldn't that include everybody? How could anyone exist beyond the saving grace of Christ's sacrifice.

His conclusion actually makes for a worthwhile meditation, even if his core argument is heretical and cflawed: "But when you believe God has saved everyone, the point is, you're saved. Live like it."

So, yeah, Christ died for us...we should live with the dignity that such a death demands of us. The Renaissance scholar Harry Berger refers to this (rather tongue-in-cheekily) as "mercifixion." It's really a kind of Saving Private Ryan guilt trip that we should live better lives because the cost of our liberation was so high. "Make it worth it," Tom Hanks/Jesus says to us...and then we live the rest our lives paranoid that we might not be making it worth it.

But what I really wanted to talk about was Hell. See, the argument that the Methodist preacher seems to be advancing is that Hell is ultimate condemnation. Well...I guess it is. I'm not really going to debunk that. What I would like to question, however, is whether or not Hell might extend from God's love...and not just from his wrath.

To do so, I will construct an analogy (and keep in mind all analogies have their limits) using my action figure collection. No, I will not be making an action figure photo comic to do so. This will require your imagination.

If you will allow an analogy where creation is an action figure collection and God is the Collector, we can get things started. I realize there are flagrant problems with this. We are not toys for God's amusement...but just work with me for a second.

I have, as I've observed here before, a lot of toys. More than I know what to do with sometimes.

Many of these action figures have vastly outlived their usefulness. They are old. Their joints are wobbly. They have chipped noses, missing paint, sun damage, biodegradation. Some are missing accessories and even limbs. Worse yet, many of these figures have been rendered obsolete by newer, cooler versions of the original characters. Now, I could just throw out the old toys. Surrender them to the Dantean inferno that we witness towards the end of Toy Story 3. Melt them into nothing. Make them simply not exist because they no longer please me.

Instead, most of them are sitting in plastic bins in a closet. It is dark. They never see the light. They are packed in by the dozens. I'll probably never take them out again. I have somewhat fond memories of acquiring them, however, and memories of what they were before they were broken, battered, and beaten. So, for the moment, I derive a certain degree of pleasure knowing they are in the closet, even if they serve no actually purpose or do no one any good sitting there.

On my part, it is perhaps materialist attachment, so my motivations wouldn't be as pure as God's. But maybe God just can't bring himself to obliterate His own creation right away. Sure, there are arguments that Hell exists as a means of assuring justice. Those who have been really, really evil might deserve torment. Virgil scolds Dante for pitying the souls in Hell. They deserve to suffer, the poet is reminded. I can see that point. I can also see how a soul in Heaven would pity the damned -- we are, after all, to love our enemies.

If Hell exists not just as a place of judicial punishment but as God's closet, could this help justify why an all-loving God allows souls to rot in Hell? It doesn't necessarily bring God pleasure to know the soul exists in a place of torment, but perhaps the displeasure it would bring God to destroy something He loved to make is simply too distasteful?

Anxiety of the Will

I was watching an interesting video the other day (I wish I could have started this post with "I was reading an interesting book the other day") about user interaction with streaming media.
A study group gave four households streaming technologies to use in place of cable. Consistently, the households had two complaints: 1) they found the user interfaces to be daunting (predictable and not as interesting to me), and 2) they found the responsibility of choice to make viewing unappealing (surprising and therefore more interesting to me).

As someone who depends on Netflix and Youtube for video entertainment, I found myself empathizing with this latter issue. Some of the households indicated that they would rather channel surf until they found programming that they would watch. There was a sense that choice required effort, and that television viewing was a pastime meant for relaxation -- and therefore the avoidance of effort.

I can see this argument to a certain extent, although I'm not sure it is my situation.

For me, much of the anxiety of picking a show is like the anxiety of picking a seat on a bus or in a class. This could simply be my own personal anxiety and something that I should alleviate with the crude, blunt force of medication, but my impression at these times is that choice projects a statement about myself. By choosing to watch a program, a fashion an image of my personality, likes, dislikes, and, in this current age of entertainment, possibly even my morality.

If one is just channel surfing and lands on a program that has questionable material, one can always apologize: "It's not my fault! This is all that is on!"

It's not like I decided what that station was going to air (or to cable) that night. My television is simply the passive recipient of a programming director's choices. I can't be held completely liable for what comes out of that screen...only my response to it. The television, in this sense, is almost like our id. When something vile crops up, it is like a temptation -- we aren't responsible for the temptation, just whether we dwell on it.

Streaming video over the Internet is different. We become the program managers.

If we pause for a moment on some questionable program on our televisions, we can at the very weakest excuse ourselves with the fact that the channel we are currently on sits between two other channels. That is, we are merely passing through and made a brief stop: "I had just been watching a news piece on politics and was on my way to the channel showing that documentary on coral reefs, but this movie about Amazon warrior women just happened to be stuck in between the two channels. Here, let me move along."

There would be know reason to think that Amazon warrior women would be waiting in between. Sometimes that channel has some very interesting articles.

If, however, Amazon warrior women show up over my Netflix stream, it can only be because I clicked on a video that included them. There is no one else that can be held accountable.

Now, I'm not watching Amazon warrior women movies.

At least not on a regular basis.

But you catch my drift.

If I decide to try out a new comedy series and it turns out to be stupid, vulgar, or crude, then I was the one who picked it. If I pick a movie that's boring, I was the one that picked it. The anxiety is that I look stupid, vulgar, crude, or boring by association. For me, at least, the burden of selecting a program is not simply indecisiveness. It's what that decision says about me that's the problem.

It's almost as if Netflix would be better off having some kind of autostreaming feature that simulates cable programming. Instead of just clicking through their library, it could have an interface of thirty "channels" with a series of shows being livestreamed in a cycle determined by a programming manager.

The Greatest Theatrical Endeavour of Our Age

If you haven't yet, check out the videos for The Spidey Project.

The Spidey Project was an experimental theater performance in which a group of actors scripted, choreographed, produced, and performed a Spider-man musical in thiry days and with a zero dollar budget.

In part, the project was a satirization of the official Spider-man musical, which has been doomed, plagued, and indefinitely delayed by setbacks and injuries.

Nevertheless, The Spidey project has a lot of heart and is earnest in its attempt to capture the spirit of the Spider-man character. It's at times a little more high school musical than it is Les Miserables, but that's part of the charm and purpose. Chances are, the audience of this play was more entertained by the production in an intimate theatre venue than any audience will be entertained by the Ringling Bros. spectacle of the official production.

And I'd venture to say the audience in the video was more than just entertained.

Unfortunately, the Spidey Project was a one-shot deal due to intellectual property laws...so Youtube will be your only chance to see it, at least until someone finds a way to give the performers a cease and desist order.

Ambivalence on the Bullying Video

One of the latest Internet memes is the video of a kid body-slamming a bully.

It's causing the anti-bullying cause to swell up again after its celebrity heyday with the Star Wars Girl.

But my opinion on the body slam is mixed. I certainly don't think the ends justify the means, but if physical retaliation ended the bullying without escalating the violence then it seems like self-defense pure and simple.

The real issues as I see it are 1) had the bully suffered serious injury, the victim would have become the perpetrator, and 2) bullies often retaliate...with a group of friends in tow.

We like to imagine that wholloping the bully leads to a happy ending, probably from the fantasy wish-fulfillment provided when Ralphie finally takes down Farkus in A Christmas Story.

I'm sure that fictional account works sometimes...but not always. Sometimes the bullies are like Tusken Raiders--easily frightened, but they soon return in greater numbers.

I was actually thinking the other day about what I'll tell my kids if they are bullied.

As someone whose childhood was pretty much defined by the phenomenon, it worries me. I don't want my kid thinking he's a wimp or a coward for not retaliating, but, as I learned from experience, retaliation usually backfires unless you are bigger, faster, and stronger than the other guy. And they don't always respect you for trying to defend yourself, either.

The kid in this video is twice the size of the bully. There's no question who would win in a fair fight, and the bully only gets away with bullying on the patience of the victim.

I can see the justification for defending himself. And at least he did it without bringing guns to school.

Still, our Master calls us to turn the other cheek.

It would have been preferable had the victim been able to endure his suffering peacefully...but I don't think that makes it inherently sinful for a kid to resist abuse.

We are also called to correct sinners...and the bully acted as if this was the only correction he would comprehend.

Consistency Is All I Ask

I'm no political scientist. We all know that.

So I'm trying to make sense of the logic of the Obama administration's current position on Libya.

Last time I checked, Obama prided himself on being opposed to the invasion of Iraq to oust a tyrant.

Now, Clinton has pushed for us to participate in the ousting of the Libyan tyrant.

In the case of Iraq, Iraq had given us plenty of cause to invade. Saddam practically begged us to invade. he defied sanctions. He gave the world the runaround when it came to inspections. And we had directly fought a land battle with him in recent history. And yet that was a military action we were not supposed to take.

So what has Libya done to us lately?

I am in no way expressing support for Qaddafi...I'm just saying that I'm unclear on how Obama will justify us sticking our nose in this case, which has practically nothing to do with us, as opposed to Iraq, in which we had a direct stake as the country holding Saddam's leash.

Personally, I'm all for America serving the great Herculean Tyrant Tamer. That just doesn't seem to be the liberal position...so I'm not sure what the difference is now.

Is it just that Libya's revolution has been more publicly successful than the resistance in Iraq? Does that simply make it an easier overthrow to take part in?

And, another thought that's been brewing...isn't this precisely the kind of revolutionary domino effect that Bush predicted would happen as a result of liberating Iraq? So...in a way...does supporting some of these revolutions justify Bush's approach to Middle Eastern affairs?

Is the Hebrew Bible Anti-Imperialist?

I'm framing this thesis as a question because it's the kind of thing that argues mostly through absence, so I could probably be debunked pretty quickly.

I was reading some blog posts about violence in the Koran and, naturally, conversation attempted to compare violence in the Old Testament to violence in the Islamic holy book. It occurred to me, however, that the Old Testament seems perhaps surprisingly anti-Imperialist when compared to other major works from the ancient world.

The Hebrew Bible is largely the story of Israelity occupation of the Holy Land...and that Holy Land seems to have fairly precise borders. God does not appear to give the Promised Land to the Jews as some kind of staging ground from which they will launch a global conquest.

Early on, the Jews have to do some conquering to claim the Holy Land, but there are limits to what they are given. For the most part, Old Testament violence seems primarily geared towards preserving national identity and keeping Israel out of harms way. It is about maintaining the Chosen People in an isolationist utopia, not about dominating other nations on an religious crusade or quest to glorify God.

When conquest and expansion does appear in the Old Testament, it is generally negative. Other nations actively seek to dominate, often leading to ancient Jewish suffering as the Jews are typically the ones being colonized (or resisting invasion). Esther might be an exception here, but it still seems as though Jewish independence would be preferable and safer than Jews depending on the mercy of a benevolent emperor.

The closest passage that I could find that seemed to advocate Jewish imperialism (after a quick Google search, I will confess) is Isaiah 60:

10Foreigners shall rebuild your walls, and their kings shall be your attendants; Though I struck you in my wrath, yet in my good will I have shown you mercy.

11Your gates shall stand open constantly; day and night they shall not be closed But shall admit to you the wealth of nations, and their kings, in the vanguard.

12 For the people or kingdom shall perish that does not serve you; those nations shall be utterly destroyed.

That doesn't sound too friendly.

An Augustinian re-interpretation of these passages would most likely require us to read it figuratively. The point is not that the U.N. should crush any enemy to the nation of Israel, but, rather, all nations are drawn to Christ or His Church. We now read these passages as a call to evangelize, not to conquer. We read the punishment for nations opposed to Christ as spiritual suffering...or even the self-inflicted turmoil that arises from a lack of true social justice. We don't believe that God sends natural disasters against nations that do not worship him, and we certainly don't think our role is to be God's scourge.

Even so, this passage, in its original context, still doesn't seem to really be about Jewish conquest.

First of all, the immediate literal context is a message of hope for a conquered and oppressed people: "The children of your oppressors shall come, bowing low before you; All those who despised you shall fall prostrate at your feet."

This is not the voice of God granting the Jews a manifest destiny. It's a kindly father telling his awkward and depressed daughter to keep her chin up. She might have embarrassed herself at the recent dance, but she's still the prettiest girl at school, and all the boys will be lining up to ask her out some day.

Rhetorically, Isaiah sounds a little hyperbolic, if read literally.

And it certainly isn't a call to take action against other nations: "I, the LORD, will swiftly accomplish these things when their time comes." The Jews are called to reform themselves and put their faith and trust in God...not to arm themselves for violent revolt or take pre-emptive strikes against future aggressors.

This is a post that perhaps requires more thought...but I thought I'd get conversation rolling.

A Paradox...a Paradox...

People keep telling me that job-hunting is a full-time job...so what does it mean that I'm job hunting while still at the tail-end of a full-time job?

Just to give you all a quick update...neither Isabel nor I have managed to line up gainful employment for next semester.

Usually, there is a small surge of last minute positions that open up in what is sometimes referred to as the "spring market." The surge this year is more like the lapping of a wave in a kiddie-pool.

This means that Isabel and I have started targeting generalist positions at community colleges and high-end boarding schools. While I certainly think we would enjoy working in such positions, they wouldn't necessarily make the most of our research expertise.

If you know any undergraduates thinking about going to graduate school in the humanities, feel free to use us as a cautionary tale.

Pop Culture Update

As Isabel and I line up our potential ducks in probable rows and try to keep on top of our lesson plans and grading, we've still managed to sneak in some entertainment. So here are some Terptudinal lightning reviews for you...

1. Paranormal Activity 2 -- Scary movies about haunted houses might fall under the category of unhealthy curiousity -- especially when they are shot entirely using voyeuristic cinematography. PA 2 is a "prequel" to the pretty creepy cult classic Paranormal Activity, the low budget film about a co-habitating couple who decide to record their experience of haunting using an expensive camcorder. The first movie, which is fiction, was pretty darned scary. I've never been more disturbed watching a static screen of two people lying in bed. PA2 ups the ante by having an entire family haunted and by using not just a camcorder, but a series of security cameras and an occasional camcorder. At first, this seems like pretty boring camera work...and all the three-quarter aerial shots do, at times, feel a bit like watching The Sims: The Movie. All that being said, the move was so scary that Isabel literally injured herself watching it. No joke. It was like one of those old-timey B-Movie warnings come true: "Do not watch this movie if you have a heart condition or...are accident prone." Not the most thought-provoking movie, but worth a watch if you like to be freaked out by scary things. One thing that does bother me about these movies, though, is that the series does perhaps represent demonic powers as being excessively powerful without every showing an equally or superior "good" supernatural power. I'm hoping that a third movie might either feature a successful exorcist and/or angelic balance to the demonic forces at work in these movies.

2. The Social Network -- Isabel and I enjoyed this movie, and it was certainly well constructed, but we had some issues. Primarily, it is a fairly humorless satire. Well, that might not be fair. There are some funny bits...but they are mostly overwhelmed by depressing depictions of higher education, West Coast decadence, and jealousy that none of us are as rich as Mark Zuckerberg. Harvard comes off looking absolutely horrible in this movie. Not that I mind. I've always sour graped that I wouldn't really have wanted to go to Harvard. The only good thing that comes out of Harvard in this film: you can network with rich undergraduates who will give you thousands and thousands of dollars so you can start a business. Seriously. The rest of Harvard is sex parties, vindictive old-money frat boys, sex parties with drugs, classes where you don't learn anything, and girl-on-girl public make-out sessions for the erotic pleasure of frat boys on drugs at sex parties. Harvard administration comes off as snobbish, out-of-touch, and stifling of creativity. Absolutely none of the characters come out clean in the movie, although you perhaps have the most pity for the fictionalized Mark Zuckerberg, who ends the movie (spoiler) looking something like a modern day Uncle Scrooge meets Michael Cera...so, really, nothing like either. The movie concludes with a sense of desolation, loss, broken friendships and promises...but I'm not really sure it ends in tragedy. Tragedy would require catharsis -- pity and fear. It's hard to pity and fear for a billionaire. So, in the end, we're left with the idea that people are awful, but that you can be a Harvard drop out who surrounds himself with drug users, men who exploit women, and all around jerks, and still become the youngest, most successful entrepreneur in the world. I'm sure this is not the point I was supposed to take from the movie, but that's how it came off to me. I watched a bunch of people put Roman orgies to shame, and all become millionaires. No "real" conseuqences. Are we supposed to feel bad that the Mark Zuckerberg character loses his best friend? Really? Like pretty much everyone doesn't lose touch with their college buddies at some point anyway? Only the rest of us usually don't become the head of a billion dollar company. Those characters should be feeling bad for me!

3. Braid -- This one is an indie video game. I became totally addicted to it about four days ago, and now I have Isabel hooked on it. It's a puzzle game in which each level requires the player to manipulate time, either to rewind it, slow it down, or split it into two simultaneous continuums. It's one of the most clever puzzle games I've ever played, while also being a visually stunning parody of classic games like Super Mario Brothers, Donkey Kong, and Elevator Action. The game does get a little stuffy by depicting its game mechanics as a metaphor for human emotions related to time, like loss and regret. The real pleasure of the game comes from the experience of solving puzzles that at first seem as impossible as changing the past...and are usually solved by doing just that. I'll admit that the standard ending of the game is a bit of a let down. It might even be a downer, but I don't think I understood it well enough to know -- and I have me a PhD!

4. Ninjago! -- Lego has just released a new line of Ninja vs. Skeleton toys. There's some kind of card game involved and a plotline. I don't really know much about that...but I do know there are few things cooler than little Legoman Ninja. I snagged a basic "ninja ambush catapault" set for half price at Borders today and spent the evening flipping my ninja across the kitchen table at Isabel for a good part of the evening. Fun was had by all.