commodity vs. gift: the theology of NIN

I recently downloaded the new Nine Inch Nails album “the slip” for free.  Living in a post Napster era downloading a full length album over the internet for free usually means it was done illegally but in this case Trent Reznor, the creative force behind Nine Inch Nails is giving away his latest album.

Philip Kenneson’s book Life on the Vine contains a chapter titled, “Cultivating Love in the Midst of Market-Style Exchanges”.  In it he explores our consumerist culture and the many ways in which such a mindset hinders our ability to understand and express love.  For Kenneson God’s love is unmerited and other directed while market-style exchanges put a price on everything and promote self interest.  It is through this lens that I started to think about the profound statement Trent Reznor is making by giving away his music for free.  This action embodies the kind of love, which Kenneson calls Christians to cultivate in the world.

Jesus often ministered to the prostitutes, the lepers, and the widows .  It is through this ministry to those on the margins of society that we understand something of God’s character.  Market-style exchanges are a significant obstacle to this type of ministry because often times the receiving party has nothing to give in return.  This is where a gift is needed because as Kester Brewin states, “a gift always looks for the empty hand”.  So now that I have received the gift of music from Trent I will explore the many ways in which I can give my own gifts to others.

Into Great Silence|Is Spirituality Communal?

In 1984 Philip Gröning wrote to the Carthusian order of monks to make a movie about them.  They responded that they were not ready.

Sixteen years later they told Philip they were ready.  Considering the pace
of life shown in the film, I would say Philip got a speedy reply.

The film is called Into Great Silence and the opening shot is roughly 15 minutes of a monk in his cell praying silently. That is it, no sound, no score, no fancy lighting, just everyday life for some of the most ascetic monks in the world.

I was discussing this film with a friend who has been an overseas missionary for many years and she was offended that the monks did not interact with the outside world.  To her, it was selfish of the monks to devote their whole lives to a personal spirituality.

The reality of the Carthusian monks is actually quite the opposite.

The monks devotion, their prayer, the fact that they get up in the middle of the night, every night to sing Matins and Lauds is actually in service to the rest of the Body of Christ.  I have very rarely gotten up in the middle of the night to pray or go to a church service.  The Carthusian monks know this and that is why they do it for me.

So in that sense their spirituality is not personal but is completely communal.

Poor Reflection

This is a visual meditation on 1 Corinthians 13:12

A Lady and her Rattle

Theo-Drama, this friday

Hope you can join us

SuperBowl Sausage

Okay, Really, I am working on posting some stuff about movies, but in the meantime this is how I prepare for the Superbowl

A New Year, a New Hope (at actually writing on this thing)

If you are reading this I am impressed.  My last post was circa 6 months ago and my list of movies watched but not written about just kept getting longer.  Anyway I think I was trying to formulate my thoughts too much and come up with some polished ideas, which doesn’t lend itself to the blogging format.  So, in this new year I will try to write my ideas as they come with some room for reflection but a priority on getting my ideas down.  So without further ado…

Why Chick-Flicks are a good thing

The other day I was knocked out of a six player poker game by the youngest person at the table, he just turned 11. After swallowing my humble pie I joined my wife and the rest of the group that had recently begun watching the Notebook.

The Notebook is a wonderful example of the genre of film affectionately known as “Chick-Flick”. It is the heart-wrenching tale of forbidden love that transcends class, time, and provides hope that true love can create miracles. The description is purposefully vague because if you haven’t seen it you should. The description is also purposefully cheesy, not unlike the movie.

As a man I try to distance myself from emotionality in films and focus on the artistic or the representational because that stuff is more important, right? During the movie I noticed myself taking some deep breaths to help clear my throat, which had become inexplicable choked up. It struck me that I was having an emotional reaction to a story, but had been so conditioned to repress it that I unconsciously acted against it. As a married man I am trying to be both more aware of my emotions and also better at communicating them to my spouse. In this way I see chick-flicks as helping me practice what it feels like to have emotions, to embrace a God-created thing and to realize how that fits into us being people.

It also made me think about chick-flicks within the Bible. The story of Ruth immediately jumps to mind. Nice woman, down on her luck and then this hunky Boaz shows up to be her kinsman-redeemer, and they live happily ever after. Or maybe Jacob and his years of service to earn the hand of Rachel in marriage, only to be tricked and then devote another 7 years to marry his true love.

I guess what I am trying to say is that maybe chick-flicks are a good thing, they are meant to elicit certain emotions in us and that any theology of film should take them just as seriously as those artsy-fartsy movies that no-one watches.

Borat

Jak sie masz?

Borat is glorious moviefilm about Kazakh journalist names Borat Sagdiyev who travel America for make cultural learnings to benefit nation of Kazakhstan.

Throughout the film Borat breaks most social rules known and even a few that aren’t none until they are broken. These actions can be considered offensive but are in most cases a critique on contemporary culture (him breaking all the stuff in the antique shop would be an example of him just being a jack-ass, no real social commentary there).

One such example of contemporary culture that he critiques is that of the Church. His attendance at an old fashioned Pentecostal revival aside an interesting encounter takes place at the stately home of a southerner who had the misfortune of inviting Borat over to dinner. In attendance at the dinner are Borat, the host couple, a pastor, his wife and another couple. The formal dinner goes well enough until Borat’s guest arrives. She is a short, plump, 40-ish, African American prostitute. Borat ushers her into the living room only to be escorted out of the house despite his protests of, “What about dessert?” (you hear someone say “I’ve called the Sheriff” in the background).

This scene struck me for two reasons.

First, a pastor was one of the people that ushered Borat out of the house. Wasn’t it Jesus that dined with prostitutes much to the chagrin of his Pharisaical hosts (check out the second half of Luke 7). Granted I cannot say that I would not have reacted the same way but it is too bad that we have embraced the social norms of this world so much that we do not react the way Jesus did.

Second, Borat and Luenell leave the fancy dinner and enjoy a wonderful evening together. They go out, they dance, they ride a mechanical bull, at the end of the night, Borat politely walks her to the front door, and they each go home to their own bed. He does not have sex with her and yet they still enjoyed the evening together. Again granted that she is actually an actor and not a prostitute but they really pulled it off in the house and I don’t think the reality or un-reality of her profession changes the story Borat is telling.

Borat dined with radical guests and affirmed the intrinsic value of a human despite their position in society, sounds pretty Christ-like to me. Please also observe the difference between being Christ-like and being a Christ figure, in the first it is a description of actions and in the second those actions lead towards a larger goal which I do not see Borat having.

Blood Diamond

Blood Diamond tells the story of Solomon, a local fisherman from Sierra Leone, and Archer, a white Rhodesian diamond smuggler, and the enormous pink diamond that is their ticket out of the civil war of the 90’s. With its fair share of Rebels, smugglers and violence the film portrays the struggles of an African country in the midst of a bloody conflict. It also does an excellent job of contrasting the conditions in which diamonds are harvested and the world in which they are enjoyed.

The first thing to realize in such a discussion is that each society or culture experiences and interprets suffering differently.

For example one of the subplots of the film is the political and humanitarian struggle to reduce the amount of “conflict” diamonds that are sold around the world to fund violence and oppression. This could be considered the “Western” approach. In it there is a direct link to the money the Rebels receive from diamonds and their ability to purchase arms and fund rebellion, therefore by cutting off the flow of money you also stop the conflict. The shortcomings to this line of argumentation are voiced in the movie when people talk about how “First it was slaves, then it was oil and now it is diamonds”, the exploitation of Africa’s resources is not tied to a single resource but rather the way in which all of its resources are viewed by all parties involved.

In contrast to this the “African” view can be understood by a line that is repeated several times throughout the film, “T.I.A.”. This Is Africa. Or in other words, whatever we have or whatever we do does not mean a thing because this is Africa and people will always be exploited and therefore suffering is not something we have the luxury of living without.

So we have two responses to suffering: the first a rational solution to the problems of Africa, the second a lived response to violence and oppression. One might just site this as an example of how two different cultures view suffering but I want more out of it than a simple both/and. I want to hold the two in tension and I think I can do that when I view the situation in light of Jesus’ ministry and His suffering. In His ministry He came to heal the sick and proclaim justice to the oppressed and yet at the same time these things were not fulfilled without His painful crucifixion. If we only have the ministry than Jesus is a good teacher. If we only have the crucifixion than He is a Martyr. Only when we have both is Jesus the Son of God. In this way Jesus response to and experience of suffering can act like a bridge in situations such as these.