or, Beyond Cesar Romero & Jack Nicholson
"Evil may entice man, but it cannot become man." --John Steinbeck (I think? and this is paraphrased...)
Why do I like the Joker so much? Less admiration than fascination and pity... Why do I feel that I can relate to him in some way?
The Joker is a person who has been annihilated by nihilism, by a (un-)seed of de-creation from someplace-or-other.
He does not seek personal gain--money, fame... in what terms could he define 'gain'? What good could it, or anything, do him? As the movie suggests, some people just want to watch the world burn.
This inner voice is what I imagine to be the 'accuser' who tempts Jesus in the desert as he purifies his motives for his mission: not a being bent on domination, but an idea--the idea of domination itself. This accuser never questions Jesus' identity, only his motives: must he do good things good ways? What are good ways?
The Joker similarly 'corrupts' another character in the movie simply by nudging him toward vengeful vigilante justice, something that couldn't have been far from his mind beforehand. The unseed is always there; should one dig to sow it, one will find it already planted. There is no need.
The Joker has no identity: no name, no relations, no known history. Heath Ledger may be the only actor (that I know of) to have successfully played the role of Satan, and I mean that as a compliment.
Demons (i.e. evil) will end up in the Abyss (the Chaos?) because it is what they are building. The only thing they want is to destroy God's work. It seems as though being sentenced to such a place as is ordained for them would be the outcome of their success.
This is at first glance a different tack than C. S. Lewis takes, and also John Steinbeck, that most of man's failures are attempted shortcuts to love. In this view, the demon's ideal would be to be loved. Which is more destructive: to tempt someone to seek love in shortsighted and cheap ways, and so to become agents of destruction, or to tempt them not to want to be loved at all, to let their desires be numbed, and so to become Destruction?
Sunday, July 20, 2008
The Gospel According to Batman
or, Why Everything Must Change, Dark-Knight-Style
or, Why So Serious?
[I'll elaborate later when I have more time, when I've seen it again, and/or when more other people have seen it so I don't feel bad about posting spoilers.]
What wondrous love is this, that caused the Lord of bliss
to bear the dreadful curse for my soul, for my soul,
to bear the dreadful curse for my soul?
[for the last few days I've been preparing a solo music presentation for church; I'm playing and singing an arrangement of the hymn "What Wondrous Love Is This" that I worked out for the occasion. I just did it in the first service within the last hour, and the second is coming up soon. I say this here because it influenced the way I watched Batman.]
We do not need a better world. We need better people. We only need a better world because it would create better people.
We do not need less violence. We need to be less violent. We only need less violence because it causes us to be violent: growing up in it, becoming accustomed to it, and becoming angry or vengeful as a result are the causes of violence. It is a vicious cycle, and perhaps a chicken-egg situation: does it matter which came first? They are really two sides of the same coin, the individual and the systemic; that's part of my point. But I choose to phrase it this way because I have more say over myself as an individual than I do over society as a whole.
We are the problem. Remove evil from the world, and we are still here. Remove all evil-doers, and no one is left. Remove the most vicious ones, and others will take the opportunity to fill their places.
People do not become evil (or insane) through the coercion of something outside themselves. All it takes is a little push to coax out what's already there.
Is the same true of goodness?
At one point the movie made me feel that I need to do something to help solve the world's problems, to make it better. As it progressed, though, I felt that better devices and problem-solving techniques--weapons against weaponry--are only one side of it. What we really need is to make better people. At the very least, we need to let people be better; we need it to be possible. Timshel must be made available.
How?
This isn't a question I felt that the movie addressed. It may not have even raised this issue, but it caused me to think about it. How do humans get better? Do we need some outside help? Is it available?
To be continued.
or, Why So Serious?
[I'll elaborate later when I have more time, when I've seen it again, and/or when more other people have seen it so I don't feel bad about posting spoilers.]
What wondrous love is this, that caused the Lord of bliss
to bear the dreadful curse for my soul, for my soul,
to bear the dreadful curse for my soul?
[for the last few days I've been preparing a solo music presentation for church; I'm playing and singing an arrangement of the hymn "What Wondrous Love Is This" that I worked out for the occasion. I just did it in the first service within the last hour, and the second is coming up soon. I say this here because it influenced the way I watched Batman.]
We do not need a better world. We need better people. We only need a better world because it would create better people.
We do not need less violence. We need to be less violent. We only need less violence because it causes us to be violent: growing up in it, becoming accustomed to it, and becoming angry or vengeful as a result are the causes of violence. It is a vicious cycle, and perhaps a chicken-egg situation: does it matter which came first? They are really two sides of the same coin, the individual and the systemic; that's part of my point. But I choose to phrase it this way because I have more say over myself as an individual than I do over society as a whole.
We are the problem. Remove evil from the world, and we are still here. Remove all evil-doers, and no one is left. Remove the most vicious ones, and others will take the opportunity to fill their places.
People do not become evil (or insane) through the coercion of something outside themselves. All it takes is a little push to coax out what's already there.
Is the same true of goodness?
At one point the movie made me feel that I need to do something to help solve the world's problems, to make it better. As it progressed, though, I felt that better devices and problem-solving techniques--weapons against weaponry--are only one side of it. What we really need is to make better people. At the very least, we need to let people be better; we need it to be possible. Timshel must be made available.
How?
This isn't a question I felt that the movie addressed. It may not have even raised this issue, but it caused me to think about it. How do humans get better? Do we need some outside help? Is it available?
To be continued.
Monday, July 7, 2008
A New Kind of Jesus, Part I
or, tentatively, Liberation From Metanarratives: Jesus & The Postmodern Condition
The purpose of this post is mainly to sort through some of the ideas I've come across recently, primarily from Brian McLaren's "The Secret Message of Jesus" (which naturally draws from a number of other sources, which are cited in the bibliography). I'd don't want to make too many assumptions here, especially since people reading this might not make them. I will focus on one speech Jesus gave in particular, known as the Sermon on the Mount. Whether Jesus delivered these exact words all at once or whether they're a summary of his teachings in general, they stand as a cohesive representation of his message. Whether Jesus even said anything like this at all, or whether there even was a historical Jesus, these words came from somewhere; regardless of how the words got onto the page, there is a storyteller or group of verbal crafstmen at work, and I'll examine their story with suspension of disbelief, entering its world the same as I would with any story, fiction or nonfiction.
A question as a starting point: To whom is Jesus speaking, and when? He's speaking to an audience primarily consisting of Jews in the Roman Empire, around 30 AD or so. For the last few centuries, the Jews have been occupied by one empire after another. Rome has been in power for nearly a century at this point. According to McLaren, "The Jewish people probably felt about their occupiers the way Palestinians generally feel today about the Israelis." Even worse, the Roman emperors declare themselves to be gods, and the Jews are devout monotheists. It seems impossible for them to live peaceably under such oppressive conditions. By the time Jesus gives his speech, several groups have formed with different perspectives on this problem.
The Zealots believe that the reason the Jews are oppressed is that they are cowardly. They should instigate a revolution against the government through violence, perhaps by eliminating one Roman official at time. As with the brave kings and judges described in the Jewish sacred texts, God would give the Jews the power to defeat their enemy if they had the courage to stand up to them. (Regardless of your personal beliefs about God and the Jewish Scriptures, it is worth considering their importance to the perspectives of Jesus' listeners, as well as to Jesus himself.)
The Herodians believe that Rome is far too powerful for any kind of rebellion to be successful. The group therefore supports the regional puppet ruler Herod, at least outwardly. The only sensible thing to do is to make the most of the situation by cooperating and using the empire for personal gain. Tax collectors would fall into this category, using the government to extort from individuals by charging them more than is necessary and pocketing the difference.
The Essenes believe that the empire is too corrupt to be redeemed or influenced in any lasting positive way, and leaving it behind is the only way to please God. They have established communes in the desert where they isolate themselves from culture and try to live in a way that is pleasing to God on their own. Perhaps they hoped their communities would serve as an example to those still in the empire, one which could not be created inside it. (In this way, the Amish Christians today seem comparable to the Essenes.)
Finally, the Pharisees believe that God has not saved the Jews (note the use of the term save, and the meaning it would hold for these people after centuries of living in corrupt and oppressive societies) because the Jews themselves have been corrupt; they have disobeyed God's teachings so extensively that he has abandoned them until they clean up their act. This view is understandable, as Israel's prophets (speaking for God) had predicted as much before the occupations began, and confirmed this assessment when they did begin. The Pharisees believed that more rigorous adherence to the dictates of the rules for living described in their sacred texts would enable God to send the prophesied Messiah to liberate them from their oppressors. It is understandable why they so despised tax collectors, prostitutes, and other low-lifes: in the Pharisees' view, these are the people who are primarily responsible for the Messiah's delay.
Those in Jesus' audience who do not strictly fall into one of the aforementioned groups are certainly familiar with their views, and are perhaps still choosing their own response or merely going about their daily lives as best they can, not particularly motivated to do anything about their predicament. As they listen, they will want to discern with which group Jesus aligns himself; he is well aware of this.
I think I am finally ready to approach the text, as given in the Gospel of Matthew, chapters 5-7 (the TNIV translation.)
5:1—2:
Now when Jesus saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, and he began to teach them.
I imagine a sort of inner circle near Jesus, with a large number of people listening from a greater distance. I don't know how easy it is for them to hear him; if they have to strain to listen, maybe they'll pay better attention. It is natural in this era for teachers to sit and students to stand, further reinforcing the practice of attentiveness in the audience (and indicating that the teacher is relaxed and comfortable).
5:3—12:
He said:
Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called children of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
If I had to make a list of All-Time Best Attention-Getting Openings, this would probably be #1. From the first declarative statement—blessed are the poor—I formulate a response: No, they aren't! Obviously the rich are blessed. The powerful, the capable, those in charge are the ones who are blessed. Where is he going with this?
Jesus refers to something called "the kingdom of heaven." Jesus is typically very evasive when asked to define "the kingdom of heaven"; he responds using enigmatic metaphors like, "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed," and "The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field." Given the scrutiny the Roman empire gives to any challenge to its power, it would seem wise for him to avoid speaking too openly about anything involving allegiance to a different kingdom; indeed, he is eventually sentenced to capital punishment on suspicion of plotting to lead an uprising of the Jews. Perhaps the closest he comes to defining "the kingdom of heaven" directly comes later in this speech, in the section known as the Lord's Prayer or the Kingdom Prayer; he places it in apposition with the phrase "[God's] will be done, on earth as it is in heaven," which is therefore modifying or compared to the prior phrase "[God's] kingdom come." Anyway, suffice to say that in the moment of hearing the speech, the phrase is not familiar to most listeners, and none of them have a nailed-down idea of its meaning. They will have to look to the context in order to determine the meaning, as do I.
Jesus elsewhere defines his Good News (gospel, evangel) like this: "The kingdom of God is at hand!" Good News is a political term, usually referring to the announcement of a great victory, or that a new ruler has come into power. It is apparently very important to him, and so I remain interested in determining what it's all about.
This first section of his speech, known as the Beatitudes (a term referring to blessing, which is the recurring phrase or anaphora in his opening), draws me in as a listener as he transitions into a personal address, from "blessed are the..." to "blessed are you when people insult you..." For many of us listening, this is probably what we consider to be our experience; he even compares us to the prophets! The implication of his pronouncements of blessing is that we should be those things which are blessed (poor in spirit, meek, merciful, etc.). I will not go any deeper into the Beatitudes here except to note that various groups of listeners may have been satisfied, angered, and perplexed by different blessings, and if they weren't paying close attention before, they are now.
I am getting pretty tired, and I will pick up next time with "You are the salt of the earth." There is much more to say here that has been clarifying for me in understanding passages and progressions that did not make much sense to me before, and I do intend to say it.
One question to prime you for it: Jesus says, "If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also." Why the right cheek? (Why would someone slap you on the right cheek rather than the left? How would they do it?)
The purpose of this post is mainly to sort through some of the ideas I've come across recently, primarily from Brian McLaren's "The Secret Message of Jesus" (which naturally draws from a number of other sources, which are cited in the bibliography). I'd don't want to make too many assumptions here, especially since people reading this might not make them. I will focus on one speech Jesus gave in particular, known as the Sermon on the Mount. Whether Jesus delivered these exact words all at once or whether they're a summary of his teachings in general, they stand as a cohesive representation of his message. Whether Jesus even said anything like this at all, or whether there even was a historical Jesus, these words came from somewhere; regardless of how the words got onto the page, there is a storyteller or group of verbal crafstmen at work, and I'll examine their story with suspension of disbelief, entering its world the same as I would with any story, fiction or nonfiction.
A question as a starting point: To whom is Jesus speaking, and when? He's speaking to an audience primarily consisting of Jews in the Roman Empire, around 30 AD or so. For the last few centuries, the Jews have been occupied by one empire after another. Rome has been in power for nearly a century at this point. According to McLaren, "The Jewish people probably felt about their occupiers the way Palestinians generally feel today about the Israelis." Even worse, the Roman emperors declare themselves to be gods, and the Jews are devout monotheists. It seems impossible for them to live peaceably under such oppressive conditions. By the time Jesus gives his speech, several groups have formed with different perspectives on this problem.
The Zealots believe that the reason the Jews are oppressed is that they are cowardly. They should instigate a revolution against the government through violence, perhaps by eliminating one Roman official at time. As with the brave kings and judges described in the Jewish sacred texts, God would give the Jews the power to defeat their enemy if they had the courage to stand up to them. (Regardless of your personal beliefs about God and the Jewish Scriptures, it is worth considering their importance to the perspectives of Jesus' listeners, as well as to Jesus himself.)
The Herodians believe that Rome is far too powerful for any kind of rebellion to be successful. The group therefore supports the regional puppet ruler Herod, at least outwardly. The only sensible thing to do is to make the most of the situation by cooperating and using the empire for personal gain. Tax collectors would fall into this category, using the government to extort from individuals by charging them more than is necessary and pocketing the difference.
The Essenes believe that the empire is too corrupt to be redeemed or influenced in any lasting positive way, and leaving it behind is the only way to please God. They have established communes in the desert where they isolate themselves from culture and try to live in a way that is pleasing to God on their own. Perhaps they hoped their communities would serve as an example to those still in the empire, one which could not be created inside it. (In this way, the Amish Christians today seem comparable to the Essenes.)
Finally, the Pharisees believe that God has not saved the Jews (note the use of the term save, and the meaning it would hold for these people after centuries of living in corrupt and oppressive societies) because the Jews themselves have been corrupt; they have disobeyed God's teachings so extensively that he has abandoned them until they clean up their act. This view is understandable, as Israel's prophets (speaking for God) had predicted as much before the occupations began, and confirmed this assessment when they did begin. The Pharisees believed that more rigorous adherence to the dictates of the rules for living described in their sacred texts would enable God to send the prophesied Messiah to liberate them from their oppressors. It is understandable why they so despised tax collectors, prostitutes, and other low-lifes: in the Pharisees' view, these are the people who are primarily responsible for the Messiah's delay.
Those in Jesus' audience who do not strictly fall into one of the aforementioned groups are certainly familiar with their views, and are perhaps still choosing their own response or merely going about their daily lives as best they can, not particularly motivated to do anything about their predicament. As they listen, they will want to discern with which group Jesus aligns himself; he is well aware of this.
I think I am finally ready to approach the text, as given in the Gospel of Matthew, chapters 5-7 (the TNIV translation.)
5:1—2:
Now when Jesus saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, and he began to teach them.
I imagine a sort of inner circle near Jesus, with a large number of people listening from a greater distance. I don't know how easy it is for them to hear him; if they have to strain to listen, maybe they'll pay better attention. It is natural in this era for teachers to sit and students to stand, further reinforcing the practice of attentiveness in the audience (and indicating that the teacher is relaxed and comfortable).
5:3—12:
He said:
Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called children of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
If I had to make a list of All-Time Best Attention-Getting Openings, this would probably be #1. From the first declarative statement—blessed are the poor—I formulate a response: No, they aren't! Obviously the rich are blessed. The powerful, the capable, those in charge are the ones who are blessed. Where is he going with this?
Jesus refers to something called "the kingdom of heaven." Jesus is typically very evasive when asked to define "the kingdom of heaven"; he responds using enigmatic metaphors like, "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed," and "The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field." Given the scrutiny the Roman empire gives to any challenge to its power, it would seem wise for him to avoid speaking too openly about anything involving allegiance to a different kingdom; indeed, he is eventually sentenced to capital punishment on suspicion of plotting to lead an uprising of the Jews. Perhaps the closest he comes to defining "the kingdom of heaven" directly comes later in this speech, in the section known as the Lord's Prayer or the Kingdom Prayer; he places it in apposition with the phrase "[God's] will be done, on earth as it is in heaven," which is therefore modifying or compared to the prior phrase "[God's] kingdom come." Anyway, suffice to say that in the moment of hearing the speech, the phrase is not familiar to most listeners, and none of them have a nailed-down idea of its meaning. They will have to look to the context in order to determine the meaning, as do I.
Jesus elsewhere defines his Good News (gospel, evangel) like this: "The kingdom of God is at hand!" Good News is a political term, usually referring to the announcement of a great victory, or that a new ruler has come into power. It is apparently very important to him, and so I remain interested in determining what it's all about.
This first section of his speech, known as the Beatitudes (a term referring to blessing, which is the recurring phrase or anaphora in his opening), draws me in as a listener as he transitions into a personal address, from "blessed are the..." to "blessed are you when people insult you..." For many of us listening, this is probably what we consider to be our experience; he even compares us to the prophets! The implication of his pronouncements of blessing is that we should be those things which are blessed (poor in spirit, meek, merciful, etc.). I will not go any deeper into the Beatitudes here except to note that various groups of listeners may have been satisfied, angered, and perplexed by different blessings, and if they weren't paying close attention before, they are now.
I am getting pretty tired, and I will pick up next time with "You are the salt of the earth." There is much more to say here that has been clarifying for me in understanding passages and progressions that did not make much sense to me before, and I do intend to say it.
One question to prime you for it: Jesus says, "If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also." Why the right cheek? (Why would someone slap you on the right cheek rather than the left? How would they do it?)
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
All Souls Cemetery
What ever became of the place,
Of your remains? The dark topsoil
Sustains a cornfield nowadays.
All summer the stalks raise
Their leafed ears to the clouds,
Which haul by in silence.
I know it was there—
There’s the sign with its name
And No Trespassing.
Enforced by a lone straw man
Who looks crucified.
My, how the crows scatter
When a swift gust
Shrugs his shoulders!
Soon the farmhouse light
Will give way
To fireflies, whose flicker
Will not subside
Until the nighttime stars
Have a mind to arrive.
Of your remains? The dark topsoil
Sustains a cornfield nowadays.
All summer the stalks raise
Their leafed ears to the clouds,
Which haul by in silence.
I know it was there—
There’s the sign with its name
And No Trespassing.
Enforced by a lone straw man
Who looks crucified.
My, how the crows scatter
When a swift gust
Shrugs his shoulders!
Soon the farmhouse light
Will give way
To fireflies, whose flicker
Will not subside
Until the nighttime stars
Have a mind to arrive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)