The beauty of the individual verse

Corrine and I are taking a pre-marital course at Christ the Rock church in Menasha after some prodding. It is precisely what I expected it to be.... Of course, there have been dozens of blanks to fill in--gotta keep 'em occupied. Anyway, I just wanted to share my favorite element of it so far. I will write this exactly as it occurs in the little booklet:

"Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral [fornicators]" (Hebrews 13:4, NW).

I looked at the actual context of the verse again. It is the "concluding exhortations" to the Hebrews. This verse is one in a list of many; it is undeniably not a section concerned exhaustively with sexuality. Truthfully, I'm not really all that concerned with what Christ the Rock is teaching. I am concerned, though, that not only can a verse like this be decontextualized to this extent, but that whoever was putting together the booklet felt it was their right--nay, their obligation--to add, in brackets, a definitive definition of what sexual immorality looks like. Could the writer of Hebrews have been speaking to child molesters or prostitutes? That question means nothing in the context of this class, and it's this that I find most frustrating about the whole situation.

I've been involved in courses in churches like this one enough times to know that opening my mouth in query isn't going to do anything but ruffle feathers and give the impression that I'm out to sabotage the rules and guidelines God made manifest in the Bible. But all the time I'm a part of something like this I cannot help but feel that, in more ways than just this one, this type of (mis)reading is not only a refusal to engage the text, but a willful (if hidden in multifarious layers) attempt to guard even those teaching the class from really engaging the text for themselves.

I hope I'm wrong. I really, really do. I hope all of these people feel that reading texts in ways that don't line up exactly with what their church espouses is not only acceptable, but essential.

Blood Diamonds, amongst other things...

I just finished Blood Diamonds and it was a pleasant (probably not at all the right word for this film...) surprise in a lot of ways. Leonardo DiCaprio certainly put on a performance I found powerful; the capacity of certain actors to portray people with dubious character in a way that makes the viewer care for them is a special talent few of them possess. The rest of the cast did a really nice job, too. The film, if you haven't seen it, is beautiful and should be viewed by everyone. It is, to be sure, one of the most affecting films I've seen in an awful long time.

What has me thinking, though, after the film, is the abundance of internationally-themed films that have been getting mainstream attention the last few years. My reaction after finishing the movie surprised me. (Bear with me, this involves dodgy theology and, vaguely, postcolonial theory.) I started to think about all the films and news stories that have been more accessible to everyday newsreaders and film-watchers in America and the staggering amount of ostensibly thoughtless bloodshed contained therein. Then, as those who know my history will understand, I started considering the notion of the world's end in the peculiar nomenclature of rapture-speak--wars and rumors of wars, etc.--and found myself frustrated that I might even bother myself that way. As I quickly reminded myself, wars (civil, preemptive, whatever other titles you'd like to give them) have been waged for as long as man has been around; however, it is just the proliferation of news and information that has allowed the rest of the world to see them nearly firsthand and get involved in one way or another. It is always frightening when I consider things like this because I cannot help but think of all the people who grew up in situations similar to mine that watch films like this (if they watch R rated films, that is) and read news stories and fail to connect the more poignant, real-life issues to their own lives because they are so consumed with the "next" life. I keep coming back to a thought I had a few weeks ago: It really seems to me that, as the privileged of the world, we are obliged (morally, theologically, humanly) in a way that closely resembles the ideas wrapped up in the idea of noblesse oblige. Royalty so often avoided guilt and/or responsibility by suggesting the rewards for the less fortunate here on earth when they reach heaven. It is a frightening thought and a connection that, I believe, is made very infrequently. How we help those in need without exercising hegemony or Otherizing them is another issue altogether, but what cannot be ignored is our corporeal responsibility. I know these thoughts are hardly amazing, but they are my own, and they are how I, in all my multifarious wanderings and wonderings, try to come to terms with who, what, and where I am.

GRE nonsense...

I'm working on signing up for the GRE right now and I'm finding the whole process a bit ridiculous. There are general and subject tests, and the cost of the exam either way is nonsense. I've taken some of the practice tests and they aren't that bad, but I just cannot stand the concept of general testing. It's been proven time and time again that general tests are geared to make rich kids look smart and poor kids look stupid--that's pretty much a banality by now. I understand that the number of people applying for graduate programs makes the absence of a deciding factor like the GRE almost impossible, but something has to change. I'm sure I'll do fine, fall somewhere in the middle of the bell curve, and get into a middle-grade graduate program. That's what the test is supposed to insure and I'm fairly confident it will. Hurrah for the GRE! Another hegemonic roadblock for the monetarily challenged....

Why We Fight

I watched this film with Corrine yesterday and it was a rather frightening experience. I'm not often excited by the real leftist films that are more conspiracy and hyperbole than anything else, but this film covered its bases in a way that the aforementioned films almost never do: it included direct footage--it even appeared to be footage taken specifically for the film--from those it most disparaged and, instead of pulling a Michael Moore and trying to make everyone on the right look malicious and insane, Eugene Jarecki let everyone speak for themselves. It was, and this is why I say the movie is disconcerting, amazing to hear what some folks unabashedly said.

It is also a powerful film in its use of Eisenhower quotes and footage (along with video of both his son and granddaughter speaking on what they assume is his behalf). The film also shows a lot of George W. Bush speaking and the disparities are astounding. Ike wasn't perfect. He, too, was guilty of some fairly rotten things, but there are just certain elements of the way he spoke that seem so indicative of how the country was run then and how it is now. When discussing the cost of the war, Ike lamented the loss it meant for American people; Bush never discusses the cost of the war. To be more picky, Ike is credited with coining the term "military-industrial complex" (which plays very significantly in the film); Bush's contribution to the English language is "nuculer" for "nuclear". By now it's obvious that I'm no fan of Bush. That said, I don't want to see a film that just lambastes me with banal complaints about the current administration. This one doesn't. As I've said in earlier posts, I really appreciate the sort of writer and/or filmmaker who allows the viewers to decide. It would be ridiculous to suggest that Why We Fight isn't heavily leftist. Even so, it is usually metered, it is smart, entertaining, frightening, and certainly worth a watch.