(Ir)religiosity

In case you don’t know, I hate the BCS. With a passion. But I’ll play the game. I considered doing a full list of all my bowl predictions, but that would’ve taken more time and study than I’d like. That’s what ESPN is for. So, without further adieu here are my picks for the four BCS bowls and the national championship.

The Rose Bowl – Illinois v. USC:
USC is, in my opinion the best team in the country right now. I think they could handily beat both teams playing for the national championship. True, they stumbled earlier this season, but they also had some key injuries that contributed to their losses. They’ll be fully healthy for “the granddaddy of ‘em all” and will be looking to catapult themselves to the top of next year’s pre-season rankings (even though I think pre-season rankings are asinine). I know Illinois did beat a highly respectable ranked team, indeed a team that is now playing for the national championship, but it’s a long time since they’ve played against anyone other than their scout teams. Their quality win, their strength of schedule, and their talent just aren’t enough to beat Pete Carroll’s Trojans. I’m taking USC over Illinois 38-10.

The Sugar Bowl – Hawaii v. Georgia:
Let me just say that I’m glad the WAC is finally getting some respect. Even though it was really painful for me last year. Although Georgia failed to play for and win the SEC championship and even though Hawaii isn’t part of a BCS conference, at the end of the regular season I think both of these teams had a legitimate argument for why they should play for the national championship. This should be a interesting game. It should be a good game. And really, for me, it’s a toss up. Georgia played very well at the end of the season in the toughest conference in the country. Hawaii may not have really played anyone, but they proved their for real in that comeback against Washington. But I’m not sure that’s enough. It’ll be close, but I’m taking the Bulldogs over the Warriors 31-27.

The Fiesta Bowl – Oklahoma v. West Virginia:
This might be the best bowl match-up this year. Even better than the national championship. And no, I’m not saying that just because I’m a die-hard OU fan. I really believe it. Oklahoma and West Virginia are both very solid teams with lots of talent and lots of weapons. Both teams will be fully healthy. Oklahoma has the edge here for several reasons, their well-balanced, highly talented offense and aggressive run-defense notwithstanding. First, the Sooners ended the regular season on high note, winning their conference, knocking of the #1 team in the country, and playing better than they have all year. Conversely, the Mountaineers lost a heart-breaker to their unranked rival Pitt. Then, they lost their head coach. Now, I doubt that will affect them very much, but it will play a role. A BCS bowl game against a solid top 5 opponent is likely not the first game you’d like to have with a brand new head coach. Third, the Sooners were horribly embarrassed in the Fiesta Bowl last year against Boise State. Don’t think Bob Stoops will let his team forget it. They’ll be looking to redeem themselves. But like I said, this is a great match-up and it should be an exciting game. I’m going with Oklahoma over West Virginia 35-21.

The Orange Bowl – Virginia Tech v. Kansas:
If the Fiesta Bowl has the best match-up of the BCS, then the Orange Bowl may have the worst. Although they won the ACC championship against Boston College, Virginia Tech has flirted with mediocrity all season in one of the NCAA’s weaker conferences. They were throttled by LSU early on never really proved to be all that impressive. Kansas has a similar and yet different story. They remained undefeated for most of the regular season in the mostly weak Big 12-North. But when tested with a ranked opponent, they broke. Now, I’m not saying any of that to negate or diminish what Mark Mangino and his staff have done at KU this season; indeed, it is truly remarkable. Kansas is usually only mentioned as a contender in basketball, now they have proved their worth on the gridiron as well. But not quite good enough. Like I said, they lost to the noteworthy opponent they played. This one is a true toss up. It could go either way. For good measure, I’ll remain loyal to the Big 12. Kansas over Virginia Tech 28-21.

The BCS National Championship – Ohio State v. LSU:
I don’t think either of these teams deserve to be playing in this game nor do I think they’re the top 2 teams in the country. If the NCAA had some sort of playoff system– which would level the playing field, allowing every team in the league to have a shot at the title–I doubt either team would survive through to the end. Ohio State has played virtually no one of any consequence, beating only one ranked team (and a very weak and volatile one at that) and losing to an unranked team. LSU, while they won the toughest conference championship in the nation, has been playing with fire since the beginning of the season and now stand only a hair’s breadth from being a four loss team. To say they’ve been very fortunate is a gross understatement. I imagine Ohio State will be looking to avenge the debacle that was last year’s blowout against Florida, but I still give the edge here to LSU, since they survived the toughest conference and especially since Ohio State has had such an easy schedule not to mention the fact that they are an embarrassing 0-8 against SEC teams in bowl games. If anything maybe the football gods will smile on Les Miles and his troops yet again. LSU 24 Ohio State 17.

~bh ><>

Last week I posted my picks for the best movies of 2007. Here are my selections for the worst, most disappointing films of the year. I didn’t add any commentary to my “best of” listing, but for some reason I felt like I needed to qualify these. So, here goes.

1.) TMNT. I went into this movie with really high hopes. In hindsight, that might have been part of my problem, but I’ll comment nonetheless. I was a huge Turtles fan growing up so I was really anticipating the release of this version, almost as much as the retro series of the 90s, but I was sadly disappointed. True, there were moments where I felt like I kid again watching “turtle power” unfold before my eyes, but there were also those moments when I felt like bashing my head against the floor. The storyline was sloppy at best. Too complicated for the average kid and too stupid for the average adult. It never went anywhere. I’ll stick with the Saturday morning version.

2.) Transformers. I had high hopes for this one too. It had the potential to be very, very good, but clearly missed the mark. Visually, it was spectacular, but when tempered with the poor writing and very poor acting, the effects weren’t worth the watch. The story was horrible amounting to nothing more than the typical, predictable, canned sci-fi plot. The dialogue was tolerable at best and painful at its worst. It might be worth seeing in the theater just for the visuals, but anything more would be much too generous.

3.) Spider-Man 3. This first several disappointing franchise finales. I was never a huge Spider-Man fan growing up. Batman could take Spider-Man and Superman any day. Which gets me really, really excited about this. Anyway, this movie is definitely worth seeing. The fight scenes between Spidy, Venom, Sandman, and New Goblin in the end are straight up kick-ass—that’s all there is too it. But that doesn’t make up for the rest of the movie. It moved very, very slow (too slow) up until the last 1/4 of the movie. And the whole emo-Spiderman/Peter Parker thing really threw me. Again, it’s worth seeing, but not comparable to the first two. The third part of a trilogy should be the apex. If that’s true this movie failed.

4.) Shrek the Third. Now that I think about it, I’m not sure what was wrong with this “three-quel.” It just mediocre and very, very forgettable. Same sort of story, same plot, same, recycled jokes. I guess it just didn’t really make an impression on me. Like I said just very, very unmemorable. I had high expectations. This first two Shrek movies were pretty good.

5.) Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End. Ok, so I haven’t actually seen this one yet. But after all the talk I’ve heard from other people and the reviews I’ve read, it will be next to impossible for me to enjoy it when I do watch it. And I have a hunch that it is likely to be one of those movies that has to be viewed on the big screen just to capture the aura. The main complaints I’ve heard have to do with length and character development. Lot’s of people say it’s too long and too much time was spent on minor character development (which I may or may not end up enjoying), almost as if there could have been four movies but the producers decided to jam everything into a third installment. Johnny Depp is one of my favorite actors and I plan on seeing this soon. So, hopefully I’ll have to re-post and revise this list because I really liked that first two and I’d like the franchise to end well. But we’ll see.

~bh ><>

~bh ><>

The new trailer for The Dark Knight. This makes me very happy:



Supply side Jesus. Maybe this hits a little too close to home, eh?:


[Ht. Ariah]~bh
><>

Alright, here is my list of the top ten movies of the year. It’s hardly complete. When I started making the list I realized that not only had I not watched as many movies this year, but I had limited myself to only a few genres. I tried to be as diverse as a could, but I know there are some I haven’t seen that probably deserve to be on the list. And since the year isn’t over yet, I added one at number 10 that hasn’t been released, but I’m anticipating it will be that good.

1.) No Country for Old Men
2.) American Gangster
3.) Micheal Clayton
4.) 300
5.) Sicko
6.) 3:10 to Yuma
7.) Grindhouse
8.) Knocked Up
9.) Ocean’s 13
10.) Sweeney Todd

So, what do you think? What would you add or remove? Sometime (maybe next week) I’ll post my list of the top 5 or so disappointing movies of the year.

~bh ><>

Part 1: Where I Find Myself | Part 2: Narrative Not Systematic

Again, the comments in part one go into this to some extent. It might be best to read them first, I don’t know.

First let me say that I’m really proud of my grammatical maneuvering in the subtitle of this post. Originally, it was going to be “truth Not Historicity,” but I’m a real stickler when it come to spelling and grammar and whatnot and I figured someone would just assume I forgot to capitalize the “t.” It’s not capitalized on purpose and I put the parentheses around it to hopefully draw attention to this fact that it is lower case. (Plus I think it just looks cool aesthetically). But I digress.

Or maybe I shouldn’t digress because my use of the word truth is important and deserves attention, especially when we’re talking about the bible, and its interpretation. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard people say something like this, “I believe the Bible. I just read it and believe what exactly what it says. I understand the absolute, objective Word of God and you will too if you just read the Bible.” And I’m thinking, really? Seriously? Is it really that simple? I mean, if it is that easy, then how come so many people disagree on interpretation? And if all I have to do is read it, then why have so many people spent so much time (some dedicating their whole lives) and put so much effort into studying the bible and writing commentaries?

Additionally, I hear a lot of people throwing the buzz words “biblical” and “scriptural” around quite a bit these days, almost to the point that the words have lost lost their meaning. What do people mean when they use them? I hear catch all phrases like “biblical Christianity” and “scriptural truth.” Biblical this and scriptural that. I wonder if people ever really take the time to stop and think about how they’re using the words and want exactly it is they mean by them. When pushed in these areas, I’ve observed that most people use the words “biblical” and “scriptural” to reinforce a worldview or a theology that they have been given by someone else (usually a pretty recent system of thought c. 200-300 years ago). This gets back to the issue proof-texting I mentioned in part one. Rather than viewing the bible as a story, people lift certain texts out and use them to prove their system. Then they call it “biblical” or “scriptural” because those words carry a great amount of weight and authority.

I just don’t think it’s that simple. The bible needs to be understood natively not from the vantage point of a pre-made, cookie cutter worldview or theology. Moreover, and this gets back to my previous point, the reality is, reading is interpretation. None of us can claim to simply read anything without interpreting, without bringing something of our own to the text. We do that whether we realize it or not. As a white, American, male living in the mid-west, I read and interpret the bible different than say an African woman living in Sudan. Now, that’s an over exaggerated example, but it’s true nonetheless. I’ve experienced this many times leading and participating in “bible studies.” On their own time, participants are to read a certain passage of scripture and then jot down their thoughts to share with the rest of the group. By the time everyone shares his or her ideas and interpretations, there are just about as many “readings” as there are people. Now, I know that is what commentaries are for, that’s why some people (like myself) go to seminary and call themselves theologians or biblical scholars, but even with those restrictions there is plethora of ideas, interpretations, and readings.

Now, I’m not rejecting the idea of truth. I’m not even rejecting the idea of absolute, objective truth. I am rejecting the idea that a finite human being can understand and comprehend that truth. We can only ever come so close, no matter how hard or how long we read the bible or any other book. If a person ever did understand that truth, then that person would be God, and would therefore cease to be a human being. I believe that’s just part of the human condition–the best we can ever do is catch a glimpse of that truth. Which is why I think we need to constantly be in dialogue with one another, creating empathetic dialectics between differing poles, because through that dialogue a closer glimpse of the truth can be caught.

Now I really am digressing.

So, what does this have to do with the bible? I think it comes down to this. No one–not even the most learned scholar–will ever understand absolute, objective truth by reading the bible, it was written by human beings too. Anyone that claims to do so is delusional and is likely not being very honest with himself.

But I still believe that the bible can convey truth. This is where I must distinguish between truth and historicity as I mentioned above. For a lot of people, indeed for conventional Christianity, truth and historicity have almost become synonymous. That is to say, if something that is written in the bible didn’t actually happen and cannot be categorized as a historical fact, it simply cannot be true. This is very problematic. I think we need to move past this truth naiveté and I think we need a definition of truth that transcends historicity. I could start talking about myths here, but I won’t because many people have a very skewed and jaded view of the word myth. Maybe I’ll pick that up later. This will seem trivial at first, but I think on a certain level, we need to view the bible with the same amount of respect that we give the stories we read in a great novel or see in a great film.

Stop.

Re-read that sentence.

Seriously. Read it again.

We know those stories didn’t actually, historically happen, but we learn something from them nonetheless. They illustrate, in ways we can tangibly understand and relate to, truth about humanity and sometimes, likely more times than we realize, about God. Here I could quote the subtitle of a Marcus Borg book when he says we should taken the bible seriously, but not literally or the Native-American storyteller who begins his story by saying, “Now, I don’t know if it happened this way or not, but I know this story is true….” We need to start moving beyond the simple, shallow question of historicity to the deeper more meaningful question of truth; truth of the human condition and truth about ultimate reality, of Being-itself.

Earlier, in part one, a commenter pushed me concerning the historicity of Genesis’ account of the encounter between Adam, Eve and the serpent. I’ll use it as an example because I think it best encapsulates what I’m trying to get across. This is what I said:

genesis 3:1. do i believe god actually, physically spoke? no. do i believe there was an actual serpent? no. i do believe this. someone, somewhere sometime had experience that caused him/her to write that story. a story where the writer or the storyteller could convey as best he/she could with mytho-poetic imagery the feeling of guilt and defilement that came as result of separation from god. to me, that’s the deeper meaning of the story. i couldn’t care less whether god or a snake actually, physically spoke those words. or whether they was actually a man named adam and a woman named eve. i think there is a deeper meaning, a deeper truth (not historicity) about god and the human condition. but now i’m getting into some later posts. so for now i’ll leave it at that.

i don’t think that challenges christianity at all. i think it challenges fundamentalism and conventionalism and rightly so. those are modern, post-enlightenment constructs.

This post is getting long. If you’ve quit reading by now I don’t blame you. Let me conclude by reiterating, I think if we remain hung up on the question of factuality and equate truth with historicity we will eventually run into a lot of problems, and ultimately miss the bigger point. If we come to terms with, 1) the reality that none of us will ever know or comprehend absolute objective truth, only parts, bits and pieces from our dialogue with others and, 2) that truth ultimately transcends, and in a sense eclipses, historicity and factuality we have come a long way in our journey of seeking truth as it is conveyed through the strange narrative of scripture.

~bh ><>

One of the many subversive Christmas thoughts offered by Advent Conspiracy:



Men’s restroom etiquette. Absolutely hilarious:



~bh ><>

Part I: Where I Find Myself.

You may want to look over the comments in part one before reading. The discussion ended up covering some of this stuff and some of the things I’ll cover later.

Anyway, contrary to what most people would be inclined to think here in the buckle of the bible belt, scripture is, before anything, at least for me, a narrative; a group a narratives, or stories that comprise a larger narrative of the experience ancient people’s had with God and God’s action in history on behalf of the entire world as N.T Wright might say, or the entire cosmos as I would add. Now, I’m not saying this to knock systematic theology at all, I think there’s a place for that and I think that systematics can be done very effectively (although I tend to be a more non-linear type of person), but I’ve observed that many people abuse and misuse the word systematic and assume that the bible was written systematically, almost as if it were written by the same person (likely a man) and God was somehow dictating every stroke of that person’s pen.

Maybe that’s a little extreme and exaggerated. Ok, so some people won’t go that far, but still believe the bible is primarily linear and systematic, originally written and spoken with the intention of being systematic from start to finish, Genesis to Revelation. The thought that scripture was originally passed down orally through the form of story-telling never crosses their mind, much less that fact that systematic theology wasn’t even invented until Aquinas came along in the 11th century and wasn’t fully developed until after the advent of the printing press in the 13th by Gutenburg, not to mention the strenuous and highly politicized process of canonization itself.

When I study historical and literary criticism and some of the other higher types of criticism, this literal, rigid, linear, and systematic view begins begins to fall apart. I speak from personal experience as I used to hold a this view of scripture. Then when I study how the canon was formed, the result of many political power plays by many opposing groups offering the books they believed to be “orthodox”–which more often than not reinforced that group’s status quo–and rejecting the more “dangerous” or “heretical” books that challenged their conventional way of thinking, my thought beings to shift. When I read about how the books in the bible were redacted, edited, and even altered, by different groups and people it becomes all the more clear to me that scripture is not some inerrant, infallible dictation from “the mind of God,” but above all a narrative, a finite story of persons experience with God, with ultimate reality and a record of God’s redemptive and restoration action in history as recorded by imperfect, finite individuals and communities.

It seems to me that one of the only things linking me with a scripture writer some 2000 years ago is experience, specifically the experience of God and the experience of participation with God. I likely operate cognitively from a higher level of consciousness than the scripture writer. I have modern science, modern cosmology, modern medicine, modern technology and a host of other things the scripture writer didn’t have at his disposal. But I still experience God, perhaps, but maybe not, in the same sort of ways the scripture writer did. In this respect we are united and linked as human beings.

So when I read scripture I must first remember this writing was originally a story and an oral story at that. With that in mind I have to ask myself, how does this particular passage or narrative fit within the larger story of healing, renewal, peace, and reconciliation? What was the experience of the writer and of the community that brought this story to be written in this way and how can I learn more about ultimate reality through that? Where do I see myself in this story? Moreover, and perhaps most important, how can I learn to become a better human being through my interaction with this story and through my response to God’s grace, my synergetic participation in the life of the divine?

To me, those are the better question to ask when reading the bible. Not, how does this fit within my cute and clean systematic theology, but how does this fit within the larger story of God’s action in history for and with the cosmos.

~bh ><>

A few posts I read last week (here, here, and here) got me to thinking about biblical proof-texting and why I believe it is destructive and counter-productive. For me, the fact of the matter is many texts in the bible can be taken out of context, used, abused, and misused to justify and legitimate just about anything (slavery, murder, racism, chauvinism, and so on). Personally, I have no use for any hermeneutic that involves taking bits and pieces of scripture out of context and using them to reinforce a pre-made theology or agenda. It’s a very narrow slippery slope that I believe does more harm than good.

That is not to say a completely reject the bible. I have a great amount of respect for it. I believe it is inspired by God and I believe it conveys truth (I’ll talk about what I mean by truth a little later because a lot of people mean a lot of different things, when they use the word. For now, just notice that I said “truth” and not “Truth”) about God and about humanity. But don’t worship it. I don’t take it literally and I don’t believe it to be completely historically accurate. I don’t believe it is infallible or inerrant. I acknowledge the fact that it was written by pre-modren people (mostly men, go figure) with pre-modern cosmology and so on. I realize that the books in the bible are products of many different communities with their own biases, prejudices, etc. and I know that much of the present text as been altered, redacted, and edited by many people throughout history. And yet somehow, in the midst of all that, I still believe that upon reading and studying scripture I can learn more about God, more about ultimate reality, more about the human condition, and more about authentic Christian hope.

Anyway, my thinking about proof-texting led me to the larger discussion of scripture itself, its role in the shaping of my theology, its authority, and its role within the Christian community. I claim to be a Christian, a follower of Jesus. By making that claim I am binding myself, to a certain degree, to the narrative of scripture; that is I am placing myself within an ongoing, ever unfolding story or narrative that is larger than myself. So, how does that work I wonder? How can I, living in a postmodern world, gain truth from stories that were written over 2000 years ago by pre-modern people? I’m not going to pretend to come up with a comprehensive answer to questions like this, but I do hope I can come up with a sound framework from which I can further wrestle with these questions. That is what I plan to do here over the course of a few posts.

~bh ><>

The final BCS rankings to wrap up this crazy and exciting season came out yesterday and proved to be just as crazy as the season itself. After Missouri lost to Oklahoma in the Big 12 championship and West Virginia was stunned by Pitt on Saturday, an inactive, one loss Ohio State team moved up to number one and because they won the SEC championship, a two loss LSU team jumped all the way up from number 7 to number 2 to play for the national title. Ohio State, since the Big Ten doesn’t have a championship game, hasn’t played a game in two week, but still moved up due to the work of other teams.

Similarly, other teams like Kansas and Hawaii who either have one loss or are undefeated where all but snubbed in the BCS. Not to mention the host of other two loss teams who could legitimately make a their case for playing in New Orleans in January (Georgia, and especially USC, Oklahoma, and Virginia Tech who all won their conference championships just like LSU).

I’ve said all that to say, I think our system, like many American systems, is broken, if not biased. The BCS is comprised of several components. Two human polls (the Harris Interactive Poll and the USA Today Coaches poll) and 6 computers that crunch all the numbers based on a particular formula that is supposed to take certain things into account (strength of schedule, quality wins, etc.). I read an article a few years ago about how this is done, but I didn’t really understand it all. It would be interesting this year to know exactly how that is worked out because the top 5 BCS teams according to the computer average this year were, #1 Virginia Tech, #2 LSU, #3 Ohio State, #4 Missouri, #5 Kansas, with Georgia and Oklahoma tied for #6, which seems really odd. Personally, I don’t like the computer component at all. They don’t watch the games—it’s more than numbers.

Several things need to be done I think, in order make the system more fair and impartial. First, the preseason polls need to either be done away with altogether or not taken so seriously. I tend to think they need to be done away with. Right now, in a sense they determine the season. A preseason top 5 team (Michigan, for example) that loses to an unranked opponent can jump back into the mix very easily while an unranked team who beats a ranked team (or several) has a much harder time working their way up. The poll just carries too much weight. It’s biased toward big name “tradition” schools and is really basically guesswork in the preseason anyway.

Second, I think every conference should either have a championship game or not have one. Period. As it is now, some teams have an advantage with the extra game and some don’t. Some, like Ohio State, have the advantage of not have the extra game. You don’t play for two weeks and while other teams get the extra games, then you slide in the back door to the national championship. I think that’s unfair. A team shouldn’t be rewarded for not playing.

If every division/conference had a championship game, it would make a playoff much more feasible and more fair to other teams and conferences, giving the little guys a little love. As it is now, we have around a month before the national championship. That’s plenty of time to have the conference champions duke it out. And you wouldn’t even have to do away with all the bowls. All the runner-ups could get in line and play in the other bowls while the top 2 play for the national championship.

Third, I think the idea of having certain BCS conferences is pretty bogus and biased toward bigger schools. Isn’t the point of having a division I championship so that there is an overall champion? How can their be an overall champion if some conferences are given the advantage and others are completely left out? Doesn’t sound like a true national championship to me. Follow the money trail. Most of the BCS conference have strong “affiliations” with certain bowls. Go figure. I think if we’re going to have a national championship every team and every conference should be on the same playing field. The better teams will naturally rise to the top and if these bigger schools are as good as we all think they will too.

None of this will ever happen though. Some conferences would have the excuse of having a hard time figuring out how to do the championship game because not every conference is as big as the SEC or the Big 12 and not every conference is split into North/South or East/West. The main reason , I think is that all the advertisers, sponsors, and BCS conference commissioners would be really worried about making their money. As it is now, the use that latent month to promote and advertise. They think a playoff would ruin that. Like many things in the US, if you follow the money trail you’re sure to find the reinforcement for the status quo. I also think that some dislike the idea of a more impartial system because they’re afraid of who might end up in the national championship game. (i.e. a Boise State, Hawaii, or some other teams from a non-BCS conference) and in that respect I think the whole system is biased toward the big name “tradition” schools.

But that’s just me, what do I know?

~bh ><>