This is not going to be my usual post. One of the few things I love as much as I love philosophy or theology is football. Therefore, to dedicate some space to this I'm going to do some analysis on the draft and look at strengths and weaknesses based on what people picked up. I'm going to analyze 2 divisions at a time in my analysis
NFC South
Carolina Panthers:
Cam Newton (QB), Terrell McClain (DT), Sione Fua (DT), Brandon Hogan (CB), Kealoha Pilares (WR), Lawrence Wilson (OLB), Zachary Williams (OC), Lee Ziemba (OT)
Carolina gets the flashy QB they need for their division and some help on defense. Carolina needs a lot of stuff to rebuild but this is a decent start if Cam Newton works out, who has a lot of questions of how well his game will adapt to the pros. Overall grade B-
Atlanta Falcons:
Julio Jones (WR), Akeem Dent (ILB), Jacquizz Rogers (RB), Matt Bosher (P), Andrew Jackson (OG), Cliff Matthews (DE)
The Falcons gave up a lot to get Julio Jones (2 draft picks this year and next). However, Julio Jones is the weapon the Falcons need to assist Roddy White and Matt Ryan. Also, I love the Jacquizz Rogers pickup as it adds dynamic running offense in contrast with Michael Turner's power running game. Akeem Dent will also be a very nice addition to a defense that needs some young energy. Overall, they did well, but there will be rough effects due to the amount given up to get Julio Jones. Overall grade: B.
New Orleans Saints:
Cameron Jordan (DE), Mark Ingram (RB), Martez Wilson (OLB), Johnny Patrick (CB), Greg Romeus (DE), Nathan Bussey (OLB)
The Saints didn't have a lot of picks, but I like what they did in the first round, shoring up their defense with a solid pick in Cameron Jordan, and adding a reliable running back with Mark Ingram. Given what they had to work with, this wasn't a bad draft. Overall grade: B
Tampa Bay Buccaneers:
Adrian Clayborn (DE), Da'Quan Bowers (DE), Mason Foster (ILB), Luke Stocker (TE), Ahmad Black (S), Allen Bradford (RB), Anthony Gaitor (CB), Daniel Hardy (TE)
I like what the Buccaneers did here. They have a stud offense with Josh Freeman, Mike Williams and LeGarrette Blount, so they shore up their defense which did not get a lot of pressure on the QB last year. Clayborn and Bowers will wreak havoc on opposing defenses, along with their picks McCoy and Price from last year. Building a young defensive line and having a lot of success with offense from lower round and undrafted free agents is a great key for success. Overall Draft: A
NFC North:
Minnesota Vikings:
Christian Ponder (QB), Kyle Rudolph (TE), Christian Ballard (DT), Brandon Burton (CB), DeMarcus Love (OT), Mistral Raymond (S), Brandon Fusco (C), Ross Homan (OLB), De'Aundre Reed (DE), Stephen Burton (WR)
The Vikings got a lot of players, but they didn't get what they needed. They didn't get a Safety, they didn't get a quality corner, and Christian Ballard is the only solid defensive player they acquired. They did get a QB but Christian Ponder was probably picked too early and the Vikings really didn't need another tight end. Overall grade D-
Green Bay Packers:
Derek Sherrod (OT), Randall Cobb (WR), Alexander Green (RB), Davon House (CB), D.J. Williams (TE), Caleb Schlauderaff (OG), D.J. Smith (OLB), Rick Elmore (DE), Ryan Taylor (TE), Lawrence Guy (DT)
The Green Bay Packers are the Super Bowl Champions but I don't particularly like what they did in this draft. The Packers got a receiver in Randall Cobb which will help spread defenses, but I don't see a lot of depth on defense in this draft (anyone after the first four-five picks are not usually people who have an immediate or at all effect for a team.) It's hard to explain but I don't see enough sizzle in this draft for the Packers, though they got some line help for Aaron Rodgers. Overall grade C
Detroit Lions:
Nick Fairley (DT), Titus Young (WR), Mikel LeShoure (RB), Douglas Hogue (OLB), Johnny Culbreath (OT)
Not a lot of picks, but I love what they did with their defensive line. Ndamukong Suh and Nick Fairley are going to run over the NFC North offensive lines. Titus Young is also a very good receiver who got a lot of throws from Kellen Moore (who was an underrated QB in this draft.) Leshoure will be a good compliment to Jahvid Best. Surprising to say, but the Lions had a really good draft. Overall grade A
Chicago Bears:
Gabe Carimi (OT), Stephen Paea (DT), Christopher Conte (S), Nathan Enderle (QB), J.T. Thomas (OLB)
Decent draft for the Bears. Not a lot of picks, however, they shore up the offensive line (Jay Cutler will be happy), and they added another solid defender in Stephen Paea. Overall grade B.
We see some good teams and some bad teams. Good teams draft for their needs, don't overpay for players and find the best talent they can on the board. Bad drafts include some combination of drafting players too early, not drafting to needs, or not taking opportunity of a good situation. The best teams in these two divisions are the Detroit Lions and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. These teams took advantage of the players that fell their way and built a good draft class. The worst team on here by far was the Minnesota Vikings. They overpaid for their QB (Ponder would have been available second round more than likely, and they took him 12th overall) and Kyle Rudolph wasn't really a need for the Vikings, (particularly with Da'Quan Bowers still on the board when they took Rudolph). The Vikings didn't address their defensive needs (like getting a safety) either. Though this is basic, I hope this gives some basic insight into what I observe while watching the NFL Draft.
Aristocrates
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Sunday, April 24, 2011
On Resurrection
If Holy Saturday teaches us about death, and the existential fear of non-being, a belief in the Resurrection on Easter Sunday teaches us about the hope of eternal life as an overcoming of non-being. Resurrection is not simply a bringing back of an earthly body waiting to die again, (such as in the case of Lazarus) but it's the apparition of a heavenly body that will no longer die. Witnesses to the Resurrection emphasize the differences in Jesus' body but yet similarities as well. Jesus' risen body is one which can travel to different places in seemingly little time, yet Jesus can still show the wounds in His side to the doubting Thomas. Jesus appears as a paradox to the human condition, divine, yet still human and individualized, recognizable.
Part of the brilliance of the Resurrected phenomenon is that it does not appear to everyone. The Gospel accounts (Matthew and John in particular) emphasize the women as the first to receive the apparition of the Resurrection. Women are people who had no particular status in the ancient world, they were property either of their fathers or husbands for the most part. Jesus appeared to people without status for the most part, until he appeared to Paul. This insight is important because it enables an exploration of the unseen. The witnesses to the Resurrection see the Risen Christ, while other onlookers do not see. Other people view what the disciples see as foolishness or blasphemy. In any event, no person can see every possibility of interpretation which an event may hold, therefore, the Resurrection appears as true to some, and false to others, because our vision as humans is necessarily limited.
In the unseen, we have to ask where do we see the possibility of transcendence in our faith today. The life of Jesus is a life of self-gift and proclaiming a message that transcends time and place. The themes explored in the Bible and in particular the Gospel accounts, are ones which speak to every people who journey on the Earth. Life, death, suffering, power, mercy, and love are experiences that every person feels in life. What is seen in individual experience can never be fully understood by another, because they see but do not see. However, in this existential journey, there are certain messages that speak to a greater reality than our existential existence.
The transcendence of our faith is seen in many symbols. In liturgy, we have sacraments and our common worship. These sacraments are an opportunity for mutual self-transcendence as people come together to go outside themselves and worship God. In our liturgy outside the Church, we have love, and our communion with other people, which includes any act that seeks to proclaim liberation to the other from sin, darkness, fear, whatever image we can think of for bondage. We transcend ourselves by giving to the other because it shows the dignity of the other person. In that case, our transcends gives life to another, a life which extends beyond any particular phenomenon or moment. However, we also need to receive life from others in order to have transcendence, as being able to receive a gift is just as important as giving the gift itself. Without reception, we never appreciate the presence of the giver of a gift. Resurrection and the gift of new life is that, a gift, one which says we will new life, even after we experience non-being as an apparition on the Earth. Death, life, giving, receiving, these paradoxes express the sentiments of the Easter season, and it's these paradoxes which the Resurrection celebrates. Without interactions and paradoxes, our world simply would not function, as we consistently deal with things which are not as they appear. The gift of the Resurrection is simply another of these paradoxes, any words we can say, or sight we could see does not adequately describe the entire phenomenon, yet we see the possibility of the Resurrection being real through God's gift to humanity, and our sharing in that gift with others.
Aristocrates
Part of the brilliance of the Resurrected phenomenon is that it does not appear to everyone. The Gospel accounts (Matthew and John in particular) emphasize the women as the first to receive the apparition of the Resurrection. Women are people who had no particular status in the ancient world, they were property either of their fathers or husbands for the most part. Jesus appeared to people without status for the most part, until he appeared to Paul. This insight is important because it enables an exploration of the unseen. The witnesses to the Resurrection see the Risen Christ, while other onlookers do not see. Other people view what the disciples see as foolishness or blasphemy. In any event, no person can see every possibility of interpretation which an event may hold, therefore, the Resurrection appears as true to some, and false to others, because our vision as humans is necessarily limited.
In the unseen, we have to ask where do we see the possibility of transcendence in our faith today. The life of Jesus is a life of self-gift and proclaiming a message that transcends time and place. The themes explored in the Bible and in particular the Gospel accounts, are ones which speak to every people who journey on the Earth. Life, death, suffering, power, mercy, and love are experiences that every person feels in life. What is seen in individual experience can never be fully understood by another, because they see but do not see. However, in this existential journey, there are certain messages that speak to a greater reality than our existential existence.
The transcendence of our faith is seen in many symbols. In liturgy, we have sacraments and our common worship. These sacraments are an opportunity for mutual self-transcendence as people come together to go outside themselves and worship God. In our liturgy outside the Church, we have love, and our communion with other people, which includes any act that seeks to proclaim liberation to the other from sin, darkness, fear, whatever image we can think of for bondage. We transcend ourselves by giving to the other because it shows the dignity of the other person. In that case, our transcends gives life to another, a life which extends beyond any particular phenomenon or moment. However, we also need to receive life from others in order to have transcendence, as being able to receive a gift is just as important as giving the gift itself. Without reception, we never appreciate the presence of the giver of a gift. Resurrection and the gift of new life is that, a gift, one which says we will new life, even after we experience non-being as an apparition on the Earth. Death, life, giving, receiving, these paradoxes express the sentiments of the Easter season, and it's these paradoxes which the Resurrection celebrates. Without interactions and paradoxes, our world simply would not function, as we consistently deal with things which are not as they appear. The gift of the Resurrection is simply another of these paradoxes, any words we can say, or sight we could see does not adequately describe the entire phenomenon, yet we see the possibility of the Resurrection being real through God's gift to humanity, and our sharing in that gift with others.
Aristocrates
Saturday, April 23, 2011
On Death
Holy Saturday is a weird day to write about death, but I found it appropriate as Jesus is technically dead for the whole day, thus it allows for a basic exploration about what it means to die and how non-being appears to us.
To be brief, death is the non-existence/appearance of a particular person or animal. Only things which are animated can technically die. This is why Jesus' death is important for the Christian faith as to die shows He was human. Without death, Jesus does not experience full finitude. But apologetics aside what we're exploring is the lack of animation and the darkness this creates in human persons.
Everyone has some fear of not existing. People make displays of power, money, progeny, etc for people to remember them when they are gone. In this way, people try to make their life extend beyond their own human finitude. Jesus did not have such power, progeny, or money in His ministry, so the death of a peasant in the ancient world seems like it should have little meaning. The fact that He was tried as a criminal also adds to the lack of meaning, just like so many other non-Roman citizens. (Because Romans couldn't be crucified, they saved that for the foreigners, kind of a ancient day hazing of sorts.)
Also, death is something which is communal. The death of the other reminds me of my own death (Levinas). The disciples also feared Jesus' death because His non-existence makes it appear that the promise of life and restored order is gone. It appears hard to restore kingdoms when the charismatic leader is dead and does not exist. The idea of Resurrection seems far away when one peers on a grave and sees a giant stone rolled in front of a cave to signify the grave. Dead Jesus, D-E-D Dead. No respawn, no extra lifes, just dead. Well, sort of... (Well, see more tomorrow about this.)
However, appearance is not the only reality. True, it is the only reality we can see, thus phenomenology gains its strength as a philosophical discipline as it deals with what we can see. What we learn on observation is that with every phenomenon there is an unseen parts of the phenomenon (notably, the idea that many people can look at the same event or symbol and see many different things.) Therefore, the unseen presence of death is that a community can embrace death as a communal strength. People come together when people die, and Jesus was no exception. On this day, we remember Jesus' death as a sign for people to gather together and mourn the loss of someone who had hoped to save a people who feared God. By faith, we all know the end of the story is different, but the disciples didn't know this. Part of our meditation must be to explore that this is the end, there is no mission, kingdom of God, or promise. The reality of Jesus' death is that the disciples appeared wrong. On top of mourning the loss of a friend, having one's trust seemingly betrayed is difficult. But again, this isn't the end of the story, all we see is what appears.
(Note: Most people are already celebrating Easter Vigil by the time this will post, but let's have some fun with the reflection.)
To be brief, death is the non-existence/appearance of a particular person or animal. Only things which are animated can technically die. This is why Jesus' death is important for the Christian faith as to die shows He was human. Without death, Jesus does not experience full finitude. But apologetics aside what we're exploring is the lack of animation and the darkness this creates in human persons.
Everyone has some fear of not existing. People make displays of power, money, progeny, etc for people to remember them when they are gone. In this way, people try to make their life extend beyond their own human finitude. Jesus did not have such power, progeny, or money in His ministry, so the death of a peasant in the ancient world seems like it should have little meaning. The fact that He was tried as a criminal also adds to the lack of meaning, just like so many other non-Roman citizens. (Because Romans couldn't be crucified, they saved that for the foreigners, kind of a ancient day hazing of sorts.)
Also, death is something which is communal. The death of the other reminds me of my own death (Levinas). The disciples also feared Jesus' death because His non-existence makes it appear that the promise of life and restored order is gone. It appears hard to restore kingdoms when the charismatic leader is dead and does not exist. The idea of Resurrection seems far away when one peers on a grave and sees a giant stone rolled in front of a cave to signify the grave. Dead Jesus, D-E-D Dead. No respawn, no extra lifes, just dead. Well, sort of... (Well, see more tomorrow about this.)
However, appearance is not the only reality. True, it is the only reality we can see, thus phenomenology gains its strength as a philosophical discipline as it deals with what we can see. What we learn on observation is that with every phenomenon there is an unseen parts of the phenomenon (notably, the idea that many people can look at the same event or symbol and see many different things.) Therefore, the unseen presence of death is that a community can embrace death as a communal strength. People come together when people die, and Jesus was no exception. On this day, we remember Jesus' death as a sign for people to gather together and mourn the loss of someone who had hoped to save a people who feared God. By faith, we all know the end of the story is different, but the disciples didn't know this. Part of our meditation must be to explore that this is the end, there is no mission, kingdom of God, or promise. The reality of Jesus' death is that the disciples appeared wrong. On top of mourning the loss of a friend, having one's trust seemingly betrayed is difficult. But again, this isn't the end of the story, all we see is what appears.
(Note: Most people are already celebrating Easter Vigil by the time this will post, but let's have some fun with the reflection.)
Friday, April 22, 2011
Receiving a Gift
Good Friday is a day where Christians emphasize the gift of salvation won through the Incarnation, Passion, Death, and Resurrection on the Cross. There are many focal points a reflection on Good Friday can take, but I want to emphasize the importance of receiving a gift. Holy Thursday emphasizes both giving and receiving a gift, and Good Friday is a day where all stop and realize that there is nothing they can give to improve or heal the situation at hand.
The idea of receiving a gift comes from the idea that "Jesus died for me, and you." This is a difficult notion for me to think about. It seems we have a tension in thinking about salvation. First, sacrifice is an awkward notion to think about a loving God. Sacrifice gives an image of a God who needs appeasing for an awful humanity who can never please God. However, if humanity is in the image of God, then God creates humanity as a good, and therefore, must be pleasing in some way. Humans have grace, and humans sin. God has every right to judge humanity for its sin, yet God also sends God's son into the world to proclaim a kingdom of love. Therefore, if we have a notion of sacrifice, it must include this nuance. God's will does not necessarily include the Cross as sacrifice. This idea would mean that God cooperates with sin in order to proclaim salvation, it also assumes a overly negative anthropology. However, Jesus could not choose anything other than the Cross as is necessary for giving the Holy Spirit, or to be consistent with His own life and mission of proclaiming the Kingdom of God.
Another tension is thinking about the notion of adding weight to Jesus' cross by our own sins. Personally, this seems at least somewhat neurotic. Yes, people sin and need redemption, but it is also true that the fall introduced more than sin into the human condition. While one may argue, that the after effects of sin need sin to actually be introduced, this witness is inconsistent with the testimony in Genesis. Adam and Eve do not commit any sin with each other, but yet still feel the need to cover themselves up after Eve eats the apple from the tree. Therefore, there is some guilt (Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith) that exists in the human condition as well. This reflection is simply to say that adding weight to the cross by our own sins depends on a negative anthropology and a Pelagian view that our work adds more to a suffering which has already happened. Also, if we add weight to Jesus' cross by our sins we ignore the historical circumstances of Jesus' actual crucifixion, and it becomes an overly spiritual experience.
I now want to take the rest of this reflection and emphasize a different part of humanity then what is normally emphasized during the Passion. Much of the Passion story emphasizes the community's negative role and affect on the crucifixion. However, there are several positive influences in the crucifixion narratives that get some prominence, but not in most theological emphases. Simon, Mary, Mary, Mary, and John are all figures presented in Scripture, and Veronica (through the tradition of Stations of the Cross) are positive examples of human compassion in a trying situation. Except for Simon, all of these people received the gift of Jesus' life through His witness and example. Jesus treated women as equals, spoke on behalf of the poor and marginalized in His time and place, and suffered the consequences for His actions. Jesus' witness of God's love is the gift He gives to us, in addition to salvation. The actions of the people listed above are another sign of how humanity can act. Humans can act with the crowd and wish death to Jesus, or people can respond in their own community and show acts of love. All people receive the gift of God's presence, and with any gift, people can be inspired to respond.
A word must be said about reception in itself. Receiving God's gift can happen in a variety of settings, as people see salvation in many various ways. On Good Friday, we want to emphasize the heavenly reality of salvation, that people can enter heaven. However, in receiving gifts, we must note the symbolic hope of salvation we receive from the gifts others give to us. Receiving gifts is hard as there is sin and guilt in human nature, and our own fears of what a gift means to someone else. The gift of salvation we all receive can be viewed in a similar light. We receive a gift, even though we don't know what it looks like, it is a gift given through faith and hope; however, it is a gift for all people, not just individuals. There is a similar fear in receiving a gift of salvation. A gift ties people to a relationship and being in relationship is scary, as our selves become slightly more visible to others. Deep down, it is hard to see God as someone with whom we have a relationship as God seems so different from humanity. However, part of the gift of salvation is that Jesus was a human, and lived a human life, therefore, Jesus knows human experience.
Now a last word needs to be said about salvation. The readings for the Good Friday service emphasize Jesus saving the community. In any theology, there must be the potential for all people to receive salvation, and maybe even all people receiving salvation. Jesus doesn't save individual people, as such. To be fair, communities are made of individuals, and thus de facto individuals must be saved. As listed above, there are dangers of neurosis and judgment with a salvation theology that only emphasizes the individual being saved. So we need a balance discussing the individual experience that God speaks to individual people, yet there is an essential need for the community to experience God and receive salvation, otherwise we ignore our inherent nature to interact with others. So Jesus doesn't die for me, or get more weight added to His cross because of my sins, rather, the sin of human nature as symbolized by the crowd, makes the Cross a reality. Remember Jesus proclaimed the Kingdom of God, and that led to the consequence of the Cross, because of how dangerous His message was. This death leads to salvation as a remembrance of Jesus' life and as part of the promise of Jesus, that He would be raised to new life, as another symbol of the Kingdom of God.
Aristocrates
The idea of receiving a gift comes from the idea that "Jesus died for me, and you." This is a difficult notion for me to think about. It seems we have a tension in thinking about salvation. First, sacrifice is an awkward notion to think about a loving God. Sacrifice gives an image of a God who needs appeasing for an awful humanity who can never please God. However, if humanity is in the image of God, then God creates humanity as a good, and therefore, must be pleasing in some way. Humans have grace, and humans sin. God has every right to judge humanity for its sin, yet God also sends God's son into the world to proclaim a kingdom of love. Therefore, if we have a notion of sacrifice, it must include this nuance. God's will does not necessarily include the Cross as sacrifice. This idea would mean that God cooperates with sin in order to proclaim salvation, it also assumes a overly negative anthropology. However, Jesus could not choose anything other than the Cross as is necessary for giving the Holy Spirit, or to be consistent with His own life and mission of proclaiming the Kingdom of God.
Another tension is thinking about the notion of adding weight to Jesus' cross by our own sins. Personally, this seems at least somewhat neurotic. Yes, people sin and need redemption, but it is also true that the fall introduced more than sin into the human condition. While one may argue, that the after effects of sin need sin to actually be introduced, this witness is inconsistent with the testimony in Genesis. Adam and Eve do not commit any sin with each other, but yet still feel the need to cover themselves up after Eve eats the apple from the tree. Therefore, there is some guilt (Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith) that exists in the human condition as well. This reflection is simply to say that adding weight to the cross by our own sins depends on a negative anthropology and a Pelagian view that our work adds more to a suffering which has already happened. Also, if we add weight to Jesus' cross by our sins we ignore the historical circumstances of Jesus' actual crucifixion, and it becomes an overly spiritual experience.
I now want to take the rest of this reflection and emphasize a different part of humanity then what is normally emphasized during the Passion. Much of the Passion story emphasizes the community's negative role and affect on the crucifixion. However, there are several positive influences in the crucifixion narratives that get some prominence, but not in most theological emphases. Simon, Mary, Mary, Mary, and John are all figures presented in Scripture, and Veronica (through the tradition of Stations of the Cross) are positive examples of human compassion in a trying situation. Except for Simon, all of these people received the gift of Jesus' life through His witness and example. Jesus treated women as equals, spoke on behalf of the poor and marginalized in His time and place, and suffered the consequences for His actions. Jesus' witness of God's love is the gift He gives to us, in addition to salvation. The actions of the people listed above are another sign of how humanity can act. Humans can act with the crowd and wish death to Jesus, or people can respond in their own community and show acts of love. All people receive the gift of God's presence, and with any gift, people can be inspired to respond.
A word must be said about reception in itself. Receiving God's gift can happen in a variety of settings, as people see salvation in many various ways. On Good Friday, we want to emphasize the heavenly reality of salvation, that people can enter heaven. However, in receiving gifts, we must note the symbolic hope of salvation we receive from the gifts others give to us. Receiving gifts is hard as there is sin and guilt in human nature, and our own fears of what a gift means to someone else. The gift of salvation we all receive can be viewed in a similar light. We receive a gift, even though we don't know what it looks like, it is a gift given through faith and hope; however, it is a gift for all people, not just individuals. There is a similar fear in receiving a gift of salvation. A gift ties people to a relationship and being in relationship is scary, as our selves become slightly more visible to others. Deep down, it is hard to see God as someone with whom we have a relationship as God seems so different from humanity. However, part of the gift of salvation is that Jesus was a human, and lived a human life, therefore, Jesus knows human experience.
Now a last word needs to be said about salvation. The readings for the Good Friday service emphasize Jesus saving the community. In any theology, there must be the potential for all people to receive salvation, and maybe even all people receiving salvation. Jesus doesn't save individual people, as such. To be fair, communities are made of individuals, and thus de facto individuals must be saved. As listed above, there are dangers of neurosis and judgment with a salvation theology that only emphasizes the individual being saved. So we need a balance discussing the individual experience that God speaks to individual people, yet there is an essential need for the community to experience God and receive salvation, otherwise we ignore our inherent nature to interact with others. So Jesus doesn't die for me, or get more weight added to His cross because of my sins, rather, the sin of human nature as symbolized by the crowd, makes the Cross a reality. Remember Jesus proclaimed the Kingdom of God, and that led to the consequence of the Cross, because of how dangerous His message was. This death leads to salvation as a remembrance of Jesus' life and as part of the promise of Jesus, that He would be raised to new life, as another symbol of the Kingdom of God.
Aristocrates
Thursday, April 21, 2011
A Servant's Love
Attention: We have a blog special this week. :) Every day during the Triduum we will be posting reflections on the celebrations of Holy Week. (Well by we, I mean definitely me, and maybe my partner as well.) Today is Holy Thursday so I want to reflect on the main theme from the Gospel reading, the washing of feet.
The washing of feet in the ancient world would have been a disgusting task, something fit only for the slaves in a household. The ancient world did not have closed toe shoes, so walking around in desert sands would have made everyone's feet messy. The foot washing ritual in the Passion is very clean for the reality which would have probably occurred, washing sandy, dirty, icky feet. The washing of feet made have had the neurotic fear issues we often associate with a ritual like this today, but I would expect that to be a more modern phenomenon. Regardless, the image of the washing of feet is that it's an icky, disgusting ritual which doesn't make sense, and why would someone do that for anyone, ever.
The power of the gospel passage is that Jesus takes on this servant role. Jesus willingly washes the feet of his disciples, and even says this washing is necessary for being in the community (Jn 13:8). Jesus washes the feet of His disciples and then implores the disciples to do the same (Jn 13:12-15). The invitation to service creates a challenge. 1) If taken literally, I don't want to wash another icky person's feet, feet are gross. :P Also, most people probably don't know what to do when people offer to wash their feet. Some circles see this as part of a romantic gesture, which it can be, but it's not necessarily so. The real challenge with living out this commitment to wash other's feet literally is the comfort factor. It is a really odd gesture, even with a historical scope. However, I would theorize that given the proper understanding, it helps people recognize the specialness in each other, as one is offering to do a task which is humiliating for the sake of the other.
2) If taken as a call to service, this also creates difficulty, as the washing of feet is a very careful service. Feet are intricate, so many toes, and curves, and nerve endings (yeah I've thought too much on days where I walk a lot). Therefore, if feet are intricate, and washing feet is a careful service, then this means we need to give detailed attention to people with whom we interact. People have a lot of needs, and need a lot of care. As individuals, each of us has a lot of needs and desires which require care. The balance is service in any community is meeting the needs of all of the people involved. The biggest challenge this poses is that it requires real attention and real listening to others. Drama, trauma, joys, excitement, these are all things which reflect God's life through the experience of the Incarnation, and also are something we all experience. Interactions can create lasting effects of trust or disorder, depending on how open we are to the other. The strength in thinking about the washing of feet is that it promotes openness to the other, using an apparently awkward symbol to reflect God's love and life.
The washing of feet is an open call for us as members of the community to show a different kind of love to people. The question is, are we ready to answer that invitation?
The washing of feet in the ancient world would have been a disgusting task, something fit only for the slaves in a household. The ancient world did not have closed toe shoes, so walking around in desert sands would have made everyone's feet messy. The foot washing ritual in the Passion is very clean for the reality which would have probably occurred, washing sandy, dirty, icky feet. The washing of feet made have had the neurotic fear issues we often associate with a ritual like this today, but I would expect that to be a more modern phenomenon. Regardless, the image of the washing of feet is that it's an icky, disgusting ritual which doesn't make sense, and why would someone do that for anyone, ever.
The power of the gospel passage is that Jesus takes on this servant role. Jesus willingly washes the feet of his disciples, and even says this washing is necessary for being in the community (Jn 13:8). Jesus washes the feet of His disciples and then implores the disciples to do the same (Jn 13:12-15). The invitation to service creates a challenge. 1) If taken literally, I don't want to wash another icky person's feet, feet are gross. :P Also, most people probably don't know what to do when people offer to wash their feet. Some circles see this as part of a romantic gesture, which it can be, but it's not necessarily so. The real challenge with living out this commitment to wash other's feet literally is the comfort factor. It is a really odd gesture, even with a historical scope. However, I would theorize that given the proper understanding, it helps people recognize the specialness in each other, as one is offering to do a task which is humiliating for the sake of the other.
2) If taken as a call to service, this also creates difficulty, as the washing of feet is a very careful service. Feet are intricate, so many toes, and curves, and nerve endings (yeah I've thought too much on days where I walk a lot). Therefore, if feet are intricate, and washing feet is a careful service, then this means we need to give detailed attention to people with whom we interact. People have a lot of needs, and need a lot of care. As individuals, each of us has a lot of needs and desires which require care. The balance is service in any community is meeting the needs of all of the people involved. The biggest challenge this poses is that it requires real attention and real listening to others. Drama, trauma, joys, excitement, these are all things which reflect God's life through the experience of the Incarnation, and also are something we all experience. Interactions can create lasting effects of trust or disorder, depending on how open we are to the other. The strength in thinking about the washing of feet is that it promotes openness to the other, using an apparently awkward symbol to reflect God's love and life.
The washing of feet is an open call for us as members of the community to show a different kind of love to people. The question is, are we ready to answer that invitation?
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Music and Symbol: Love and Life
I've been doing a new exploration lately as I've been writing for my comprehensive exams. I've found the last.fm feature on my XBOX, and I've been using that to explore new music. It is because of this that everyone can thank for this reflection.
Something's been striking me about music lately, as I've found deeply symbolic, loving music in unexpected places. Most of my IPOD is Christian or instrumental music, as these have been deeply peaceful symbols in my life. They continue to serve this purpose. The explicit symbol Christian music gives of God's love in its depths serves a purpose of bringing people into worship. It can also be useful to be a good reminder of God's presence in the world for those who like explicit symbols. Instrumental music can also provide a means of reflection without words. This reflection is dependent on the tones the songs utilize. Scary music can bring up scary memories, just as happy music can bring up happy memories. (Or in my case, memories of beating certain games.)
However, what I'm also starting to notice with some Christian music is that the symbol becomes so saturated in the song that the message gets watered down because it's too simple. This oversaturation limits the growth of people's minds to expand music into love. Add instrumental music to this mix and the images don't grow, as they are limited by the oversaturation of imagery in the words that actually have lyrics. Again this only applies to some Christian music, other artists really portray multiple images in song very well. (I've found a lot of success finding artists that aren't necessarily in the Christian mainstream, except Matt Maher, he's got good stuff for someone in the mainstream.)
I've found something fun in really engaging other music to expand my music library. In a lot of music, there is implicit symbols even if it does not explicitly speak of God's life. These implicit symbols might not say God or even love directly in the text, but the imagery given in the music might draw people to these kinds of thoughts.
The other strength in diversifying my music is that different music speaks to a lot of different experience. System of a Down speaks a different symbolic language than Matt Maher or Simon and Garfunkel. Music can speak of anger, sadness, despair, or joy. Diverse music enables one to engage all sorts of feelings, which can enable a person to love deeply as they engage the symbols in their own musical listening practice. It's useful for ministry and love as it can help me search for God in different and unexpected places.
The exploration of new music has been fun and a project I hope to continue for a while. My goal is to keep some of the old explicit symbols while searching for new implicit symbols to gain the ability to attain more symbolism. If I write many blog posts concerning saturation and the obsessing of certain philosophical concepts in our application to the world and religion, then my music tastes should reflect my thinking and feelings. Another life lesson I've been learning in my theological studies is that my work operates better when my mind and heart operate in cooperation with each other. This enables me to give a more authentic reflection, and growing my music library is something I look to be another part of that project.
Stuff I've found so far that's good: (Sidewalk Prophets, as far as I can tell an unknown Christian band but they have really good stuff: Vertical Horizon, Matchbox Twenty (yes, old pop, but I just really don't like modern pop), Simon and Garfunkel, some System of a Down, some Korn, some Godsmack, Three Days Grace, Five for Fighting, and some others.
I've had a lot of fun expanding my music library and look to continue this project for a while. I also want to wish everyone a Happy and Blessed Holy Week and that God will grant peace and love during this week, and that in response, people will be inspired to love God and neighbor and make better choices for the common good. I know the amount of saturation I put on this blog makes certain people think "I'm Just Carrying On" (Vertical Horizon), but I do like my writing and my audience. (Assuming you're out there.) Prayers and peace for everybody.
Aristocrates
Something's been striking me about music lately, as I've found deeply symbolic, loving music in unexpected places. Most of my IPOD is Christian or instrumental music, as these have been deeply peaceful symbols in my life. They continue to serve this purpose. The explicit symbol Christian music gives of God's love in its depths serves a purpose of bringing people into worship. It can also be useful to be a good reminder of God's presence in the world for those who like explicit symbols. Instrumental music can also provide a means of reflection without words. This reflection is dependent on the tones the songs utilize. Scary music can bring up scary memories, just as happy music can bring up happy memories. (Or in my case, memories of beating certain games.)
However, what I'm also starting to notice with some Christian music is that the symbol becomes so saturated in the song that the message gets watered down because it's too simple. This oversaturation limits the growth of people's minds to expand music into love. Add instrumental music to this mix and the images don't grow, as they are limited by the oversaturation of imagery in the words that actually have lyrics. Again this only applies to some Christian music, other artists really portray multiple images in song very well. (I've found a lot of success finding artists that aren't necessarily in the Christian mainstream, except Matt Maher, he's got good stuff for someone in the mainstream.)
I've found something fun in really engaging other music to expand my music library. In a lot of music, there is implicit symbols even if it does not explicitly speak of God's life. These implicit symbols might not say God or even love directly in the text, but the imagery given in the music might draw people to these kinds of thoughts.
The other strength in diversifying my music is that different music speaks to a lot of different experience. System of a Down speaks a different symbolic language than Matt Maher or Simon and Garfunkel. Music can speak of anger, sadness, despair, or joy. Diverse music enables one to engage all sorts of feelings, which can enable a person to love deeply as they engage the symbols in their own musical listening practice. It's useful for ministry and love as it can help me search for God in different and unexpected places.
The exploration of new music has been fun and a project I hope to continue for a while. My goal is to keep some of the old explicit symbols while searching for new implicit symbols to gain the ability to attain more symbolism. If I write many blog posts concerning saturation and the obsessing of certain philosophical concepts in our application to the world and religion, then my music tastes should reflect my thinking and feelings. Another life lesson I've been learning in my theological studies is that my work operates better when my mind and heart operate in cooperation with each other. This enables me to give a more authentic reflection, and growing my music library is something I look to be another part of that project.
Stuff I've found so far that's good: (Sidewalk Prophets, as far as I can tell an unknown Christian band but they have really good stuff: Vertical Horizon, Matchbox Twenty (yes, old pop, but I just really don't like modern pop), Simon and Garfunkel, some System of a Down, some Korn, some Godsmack, Three Days Grace, Five for Fighting, and some others.
I've had a lot of fun expanding my music library and look to continue this project for a while. I also want to wish everyone a Happy and Blessed Holy Week and that God will grant peace and love during this week, and that in response, people will be inspired to love God and neighbor and make better choices for the common good. I know the amount of saturation I put on this blog makes certain people think "I'm Just Carrying On" (Vertical Horizon), but I do like my writing and my audience. (Assuming you're out there.) Prayers and peace for everybody.
Aristocrates
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
On Experiential Idolatry
Something's been bothering me lately, and usually when that happens I think about it for a while and then I decide to write about it. I want to do three things here. I want to present an anecdotal situation, analyze both parts of it, and then evaluate based on what I'm observing.
Here's a metaphorical situation which I've encountered before, but it's been told a few different ways to me so I'm not thinking of any particular person. For example, there is a male person who is going to a retreat. On this retreat, there is a lot of talk about religious vocation. During the adoration session, this person feels inspired by some means to want to become a priest. He feels affirmed in this call when he prays and talks to his adviser (person in charge of the retreat) and it feels right for him, so he goes and pursues seminary work.
Of course, this may sound like a familiar situation, and one which many people favor. Some may ask, oh Aristocrates, why does this bother you so much? What could you possibly be thinking? To analyze this situation, I want to look at two parts of what is going on. The first part of the situation is that God gives grace through prayer, conversation, service, and many other means. To see God's grace is a wonderful thing, and when proper discernment is done about God's grace being present, rejoicing in God's grace is good. Of course, there are situations where the community will say God's grace is present when it violates the supreme law of love, and that's where discernment is needed. But this isn't what I want to talk about.
The problem with this scenario is the equation made between seeing grace, having a feeling, and then equating it to God's will to make a particular choice (in this case for the man to become a priest.) Grace can be experienced in many different ways, and this grace can cause us to have particular feelings. Happy or sad feelings because grace can also lead us to look at the hard parts of ourselves and where we need conversion. However, when grace causes us to think about negating free choice, or thinking that God's love will only come (or will mostly come) if a person makes a particular choice, then this equation must be questioned.
I want to name this phenomenon experiential idolatry using the philosophical definition of idol given by Jean-Luc Marion. Simply put, the idol is anything which saturates our image of God in one particular phenomenon (thing, concept, etc.) In the example above, the retreat experience is placing his image of God in the particular calling of becoming a priest, which hinders his decision making ability. Grace should influence our decisions, but just because one has a feeling of something in response to a particular experience doesn't mean that God loves us more if we make that choice. Also, we have to be honest and admit when we are making choices for ourselves.
For the man above, there are many reasons he might consider being a priest. Some people like service, some people like Church, and others like ontological assimilation. None of these things are necessarily God's will. The danger in choosing a particular vocation and thinking it's God's will and instilling this belief in others is that we can believe that God doesn't love people as much if they don't follow their particular vocation. To limit God in this way is a serious issue because it contributes to idolatry and draws worship away from an infinite God of infinite possibilities.
The solution for this ministerial problem is simple. Help people evaluate their choices honestly, help people think about what's good for them, but take out the language of God's will, and avoid the jump from feeling in experience to necessitating a certain choice. It doesn't matter if we "need" priests in the Catholic Church, to build psychological pressure on people to move toward religious vocation by emphasizing God's will is morally problematic. God's will must equate with love, and this includes not using others. Use of others, also includes promoting experiential idolatry
Here's a metaphorical situation which I've encountered before, but it's been told a few different ways to me so I'm not thinking of any particular person. For example, there is a male person who is going to a retreat. On this retreat, there is a lot of talk about religious vocation. During the adoration session, this person feels inspired by some means to want to become a priest. He feels affirmed in this call when he prays and talks to his adviser (person in charge of the retreat) and it feels right for him, so he goes and pursues seminary work.
Of course, this may sound like a familiar situation, and one which many people favor. Some may ask, oh Aristocrates, why does this bother you so much? What could you possibly be thinking? To analyze this situation, I want to look at two parts of what is going on. The first part of the situation is that God gives grace through prayer, conversation, service, and many other means. To see God's grace is a wonderful thing, and when proper discernment is done about God's grace being present, rejoicing in God's grace is good. Of course, there are situations where the community will say God's grace is present when it violates the supreme law of love, and that's where discernment is needed. But this isn't what I want to talk about.
The problem with this scenario is the equation made between seeing grace, having a feeling, and then equating it to God's will to make a particular choice (in this case for the man to become a priest.) Grace can be experienced in many different ways, and this grace can cause us to have particular feelings. Happy or sad feelings because grace can also lead us to look at the hard parts of ourselves and where we need conversion. However, when grace causes us to think about negating free choice, or thinking that God's love will only come (or will mostly come) if a person makes a particular choice, then this equation must be questioned.
I want to name this phenomenon experiential idolatry using the philosophical definition of idol given by Jean-Luc Marion. Simply put, the idol is anything which saturates our image of God in one particular phenomenon (thing, concept, etc.) In the example above, the retreat experience is placing his image of God in the particular calling of becoming a priest, which hinders his decision making ability. Grace should influence our decisions, but just because one has a feeling of something in response to a particular experience doesn't mean that God loves us more if we make that choice. Also, we have to be honest and admit when we are making choices for ourselves.
For the man above, there are many reasons he might consider being a priest. Some people like service, some people like Church, and others like ontological assimilation. None of these things are necessarily God's will. The danger in choosing a particular vocation and thinking it's God's will and instilling this belief in others is that we can believe that God doesn't love people as much if they don't follow their particular vocation. To limit God in this way is a serious issue because it contributes to idolatry and draws worship away from an infinite God of infinite possibilities.
The solution for this ministerial problem is simple. Help people evaluate their choices honestly, help people think about what's good for them, but take out the language of God's will, and avoid the jump from feeling in experience to necessitating a certain choice. It doesn't matter if we "need" priests in the Catholic Church, to build psychological pressure on people to move toward religious vocation by emphasizing God's will is morally problematic. God's will must equate with love, and this includes not using others. Use of others, also includes promoting experiential idolatry
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)