This post does not pertain to New Testament course work.

How did I just realizes that I've been living in such a base, immoral pit of beauty all year? Gonzaga is so beautiful. A lot of the students here come from wealthy, beautiful families and private schools and sunny California. But if I've learned one non-academic thing this year, it is that personality and principle are dead. Entirely dead. What counts now, here at this place in this day and age, is not what we believe in or the good things that we choose to do. What counts is what we wear, who we're seen with and how we put others down. Gonzaga is a city in which judgments and shit-talking will triumph over personal improvement and perspective and confrontation any day. Two things I hate: judgment and avoidance of confrontation. I wish everyone would keep their goddamn mouths shut from slandering others behind backs and their fists reared for confrontation. I honestly wish, instead of stupid shit-talking, that everyone just walked up to each other and said how they really felt, and accepted the consequences of whatever ensued. At least, then, everyone would experience the pain that they deserve. Maybe if you got punched in the mouth every time you made fun of someone, or said something cruel, or put someone down, you wouldn't do it anymore. But no. Not here. Here at Gonzaga we believe in talking behind backs and avoiding confrontation. It's a much *safer* way to live: neither the talker or the topic get hurt, because (ideally) the topic never finds out he or she is a topic.

I fucking hate it. As this year has progressed, I've found myself analyzing and re-analyzing the actions of others and myself. Trying not to care what others thing, but finding myself livid at their crass and mean shit-talking about me. How do I not care? The shit-talking behind my back is definitely a consequence of me going against this popular grain: doing what I want, when I want to do it, and saying how I feel TO OTHER'S FACES. Why is this such a strange action today? Why do you have to attack me for feeling this way?

I'm making a victim and martyr of myself. I apologize. It's not right, and I'm certainly not perfect in this respect (or any). I've talked my fair share of shit, and avoided my fair share of confrontation. But I'm trying hard to change these things about myself, and I guess my fury comes from the fact that NO ONE else even realizes how this is a problem!?

I hate this modern thought. It's so cowardly. You fucking cowards, with your beautiful clothes, your beautiful faces and your filthy mouths. If you hate me, if you hate what I do, tell me. Now. I don't care how you feel about it, (though I'd like to know in a calm manner, simple for perspective's sake), but if you're going to take an opinion, TELL ME. If you have something nasty to say about me, say it to me. Then, we'll fight fairly with wit or physical strength or even screaming. I'd rather engage in any of this than be a topic of your petty conversations. 

On my wall right above my bed, I see Einstein staring off into space and his quote below; "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." But what would a great spirit do? Certainly not get in as many fights as I do. A great spirit would definitely see all of this going on, analyze it objectively, and fight with wit and wisdom. I'd like to get there someday. What would God say? turn the other cheek? Hell no. Not doing that. I'm not nearly strong enough to do that. I've been trying so hard to smile and turn away quietly. But it doesn't work, I just erupt periodically at these awful people. 

What do I do? I've heard a lot lately that all you have to do to make a dream a reality is commit it to writing. And I keep telling myself that I can't change those haters, even though I wish I could. But I can only change myself. Here's what I want to work on: 

1. Wrangling my tongue

-not exploding when I'm angry

-thinking before speaking

2. let some time elapse between the infliction and my response, to help me formulate my opinions 

3. bite back with sharp wit, not a shrill voice

4. stop talking shit. period. 

5. if I have a problem with someone, either bring it to them, or forget about it. but mostly, I need to stop picking fights.

6. as hard as it is, and as much as Moans hates it, refuse to believe that the way of the world is devoid of principle. Not that I can change anything, but I can change myself. Who says the way of the world has to be my way? 

7. Not giving up. 

8. Not caring what others thing or do. Just letting it roll off of my back. 

9. Start boxing, to release some of these demons. 

10. "Keep your nose out of the sky, keep your heart to God, and keep your face to the rising sun.", think positive. Chin up.

I don't care what you say, Moans, success does not come to the malicious who engage in this stuff. I don't care what the world does, I'm going to make it to the top on principle and hard work. Because I'm Irish, and an American, and my family is the American Dream! 

Kiss it, Gonzaga. I'm above this.

Who is Jesus #2

 Jesus in a paragraph, sentence, word:

Jesus is the human savior that God sent down to repair the sin humanity has inflicted upon the Creator. Jesus was born, lived and died a mortal death, but experienced an immortal resurrection and continuously consulted supernatural beings such as the Holy Spirit and God. Jesus was persecuted by his own people, Jews, since he presented a radical viewpoint that attempted to trade in the old Law for new virtues of kindness, truth and acceptance of all people. Should we so choose to accept the sacrifice that Jesus has made, His life on Earth has presented a route for humankind to be in the Kingdom of Heaven despite the inherent sin that we live in. Jesus’ existence, though he lived a sinless life, has been the most controversial event of all time—during Jesus’ life and now. 

                Jesus is the mediator between humankind and God.

                Messenger

 Course Reflection:

                This course has certainly changed my view of the New Testament and Jesus! Having read the entire bible long before stepping through the doors of the “shoebox”, I had many preconceived notions or ignorances about the New Testament. For one, I believed that the New Testament was entirely focused on “good” events (pre-passion, of course): Jesus healing people, Jesus walking on water, Jesus praying in gardens, Jesus multiplying food. How nice! However, I was surprised to find that controversy exists in the New Testament as well as the Old. Pharisees are constantly hounding Jesus, Jesus finds fault with his own disciples on numerous occasions, and Jesus is ALWAYS picking fights! I never thought that I could view the New Testament, or “Good news” so darkly.

                Another enlightenment that I received is that the New Testament—writings that I have believed strongly for many years—wasn’t even written during Jesus’ lifetime! The earliest writings that we have now were written long after Jesus died, which certainly calls to question their truth. The Synoptic Gospel book showed me that giant discrepancies exist between the Gospel authors (which I had absolutely no knowledge of before!). I was also shocked to find out that Q and other Gnostic writings exist. I certainly hope that every word of the Gospel is divinely inspired, because a large margin could easily exist between what we know about Jesus and what actually happened with Him. Another shock was finding that Gospel authors definitely have biases. For example Luke loves to support the poor and women, two lower-status groups in society. Sometimes Jesus is the Light, and at other times he’s the Savoir or the Prophet. To know that gospel authors can write with bias calls the divine inspiration into question in my mind again.   

                More than any other finding, I am proud to say that New Testament has certainly tested my faith. Raised in a Catholic school and frequently subjected to Methodist and Lutheran interpretations of the bible, I had an “ask no questions” policy before entering New Testament. Though questioning beliefs that we’ve held so long can be painful and uncomfortable, the curiosities that New Testament has brought about are absolutely healthy and vital to my faith journey. And what’s more is that, for the first time, I felt permitted to hold such doubts in an objective, academic sense. I still need to do more research, prayer and thought before I would classify my internal questions as settled, but New Testament was certainly a good starting place.

Jesus at the Movies #2

Shepherding

                Sometimes I feel that God is like the wind. We cannot see either in front of us, but we know that both exist due to the effects that they procure. A wind gust brings movement in the trees, fallen branches and occasional power outages. God’s existence has brought followers, opposition, wars, government, and a moral code for humanity. Some might argue that every action some (or all) human beings make is a result of God’s prevalence on Earth. But how can this be? How can an invisible force bring about so many real, visible consequences? Perhaps the answer has to do with the “guidance” that both bring about--the shepherding influence that invisible forces around us have on our lives. (After all, Jesus is referred to as the “Good Shepherd”)! In the film Chocolat, “shepherds” and their effects on followers teach us how we, as inevitable shepherds and followers, should view the quality of goodness and happiness in our lives.

 Several shepherding figures exist in Chocolat. The Comte de Reynaud acts as a shepherd for the village, fostering his own rigid flavor of Tranquilite and making strong suggestions to the villagers about how to live their lives in order to foster this Tranquilite and the sanctity of the group. Pere Henri acts as a shepherd in holy matters, interpreting God’s word to fit the Comte’s shepherding mold. The Clever North Wind shepherds Vianne Rocher and her mother, moving them from place to place and urging them to help others in Vianne’s own sweet ways. In this essay, I will focus on the shepherding styles of Caroline Clairmont and Vianne in how they shepherd their children, Luc Clairmont and Anouk Rocher.

Caroline Clairmont, an assistant to the Comte de Reynaud, lives a very straight-laced life. Caroline has a strict view of God, (which some might argue is more a view of religion since her actions seem to lack spirituality): rituals must be followed, mass must be attended, and family infrastructure must be fostered. Caroline is particularly controlling of her actions since she has been warned by the Comte, her leader and boss, that (extremely) strict adherence to the moral and ethical standards cast by the Comte and the Catholic Church are vital to happiness, even though the villagers’ following of such standards leads to unhappiness. But more than the Comte’s or God’s influence, Caroline seems to live by strict standards to regain a card house-like control of her family upon feeling unpleasant with her rearing by the wild Armande Voizin. Having been raised by the rebellious, outspoken Armande, Caroline believes that the best way to shepherd Luc is to set strict rules upon his actions and expect pristine behavior as his response. Caroline has fit her life into a grid: every week, she has her hair styled, she provides a loving home for Luc, she helps him with his homework, and encourages that he draws versus playing with friends. Caroline clearly strives to raise Luc as a quiet, introverted child, since this type is more likely to respect the wishes of authority. Just as Caroline strives to adhere to strict standards of the exclusive, perfect God presented to the villagers by Comte de Reynaud, she has shepherded a boy who knows well how to follow--despite his own desires.

Vianne Rocher is a warm, rebellious character. She moves with Anouk Rocher, her daughter, from place to place sharing her influential chocolate and ideas to both those who will listen and those who will not. Vianne was raised by her ethnic mother in the same fashion: creating delicious chocolate using ancient Mayan recipes and following no direction other than tradition and the unpredictable beckoning of the Clever North Wind. We are never confirmed as to Vianne’s image of God, so we have no right to describe her any kind of believer or non-believer in any religious framework. Vianne’s beliefs reside in inclusion and outreach. Vianne clearly believes that a right action is one that makes people happy, so she shares indulgent chocolate with others, inspires creativity, and exhibits friendliness to those outcast by the harsh mores of Comte de Reynaud’s Tranquilite. Vianne’s kind actions include protecting a social outcast, Josephine Muscat, who has been abused by her husband, Serge Muscat, bringing happiness to the grouchy Armande Voizin, mending the lost passion between Yvette Marceau and Alphonse Marceau, and befriending Roux the pirate who had been boycotted for his “immorality”. Vianne is clearly an open-minded and accepting individual and encourages Anouk to be as well. Vianne and Anouk are extremely close; they sleep in the same bed, spend all of their free time together, and share openly their life happenings. In her accepting nature, Vianne allows Anouk to foster a public belief in an imaginary kangaroo friend, Pontouf, play cards at the bar with grown men, and make friends with whosoever Anouk choses (such as Roux’s niece). Vianne’s belief that happiness does not come from rituals performed to a God but from kindness to those around her shepherds Anouk into an outgoing, loving child who is every bit as rebellious to societal conformity as Vianne.

Like the wind’s or God’s invisibility procuring visible manifestations of their influence, we can judge the character of Caroline Clairmont and Vianne Rocher based on the actions of their shepherded children. Both Luc and Anouk are good-hearted children: they try to obey their mothers’ rules but live spirited lives according to their own intuitions. Luc is extremely well-behaved: he attends church with his mother, resists boisterous play, completes his schoolwork, and tries to resist Vianne’s chocolate even when his mother is not around. But the viewer senses that Luc is an unhappy child at the beginning of the movie, since his drawings, (one of a dead bird), are fairly morbid. Luc seems to feel trapped by his mother’s wishes, especially when he is forbidden from visiting with his grandmother or eating chocolate during Lent. So, like any child, Luc rebels. He begins visiting Armande at the chocolate shop in secret; eating chocolate and reading poetry that his mother would certainly not approve of. Luc, clearly afraid of the harsh punishment that his mother might inflict should she uncover his taboo actions, rebels in secret. Anouk, on the other hand, rebels from Vianne openly. She engages in fights at school, physically resists moving and directly complains about Vianne’s lack of conformity in society (not attending church or wearing black shoes). Anouk is an accepting and friendly child who is open with her emotions and desires. Neither child is perfect. Luc is often unhappy due to his restraints from freedom and Anouk is unhappy due to her lack of stability--even in endless freedom.

So, how is a shepherd to tend his flocks? Chocolat presents a stark, black-and-white scenario in which Vianne shepherds with complete freedom and Caroline shepherds without any freedom: such are clear statement of how we may interpret God. Is God a shepherd to whom we must strictly obey, one who expects perfection and self-restraint? Or is God a shepherd who inspires kindness as the only rule? Does the former represent the Torah’s Law, and the latter represent the Golden Rule of Jesus’ teachings?

Chocolat confirms the latter. In Pere Henri’s final sermon, he rejects convention in religion, saying, “Do I want to speak of the miracle of Our Lord's divine transformation? Not really, no. I don't want to talk about His divinity. I'd rather talk about His humanity” (imdb.com). Clearly, Pere Henri is discarding the Comte’s ideas of strict adherence to divinity and perfection in lieu of other themes; “I think that we can't go around... measuring our goodness by what we don't do. By what we deny ourselves, what we resist, and who we exclude. I think... we've got to measure goodness by what we embrace, what we create... and who we include” (imdb.com). This is evidenced by Caroline and Luc’s transformation toward the end of the movie into warmer, more accepting individuals.

In Chocolat, viewers are confronted with several controversies: ritual versus rebellion, society versus outcast, quiet versus noise, and freedom versus entrapment. Perhaps Pere Henri’s sermon provides the answer to our original question: how do shepherds affect the way in which we view goodness and happiness? Chocolat argues that shepherds should foster goodness in their followers, and the film’s Pere Henri has suggested that goodness must create happiness for all. Be it the shepherding influences of characters in Chocolat, the wind or the Almighty God, we should consider that the happiness of the followers indicate the goodness of the shepherd.

Romans 10:13

                I was young. 13 years, that is, and working at a Christian summer camp in Port Orchard, Washington. We hosted a weekly concert for the campers, and this week was the stellar Christian rock band, Autumn’s Fire. I loved their acoustic sound, their charming biblical references and the fact that the lead singer could make an uncanny Chewbacca noise in the microphone. I had decided that I loved Autumn’s Fire, so I bought their CD and had them sign it after the show. The bassist (whom I had not even noticed behind Chewbacca), signed, “Romans 10:13,” and his name…Amos whatever. Awed by this pearl of wisdom, I immediately referenced the verse and committed to memory. “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved,” it says. So that is how I lived my life, until it completely screwed me over.

                Ehrman says that “those who believe in Christ have been made right with God and will be saved from the wrath of God that is coming upon this world (5:1-11). They will also be delivered from the reign of God’s mortal enemy, death, which entered into the world through the disobedience of Adam, Christ’s counterpart, but which has now been conquered by Christ’s own act of obedience (5:12-21)” (271). One might interpret that this means Jesus has saved humanity from having to deal with the cosmic power of sin, in order to more easily access salvation through God. Upon further review, I would agree that Romans 10:13 assures us of the same fate: if we choose to accept Jesus’ saving of our sins, we can be free of sin and death.

                But, at 13, I completely misconstrued those few words in Romans 10:13. After the “turn the other cheek” Catholic upbringing I’d experienced, I understood Christian salvation—and thus, life on Earth—as allowing others to hurt, harm and do what they please with you, while you turn the other cheek, call out to God, and eventually experience some kind of salvation. Oh, how this confusion of the message destroyed me! I grew laterally from 13 into the biggest pushover humankind has witnessed thus far, which ended with devastating consequences and lessons definitely learned the hard way. Upon reviewing Romans, I don’t see Paul advising against self-defense or social diplomacy. In fact, God is particularly “righteous” in Paul’s works, saving those who reject the confines of the Law and choose to accept Jesus’ sacrifice.

                Word to the wise 13 year-olds out there: Paul’s message in Romans, particularly chapter 10, verse 13, does not imply that anyone should lay across (figurative) train tracks, allowing the forces of sin and death to destroy them, awaiting God’s saving power. Instead, Paul asks us to fearlessly (and confrontationally, as in the case of the Romans!), proclaim the good news of Jesus’ sacrifice to begin the process of eternal sin removal. Now, a much smarter--but still extraordinarily dumb—18 year-old, I feel I have transformed from a adhering-conscious Jew to a stronger Roman, interpreting and awaiting more signals while defending myself and my faith on Earth.