The scissors cut the long-grown hair

the razor scrapes the remnant fuzz.

Small-jawed, weak-chinned, bug-eyed,

I stare at the forgotten boy I was.

 

This was a leading entry in PepsiCo’s Super Bowl commercial contest. When word leaked out about it, the Catholic Church went bananas.

Pepsi has been trying to squash every occurrence of it on the Web; so, I don’t know how long this will be up.

I cannot confirm that this is the case, that the Catholic Church was upset or that Pepsi is trying to remove the ads, but I wonder if you all think this is funny or sacrilegious? Or perhaps neither.

 

Today I came across this excellent video from Alaska Robotics. I am afraid my facial exploits are quite tame and limited in comparison.

 

But the movie has nothing to do with the Book of Kells. The Book of Kells was made by monks who were faithful followers of Jesus who produced this gorgeous manuscript out of love and devotion, yet this movie seems oblivious to that fact. At no point in the movie is reference ever made to what the book is actually about and aside from a handful of crosses and references to monastic titles, someone without prior knowledge of this amazing artifact would have no clue about its true nature. That is disappointing. Although I have seen the Book myself I know little of its true history and a little more of that and perhaps less of the fairy or even the Northmen would have been nice.

Still, I highly recommend the movie. B+

 

As smoking a pipe is to cigarettes.

One is a pleasant diversion, the other a horrible addiction.

 

Andy Capp by Reg Smythe

It is tough to admit it but I am no longer the “younger generation.” Sure I use twitter, facebook, and often have the gadgets. Folks are saying that twitter and facebook are really for the old folks anyway so maybe that isn’t a sign of my hipness. But when it comes to education and preaching I think that we are very often in danger of altering the message rather than the means of delivery. When Paul said he became all things to all people (1 Cor. 9:22) he was not saying that he would alter the Gospel to meet a different audience’s perspective (if they didn’t like the idea of Christ’s death as an atoning sacrifice, for example, he did not say that it was merely an example of love). Rather he was saying that he would meet people where they were in the condition that they were in. The Bible must be translated into every languages and only some of them are verbal.

This is true for education as well. I certainly believe that we need to understand the nature and character of our students today and we should explore modes of delivery that will work best for our/their current context (which is not the same for everyone, we have commuters, adult learners, military, etc.). But our goals and the content should not necessarily change. The obvious exception to the content is, of course, where new knowledge is being developed; we need to stay up-to-date in our fields and incorporate new discoveries and theories into our courses. As much as I am glad to see folks using the iPad, for example, in English classes, I worry sometimes that in some people’s rush to incorporate the latest gadget they are not only potentially leaving some behind they are also running the risk of making the course about the tools rather than the subject.

In short, whatever modes and methods we use we need to keep our eyes on the “course objectives and learning outcomes,” even in the church.

 

(And it is not just the glove, did we need to see a Jesus with that much chest hair?)

 

• First I put in the opening paragraphs from my paper on Boaz from MAR-SBL. The result? I write like Kurt Vonnegut.
• Next I pasted in a portion from a sermon for 6 Easter  2009. The result? I write like James Joyce.
• Finally, I used a portion from this blog, specifically where I was discussing the iPad. The result? I write like David Foster Wallace.

This puts me in mind of the essay by C. S. Lewis (was it Fern-Seed and Elephants and Other Essays on Christianity? I can’t remember) where he discusses the debates about Pauline authorship. As I recall he points out that the arguments from writing style do not hold up since if one were to analyze his various works, Narnia, academic essays, apologetics, etc., one would think there were at least 4 different authors at work. Without getting into the debate about Pauline authorship or J, for that matter, I think this serves as a reasonable caution. Who among us does always write in the same style? And none of my examples include any dialogue with characters expressing distinct voices or views.

All in all, these are not bad folks to be in company with (although I haven’t read any Wallace). The site never claimed to be accurate, Margaret Atwood apparently doesn’t write like herself, but it is a bit fun and perhaps I nice reminder that our own literary critical abilities are probably not much better.

 

Reel Jesus Introduction

Good evening. My name is Christian Brady and I am dean of the Schreyer Honors College and on behalf of the State College Theatre and the Film Collective I welcome you to the Reel Jesus Film Festival. In a moment I will outline the events of our evening, but first a few words about this series.

While I am an academic administrator, I am a scholar of ancient Judaism. I research and teach on the Judaism of the time of Jesus and the centuries following, often referred to as the “classical” or “golden period” of Judaism. Arguing over who Jesus was and what he might have said or did is an incredibly common occurrence among scholars (and for some it has even proved to be quite lucrative). Yet when we as scholars or clergy write or preach about Jesus we do so in a one-dimensional or linear fashion. You read the words or hear them spoken one after another even as I present to you now this brief introduction.

When a filmmaker presents to us their story of Jesus it is multivalent, three dimensional. They are able not only to select and choose the words which convey the story and the message, they also control the image, selecting the actors, their clothing, the environment, the lighting, the camera angles and shots. The film offers us an immersive experience.

The vocabulary that is available to the filmmaker goes far beyond that of the author, offering them a nearly infinite palette (if I may mix my metaphors) from which to draw. And just as the director can convey their message through the varied media of their medium, we the viewers have just as many opportunities to reinterpret and imagine what we once thought was so familiar and comfortable. I never considered Jesus as having such keen eyes. What does it mean that Judas is portrayed as a black man? How would I depict Satan?

Even those of us raised without any religious education have some image of Jesus, we have some concept of what he did and said. This series of films allows us to see other images and conceptions. Some will be familiar and others quite jarring. The goal, as literary critics are fond of saying, is to “problematize” Jesus, shake loose the stain glass windows present in our minds and offer a different realization.

Tonight we begin our series of four films with Paolo Pasolini’s The Gospel According to Matthew, a more traditional and yet far from conventional depiction of the Gospel story. Each movie will be introduced by a member of our community, either a scholar or a member of the clergy. After the film, following a short break, a panel of scholars and clergy will lead us in discussion and conversation about the film. Those of us on the panel will all keep our initial comments very brief so that we may open the floor to you, the audience.

Now I am pleased to introduce tonight’s panel. Our introduction to the film will be presented by Dr. Sherry Roush, Assoc Professor of Italian, Dept of Spanish, Italian & Portuguese. Other members of our panel include Paul Dilley, Assistant Professor in the history of early Christianity and New Testament studies, Dept of History, Allan Stoekl, Professor of French and Comparative Literature, Dept of French, and Rev. Paul Grabill, Pastor of The State College Assembly of God.

Please welcome Dr. Roush.