I have long been interested in the subject of architecture, and specifically its relationship to matters of the human experience and our relationship to God and one another. This is connected of course to a fascination with and passion for the idea of the city (which also brings with it interesting points of historical study as well).

So I was super excited when the Bible Project peeps landed on “the city” as the subject of its latest series of podcasts. Thus far it has been quite interesting, if just scratching the surface of what is a broad theme. Perhaps most noted is how they begin with this simple question: how do we reconcile the scriptures presenting of the city as a symptom or product of the essential human problem (violence and division) with the idea that the city becomes a picture of the new creation. It’s an interesting question that weaves it’s way into a study of the patterns we find in Genesis 1-9 regarding the formation of the city. They help show how the story of Cain and Abel and the story of Babel are both parallel depictions of the city, simply from opposite ends (its building and its deconstruction)

One idea that has really stuck out for me as well is how they note the parallel of Cain’s “building” of the city with God’s building of Eve. In Genesis 1 and 2 the first time we see something described as “not good” is when mankind is seen to be alone. This problem is connected to the call to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth- to create- which humanity cannot do alone. The same structure and language is employed in the Cain and Abel story, only in this case it is from the perspective of living in the wilderness space rather than the garden space. When Cain kills Abel not only is he alone, but he notes the problem that “he will most surely die” (a callback to the Adam and Eve narrative). Where God “clothes” Adam and Eve, God marks Cain. The curious thing though is that the mark of Cain doesn’t just promise protection, it promises protection by way of breaking a cycle of perpetual reparation. As it reads,

15 But the Lord said to him, “Not so anyone who kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over.” Then the Lord put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him.

Putting a stop to the cycle of violence comes in response to the fact that “anyone who kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over”. Certainly there is a correlation here to Jesus’ later command to forgive seventy times seven.

The ensuing contrast then comes in Cain’s failure to trust in Gods provision and protection. His building of the city, marked as it was in the ancient world by walls that would shut itsself out from external threats, becomes the basis of the portrait of violence based on perpetual repayment for death that then fills the earth.

Fast forward and what you have in the flood story is a reversal of the creation story (a decreation) meant to reset the story and begin to imagine it from the perspective of building a world in the way of God. As the Noah story indicates, death is still present in the wilderness space Noah occupies on the other side of the flood, and yet the promise of new creation follows in the image of the city, a city of contrasts. One in which the gates are never shut.

Further yet, what you then find in the story of Babel is a depiction of a built city being deconstructed. The organizing principle in Cain leading to the chaos of confusion. This also parallels with the same creation-decreation cycle that we find in the creation and flood stories.

Just an add on for fellow Winnipegers too. Cinematheque is currently showcasing their architecture and design in film festival. Schedule available here:https://www.winnipegfilmgroup.com/architecture-design-film-festival-april-26-30-2023/

Film Journal 2023: Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3
Directed by James Gunn
Where to watch: now playing in theaters

When the first Guardians film came out it was a bit of a novelty. It represented a slight break from the Marvel formula, allowing Gunn to put his personal touch on a relatively unknown story about a cast of misfits thrust together and bound to protecting the universe against otherworldly threats.

With Volume 3, Gunns sensibilities take even more of a center stage, making this the most personal and most invested of the three.
It’s also the darkest, especially considering the humor that dominates volume 2. It’s not that the humor is absent here, but it takes a backseat to the films dramatic and creative concern. In truth, this reflects some awkward tonal shifts that might unsettle or distance some viewers, and Gunns taking some definite swings here on his way out of the franchise and the MCU that don’t always work completely. But the films creative voice overshadows that, proving that there is still plenty of room to explore when it comes to reimagining these stories in unique ways and finding different ways to tell Marvel stories. Truth be told, when the swings do land it’s quite exceptional; visually, structurally, aesthetically, technically.

What allows this film to soar though is how Gunn locates the trilogies thematic force in the story of Rocket. The film is a beautiful send off to these beloved characters, and by giving the trilogy a singular and unifying focus it allows the narrative to reflect back on the journey as a whole with perspective and awareness of its growth. There are some genuinely powerful and emotionally gripping moments, and some stunning ones,that make the emotional investment deeply worthwhile.

A franchise about unlikely friendship grows into a story about found family, taking the time to really explore the weight of their individual stories and struggles and how they fit together. This is a genuine feeler that stands as a reminder of why the MCU has had such a lasting presence in the cinematic landscape.

A great article to dig deeper: https://www.indiewire.com/features/craft/guardians-of-the-galaxy-vol-3-james-gunn-mcu-bowie-design-1234860842/

“When one measures history by a single possible human lifetime (100 years) one realises that the whole of it has been almost incredibly short. This means that historical change has been almost incredibly fast. Each of those great empires that so imposingly rose,.flourished, and fell did so during the overlapping lives of a handful of individuals, usually fewer than half a dozen.”

Philosopher Bryan Magee in his book Ultimate Questions uses this observation to note the relationship between space and time relating to past, present and future. He imagines space and time as something that closes off knowledge by way of location to it. But the past, present and future are still the same for everyone in all times and places. The future is full, as he says, it is our knowledge that is blank. Further yet, what we can know “is so influenced by our location” in time and space that “it is impossible for us to “disentangle that influence and get a clear look at it.”. In a more fatalistic sense, “within the empirical world all time will be taken away from us, and with it everything we have and are in this world.”

But then he makes this curious observation. He imagines life on a distant star making a telescope strong enough to see earth. A star so many light years away will be viewing the earth as it was at the time of Jesus in the same present that we share right now. Whatever actions this life might take that could impact the earth would only be known to our distant future. And in a sense this is how we all live; we make choices and decisions based on knowledge of the past that will only be known to the future.

And yet there is another truth inherent in this. The closer the star is the closer it gets to the shared present. In reality, even the things we see right in front of us are reflections of the past, bound by the time that light takes to travel from its source to our imagination. The closer we get, however, the more connected our actions are to our relationship with the present, the more we can begin to know things “in relationship” to it.

If I could take this thought one step further. If it is distance that leaves us detached from the present, crossing this distance is what demonstrates is what makes the present valuable. I think about this in terms of the God-human relationship, and how Jesus embodies this bridging of distance in both time and space. That somehow and in some unimaginable way that God entangles Godsself in time and space so as to know and be known in relationship. And that the idea of being “in Christ” and Christ in us imagines the breaking down of this distance altogether.

Film Journal 2023: Linoleum
Directed by Colin West

Destined to be swallowed up by higher profile fare before the year is done, this small, indie, arthouse drama exists as a reminder of what makes the movies so special. It’s quirky presence is bolstered by a unique story, serving the unassuming nature of the Directors vision. Free to carve its own path, it finds a way towards an extremely satisfying emotional premise.

This isn’t the kind of arthouse fare that remains disinterested in accessibility. This is as human as it comes, exploring the nature of failed dreams and their existential challenge. It cuts to the heart of the question of who we are, wondering about how we reconcile this with who we become. A brilliant use of story structure as a plot device slowly sneaks up on the story arc, setting the whole thing up for a true and real gut punch. That it can marry it’s observations of science and reason with something so grounded and mysterious is a testament to the smarts and the thoughtfulness of its script. The awe of space and it’s expanse represents the journey inward, with the imagery of the rocket moving us in both directions at once.

Definitely feel like I will still be talking about this one by year’s end.

Reading this article , which maps a shift in Hawkings theorizing about the universe, or more aptly how we theorize about the universe, affords us some interesting insights into not just the limits of science, but where the science drives us; towards mystery

And not simply mystery in the sense of “science will figure it out one day”, but mystery in terms of that fundamental relationship that exists between the knower and the known. Hawkings sentiment is, stop playing God. Meaning, that not only must we learn to see from a position of proper perspective, we must allow that perspective to be shaped by the mystery if we are in fact to know anything at all

Worth thinking about.

“We’ve always thought of the laws of physics as immutable, eternal truths. And now I’m saying they’re the result of an evolution, which involved a lot of channels and some necessity and a random process. This model allows you to reveal the interconnectedness, not just between the different species of life, but between the physical levels of the universe.

We are also saying, precisely because we put that evolutionary character so central, that maybe the idea that we would find an absolute answer for a final theory in physics was misguided. Maybe there are limits to science. Maybe there is a certain finitude associated with that. And that, of course, leaves room for some mystery.”

Film Journal 2023: Chevalier
Directed by Stephen Williams

Lost in the shadows of some high profile releases, and even a respective higher budgeted A24 indie art project by Ari Aster, this overlooked mid budget period piece deserves your attention. And given the way it’s built for the cinematic experience, a crowd.

Normally period dramas like this tend to be shot with wide angles and unhurried pacing. Chevalier employs a mixture of narrow frames and quick moving camera work befitting the musical subtext. The result is a richly entertaining and immerse experience, helping to bring the history to life like an orchestrated symphony or grand opera.

And speaking of the stellar score. The story of Chevalier, a French-Caribbean violinist and composer who fights through the political and social restraints of his day during the reign of Marie Antoinette, becoming a musical prodigy and leading the way for revolution in the area of inequality and racism against women and black people, is afforded a soaring score that perfectly orchestrates the rise and fall nature of the story. Some expertly crafted sequences work in concert as well with a handful of charismatic and invested performances, injecting the whole thing with a spirited energy that carries and expresses the urgency of the revolutionary context. The fact that this tells the story of a lesser known figure who was in fact erased from history during the era of Bonaparte, before eventually being resurrected through the work of diligent scholarship, adds to the overall intrigue.

An impressive effort for a film that was not in any way on my radar. I’m hoping it finds the audience it deserves.

“Don’t try to defeat your opposition, focus in winning the audience.”

• Scott McKnight

Been thinking about this a lot. McKnight doesn’t apply this solely to high profile adversaries. Rather he applies it to any thought, teaching, conviction ect that you see to be crucially important, regardless of what that might be.

In truth, we all have opposition. Opposition doesn’t mean adversary (in the Biblical sense there is only one adversary). It might be someone or something that we are in conflict with directly. It might simply be a voice or idea that preaches in conflict with that which you deem to be crucially important. It could be a friend, a family member, an acquaintance, a group member, a coworker.

In truth, if we cannot locate these points of opposition it likely means we simply haven’t given enough thought to what we are passionate about, to what drives us. We all have a stage. We all have influence whether we know it or not. That is what it means to exist in this world.

Sometimes there is a need for confrontation, to be sure. But I think what needs to be considered is when the opposition becomes our entire audience. Suddenly the credibility of our conviction rests solely on defeating our opposition. Which of course is likely to never happen.

When we are focused entirely on defeating our opposition two other things happen;

1. We lose sight of the way we are shaped by such conversations and how we grow most often on the other side of them. Where we grow the least is when we are on the inside of them for too long and conversations turn into wars. Our convictions should be convictions, but that never means they must become static
2. We miss how our own words and actions will be their own best witness not to our opposition but to our audience. If one convictions have merit and are indeed important, they will find their way in to the places where they are most apt to be recieved (and vice versa for ourselves)

This isn’t about a hard and fast rule of discourse of course. Rather it is about how we become free to debate, to speak, and to listen appropriately in a world where the temptation to make our opposition our audience looms large.

This article talks about a Christ Hermeneutic, and addresses these verses:

And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.     (Luke 24:27)

If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me.  But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”  (John 5:47)

As I was reading through the Gospel of John this morning I got on this rabbit trail. Growing up I was always taught that this verse was pointing to some specific literal writing from Moses. What seems clear to me though is that this phrasing, echoed as it is in Luke, is teaching something much broader and apart from a literal word. What is being taught here is how to read the scriptures as echos of Jesus. In John 5 alone, the phrasing comes on the heals of an exposition of the Son’s identity. Perhaps most startling is how 5:17, which captures the tension of Jesus working on the Sabbath, an act which would seemingly set Him in tension with Moses, points not to some abolishing of the law (as so many often read it) but as an identifying feature of the Son doing that (work) which is uniquely the Fathers. This is the point of the “signs”, and it is the point of the four witnesses to Jesus’ identity that Jesus witness to Himself (John the Baptist, the signs themsleves, the Father, and finally Moses). It is the point of the I Am statements.

It is revealing that on the basis of these witnesses it is said to be Moses who will file charges against them. Which, when reflected upon, can only arise because of Jesus’ identity being tied to the idea of embodying the story of Torah, the very place where we then see Him as one with the Father. To know Jesus is to know Torah, to know Torah is to know Jesus by way of a Jesus hermeneutic.

Film Journal 2023: Beau Is Afraid
Directed by Ari Aster

There will be lots of people, I’m sure who will hate this film. And I get it. It’s the sort of film you have to vibe with or it’s going to end up feeling like a bit of a bludgeon.

To get on the wave length of this film, if you even desire to, one of the things you will need to do is accept that whatever story this film is telling won’t become relevant until after you’ve experienced the entirety of the film, sat with it, and let it sink in. If you spend your time trying to locate plot points it will drive you to madness. Not because they aren’t there, but because the film, by design, is meant to experience first and then piece back together.

The film is structured around the hero’s journey, simply flipped upside down, which positions it as an epic. It’s also, aesthetically and tonally, very much in the vein of a dark fairy tale. This isn’t outright horror, so be prepared for that. But it could be said to be the stuff of nightmares.

One of the initial scenes in the movie has an adult Beau, cast as he is in the light of a once secure baby being thrust out into a cruel and unforgiving world, sitting across from his therapist. It is established that he deals with anxiety, giving the movies title its blunt force. This anxiety is rooted in some past family trauma relating specifically to his mother. As the film moves forward from this sequence we are brought in on this journey which takes us deeper and deeper inside of his head. It might be fair to say that the film is balancing a kind of unreliable narrator to this end, but for as much as it might seem that way, I think there is actually something far more aware and intentional at play. Rather than playing around with what’s real and what’s not, what it is doing is bringing us into the world Beau understands. This is the primary place, I think, where viewers will either attach or detach from his character, and the film will have varying mileage depending on which direction you go.

The film is not afraid to leave a good deal of this as well open to interpretation. There are key plot points that are able to reshape the story in slightly different ways, all of which I think hold legitimacy. Without giving anything too much away, let me just say that for me personally, the aspect of this film that I connected with was the weight it imagines in the simple thought, what if the way I think the world perceives me in my own head proves true.

This becomes part of a patterned narrative in Beau’s journey, where moments of positivity and motivation are confronted with the sources of anxiety, leading him to fold in and to run, giving way to the next sequence and the next in what is a uniquely episodic vision by Aster. This pattern is established in a visual sense through an incredible sense of control over the differnt set pieces and set design. There is a ton of creative flourishes here that really work to break open this world, adding to it as it goes. Even if you don’t appreciate the character and the film, I imagine one would have to respect the craft.

I have diagnosed anxiety rooted in the past. This is likely one of the big reasons this film resonated for me even with all of its out there imagination and artistic ambition. It’s not the kind of film that binds a strong emotional resonance to its characters, to be sure. What it wants to do is unsettle by exploring what’s inside the head. And in true Aster style he finds some rather shocking ways to do that. So at the very least be aware of what you are getting into, because there is a lot of crazy packed into a 3 hour run time. Befitting the film itself though, the whole thing is incredibly disorienting, so any sense of time while I was watching really became a non factor. To be honest, the primary challenge was simply figuring out where I was at different points, as its easy to get lost in.

“If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world.” (Mere Christianity, Bk. III, chap. 10, “Hope”)

This argument from desire has long become a trope in the world of skeptics, who have dismissed the argument as fodder.

There are many reasons for why I came back to belief in God. At the risk of this devolving into a prooftext (not my intent), I will say that, for me, this idea (of reasoning from desire) remains compelling for me.

I would flesh it out though on a couple different fronts

1. Dismissals of the argument often come on two fronts, it is cited as wish fulfillment (see Ludwig Feuerbach), and/or it is accused of appealing to something subjective in order to make an objective statement about God. The common response to this is to note that there are differnt kinds of desires. A desire that is inherent to our nature, such as hunger, does indeed point to something inherently true outside of itself. While it’s more difficult to apply this reasoning universally regarding a desire for God (although it can be done), this at the very least makes sense for many who do hold belief in God.

I would add this though. I think the tendency is to jump ahead when it comes to dismissal of the argument from desire to try and locate the desire in, for example, not the hunger but an endless feast. Thus the wish fulfillment accusation. This misplaces what the desire points us towards and assumes that it is the desire for a feast that drives the invention of God. Feast in this sense comes to mean something self serving and frivolous rather than an actual present God. It also reduces legitimate appeals to experiences of this God connected to desire to superficial literalism or dogma (as in, the desire is only made legitimate when expressed as dogma).

2. It is sometimes pointed out that if the presence of desire was a legitimate argument for God, then what do we do with the fact that not everyone appears to desire God. This confuses though two claims- the argument for desire and the argument for propositional truth. If one assumes that the desire is propositional, then the argument will be reduced to propositional claims, which of course excludes many. If we locate desire though in inherent universal human concerns, it changes the framework for how we speak of desire for God. It shifts it towards questions relating to where and how inherent desires point us beyond mere survival.
3. The other dynamic of desire that is important is the way it emphasizes the place of language. All expressions of desire depend on langauge. Unfortunately what often happens is skeptics see language as evidence of something being invented to serve wish fulfillment. That langauge removes us somehow from our ability to attend for reality. And yet our experience of reality can only be expressed through language. And those experiences can only be shaped by desire