In Treatment

As I made my way through Blockbuster this afternoon, I made sure to peruse the television section. My friend Matt and I had a conversation not that long ago about how these days, television is producing some high quality shows compared to the average movie. There are exceptional shows on television, such as Breaking Bad, and others like Mad Men, which I've been dying to watch. After a quick glance in the television section, I saw Gabriel Byrne's face on the front cover of the series "In Treatment." I have only heard the title mentioned before but anything with Mr. Byrne's promises to be fantastic. Plus, HBO is known for great television (Sopranos, for starters), so I figured it would be worth a shot.

I was right.

The show revolves around Dr. Paul Weston, a psychotherapist, who is renowned for his therapy. Each episode is based upon a different session with a different client. You quickly become aware of the clients lives, much more than you think would be possible for each episode which is 22 minutes in length. What is most surprising is that you learn more about the characters by their facial and body expressions than their actual dialogue. Weston is mostly detached, but this makes him all the more fascinating which keeps you watching. The viewer can tell a lot about the session and Weston's relationship with the client by the conversation they have as the client walks out the door. More than that, I think the set is perfect. The lighting, the color of the sofa, the door which is shown at the end of every episode when he walks his client out. It is a fascinating show, and the acting is brilliant. Put this at the top of your queue.

Cooking, design, etc.

As a daughter of Dad who is an artist and a Mom who should be a professional interior decorator and chef, I have a deep interest in art, cooking, and design. I tend to see these areas as particulars that are made sense by my primary interest which is theology. Moreover, these particular areas of aesthetics seem to provide such a needed outlet for my studies. As such, I have decided to periodically record findings that inspire me. I realize that the blogosphere is saturated (for better usually) with design blogs. However, I must confess that this new blogging activity is mostly selfish in nature and it will allow me to record and display my findings and thoughts. Despite the main intended use, I'd love for your input or feedback if you graciously decide to share it!

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

Today I stumbled across two interesting finds:

1) "Objectified" - This is a brilliantly made documentary by Gary Hustwit which explores the world of design. I particularly appreciated the design that went into creating the actual film. And, could Jonathan Ive be any more fascinating? Beyond his unprecedented Apple creations, Ive seems like a very interesting man with whom one could converse. It is available via Netflix for instant streaming. Go here to learn more: www.objectifiedfilm.com

This film also allowed me to do some introspection. I often wonder why certain aspects of ordinary purchases really bother me - I've always chalked it up to OCD. A few weeks ago, my Mom wanted to take me to Bath and Body Works to buy some essential toiletries. While I was very grateful for her offer, I didn't end up getting anything because the design really bothered me. I've routinely found their design to be too busy, kitschy, and overdone. I like products to be limited in design offering a subtle aesthetic element so that the product itself becomes the focus. I tried to explain this to my Mom but couldn't quite articulate my frustration. She laughed and called me a "snob." This is probably very true. However, this documentary enabled me to realize that my wonderful parents have cursed me so that I now prefer everything, even down to my pen, to be nicely designed. The good news is that design does not necessarily have to be expensive. It just means that you have to take more time to find good stuff at a graduate student budget price :) Thanks to Xac and Nate for their tweets which helped me to find this!



2) "Stir" - I love watching cooking shows. This is not a recent phenomenon by any means - I started watching Jacques Pepin at my Gram's house everyday at age 3.5 on PBS. I pretended to have my own cooking show at age 4. Due to this obsession, the Food Network has been playing ever since I finally had my cable connected yesterday! Oh, Ina Garten, I love you (btw). I don't know how to cook beyond a few basic dishes and everything else I just make up. I decided that I need to find some classes and I stumbled across Stir in Boston (thanks Yelp.com!). While the classes are a bit expensive so I won't go to more than two classes this year, I have read that it is an exceptional experience. The website has fabulous photos, too. Go here to learn more: www.stirboston.com

Hope.

Martha said to Jesus, "Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died. But even now I know that whatever you ask from God, God will give you."

Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again."

Martha said to him, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day."

Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?"

She said to him, "Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who is coming into the world."

-- [John 11:21-27]

You Know Who We Are

[I was encouraged by this today]

Lord, our God, you know who we are: People with good and bad consciences; satisfied and dissatisfied, sure and unsure people; Christians out of conviction and Christians out of habit; believers, half-believers, and unbelievers.

You know where we come from: from our circle of relatives, friends, and acquaintances, or from great loneliness; from lives of quiet leisure, or from all manner of embarrassment and distress; from ordered, tense, or destroyed family relationships; from the inner circle, or from the fringes of the Christian community.

But now we all stand before you: in all our inequality equal in this, that we are all in the wrong before you and among each other; that we all must die someday; that we all would be lost without your grace; but also that your grace is promised to and turned toward all of us through your beloved Son, our Lord, Jesus Christ.

We are here together in order to praise you by allowing you to speak to us. We ask that this might happen in this house in the name of your Son, our Lord. Amen.

- Karl Barth

Final Research Paper.

I am on page 13 or 14 of my Barth research paper that is due on Thursday. I have never been this ahead of schedule in my entire life. I have a detailed outline for the next 5 pages, but need to do some more work on the last part of my paper and a small portion in the beginning. I think with every research paper, in the back of your mind, you are panicking. The same questions roll through your mind over and over again - "Does this make even remote sense?", "Is this complete nonsense, even for my own comprehension?", "Do I really believe this?", "Am I interpreting this correctly?", "Am I even making an argument?", "Do I remember my thesis statement ... wait, did I abandon it at page 7?" Thankfully, I should have ample time to edit this paper with precision.

This experience has really taught me a great deal about research and writing. I never thought I'd say this, but I feel most comfortable when I'm exegeting Barth's work instead of secondary sources. The moments that fear and insecurity hit are usually when I am caught up in secondary sources. There are many differing opinions among scholars, especially when it comes to Barth. But at this point, I just want to understand him more deeply. I can't, at the end of the day, stand in the shadow of another scholar. If I get Barth wrong, it must be because I interpreted and understood him incorrectly. This isn't to say that I am not incredibly and humbly indebted to many scholars for my understanding of Barth. But mostly, my understanding for this paper, especially in terms of the section on election comes from my own time alone with KB himself.

Well, thanks for reading. It was helpful to express all of that. Back to work!

Excursuses

If there is one thing I've learned about Barth it is this: Read the excursuses in the Church Dogmatics. There are so many treasures to be found in that fine print. Sometimes he makes a passive aggressive comment against another theologian, sometimes he makes a statement that is hysterical, and other times he makes historical observations that are priceless.

Today is no exception . . .

Regarding the Reformed "pedagogic usefulness" of their formulation of the doctrine of election:

"Very different judgments can be passed on the value and usefulness of the doctrine, as history has in fact demonstrated. Where Calvin and his followers saw nothing but suavissimum fructum (sweetest fruit), the Lutherans of the 16th and 17th centuries, and many others too, saw only an endangering of assurance of salvation, the sense of responsibility, etc., or even an open relapse into Stoicism, Manicheism, Quietism, and Libertinism. Boettner appears to rejoice at the supposed kinship between the doctrine of predestination, as understood Calvinistically, and the teaching of Islam. But this supposed kinship was the very reason why the older Lutherans sought to discredit the Calvinists by describing them as secret adherents of the Eastern Antichrist." (II.2, p. 37)

Human Origins and Evangelicalism.

My friend Watson and I have been talking a lot lately about human origins. How do we reconcile the first three chapters of Genesis with science? Can systematic theology maintain that death only existed once the fall occurred? How do we make sense of these matters and how does it impact one's exegesis of Romans 5?

There has often been times when Watson, an analytic philosopher, pins me to the wall (figuratively) with questions about how systematic theology responds to scientific findings. And I have to simply reply "you know, I just don't know." And I become concerned. When I, Lord-willing, teach systematic theology someday, what will I say if students ask me questions about evolution, death, the historicity of Adam and Eve, and the systematic framework of Jesus as the "second Adam"? My first reaction is to think "who cares" and employ a hermeneutic of fear and suspicion. But if I have Christ, what is there to fear? How can science ultimately be a source of fear and anxiety? What does this reveal about my presuppositions, and my overall posture toward theology? Has theology ceased to be doxology and suddenly become an offensive against the world and culture?

Recently, this issue has surfaced in conversation with other friends of mine. It all started when a professor at a reformed seminary resigned after posting a video that the administration at said seminary interpreted as him denying a historical Adam and Eve. They were fearful that this professor might not hold to their particular views of Adam and Eve. While I found this to be very disheartening, I was mostly curious as to what they believed were the devastating systematic implications of denying a historical Adam and Eve. Obviously if they think such a position is such an issue, they would be able to produce a statement justifying their disapproval of a more figurative interpretation of Genesis 1-3. I didn't see any such explanation given.

As an evangelical, I grow increasingly concerned with the type of fundamentalism that is surfacing within evangelicalism. What is worse, this type of fundamentalism is being disguised as truly "evangelical." I don't know where I stand on the issue of inerrancy. However, I don't consider certain theologians like Barth, who hold a different view of Scripture from traditional evangelicalism, to be heretical or worse, not worthy of my study. I wonder if my views will someday be labeled "liberal" and will be easily dismissed by what claims to be "evangelicalism." The culture of fear and exclusion that has surfaced, especially within popular reformed circles, is disheartening. And please, let's not even begin to discuss issues of gender! Sometimes I grow hesitant of even mentioning to anyone that I might be leaning more egalitarian in my interpretation of biblical texts that reference the genders for fear of being labeled "cliche", "feminist", or "liberal."

Has evangelicalism lost its true identity? Has it lost sight of the essentials? Has it become so overtaken by fear and a lack of true scholarship that it actually supports a lack of critical engagement with ideas and culture? What kind of confession is my generation inheriting? Is this the (true) great deposit of faith that should be guarded? And what is worse, is the only home that I can find in the emergent Church? That is not meant to start a debate about emergent Christianity. But I consider myself to be reformed, evangelical, and Anglican. Where are the reformed evangelicals that are saying this trajectory is not acceptable?

This is why I appreciate Barth. For all his faults, the man understood the essentials. And I think evangelicalism has so much to learn from him. I will say though, beyond Barth, the BioLogos Foundation makes me give a big sigh of relief. Perhaps the conversation really is starting. Perhaps my friends and I have hope for change.

Correction: In the aftermath of the professor's resignation that I mentioned above, he formally stated in an open-letter that he willfully resigned and was not forced to do so by the seminary. His lack of carefulness when discussing this issue supposed led to the backlash that ensued from outside parties. For some reason, the open-letter did not seem convincing. No matter what the explanations, a video of that sort should not require it to be taken down from the website that it was posted nor cause for the professor to feel it was appropriate for him to resign from his position. That is the fruit of a much deeper problem.