The Physics of Superman Returns

I'm no expert in theoretical interstellar travel, but I do know some stuff, and here's something that's bugging me about the movie Superman Returns.

The movie asks us to believe a number of things, including:
1. Superman departed the planet Krypton as an infant and flew to Earth, arriving as a small child.
2. Krypton has been demolished for millenia, in subjective Earth years.
3. Superman recently travelled to Krypton in the same spacecraft, and returned five years later.

Can you see the problem? As I understand the theory of near-lightspeed travel, the subjective time of the space traveller stretches out, so that a journey seems to take less time from the point of view of the traveller than it does from the point of view of someone who remains at the departure or arrival points (ie. Lois Lane).

Points (1) and (2) above support the hypothesis that Superman's ship travels at near-light speed. He arrives on Earth having aged only a few years, while the planet that blew up behind him has been dead for many thousands of years. However, if the ship travels at near-light speed, his more recent journey back to Krypton, while it may have seemed to him (as the traveller) to take only five years, should have allowed many thousands of years to pass back on Earth (from Lois Lane's perspective) before he could return.

Now, if we assume faster-than-lightspeed travel (positing some technique that we don't have an actual theoretical basis for yet), it is acceptable to presume that the same amount of time has passed for both the traveller (Superman) and for the stationary observer (Lois Lane). The trip that from his perspective lasted five years also lasted five years from her perspective, because he was travelling by some non-linear or non-relativistic method. If this is the case, though, then the destruction of Krypton should have taken place more like 25-30 years ago, instead of 100 times that long. Krypton's star should still be visible from Earth as though nothing has happened to it yet.

A third possibility would be if he was travelling at speeds within such a tiny fraction of lightspeed that the return journey would take only five years from Lois Lane's perspective, in which case it would be almost instantaneous from Superman's perspective. He would arrive there in virtually no time at all. This would make sense with the way the movie is made, as Superman seems surprised by the amount of change that has taken place in his absence. It's also consistent with point (3) above. If the journey was instantaneous from his point of view, he would be unprepared for the five-year lapse back on Earth.

But this possibility, like the previous one, is negated by the fact that he was using the same ship (or at least the same technology) for his adult journey as he did for his infant one. Because if this journey took no time at all, then that one should also have been immediate. Yet we see that the child has aged at least a couple of years between his departure and his arrival. Also, this would mean that Krypton is within a few light years of Earth, which is clearly not the case in the movies.

In summary, there is no way the same technology was used for both trips and all three of the premises above are true. If the journey took millenia (from Lois' perspective) the first time, then it should take millenia (from Lois' perspective) the second time, too. If it took five years the second time, then it should have taken five years the first time, in which case he would have arrived as an infant, who had hardly aged on the journey.

Sloppy.

But I liked the movie, and had a great time seeing it with Clara.

Miscellany from a Holiday

• I like driving all day long because I get to listen to music and be by myself the whole time, and sometimes see pretty things, and it still feels like I'm accomplishing something.

• I thought the Tragically Hip's album "Road Apples" was replete with references to William Shakespeare, but it turns out there are only six references in three different songs. Still, more than your average album these days.

• I miss the sky around Edmonton. Vancouver has mountains and ocean, which are beautfiul and special, but the sky is always sort of hazy or cloudy over the mountains, and over the ocean it's either clear or overcast. You don't get the sort of vast skyscapes that I associate with Alberta (and especially with my family's farm, which is elevated above the surrounding countryside). Imagine rank upon rank of cumulus clouds, each one of them distinct and unique but surrounded on all sides by others of their own kind, stretching away as far as the eye can see. Or a sky filled with four different kinds of clouds at different elevations and distances, challenging the brain's ability to make sense of it all. Then, at sunset, imagine the colours of the rainbow stretched out until they fill 30 degrees of sky above the horizon, with deepest red showing where the sun has just disappeared, and the spectrum slowly giving itself over to a rich violet directly overhead. At the farm, on a clear night in the spring, you can see the Milky Way spread across the sky like a highway. But in midsummer, as it is now, there are so few stars at night, because the sky never gets dark. The sunset stops at about 11:30 pm, and the warm glow of the sun spends the rest of the night moving across the northern horizon until the light begins to return about three hours later. At 1 am, the brightest part of the sky is always due north.

• Too many people were trying to get into Vancouver last night. The overturned truck on Hwy 1 at Surrey wasn't helping, and I had already been driving for over twelve hours.

• I said goodbye to my car, Kenobi, on this trip. She was a good car when I got her two years ago, and could be decent for a while more with some TLC, but was definitely starting to show her age. I switched not because of need but because of opportunity. My sister wanted to sell her '99 Caravan SE, and I saw real potential in that, in terms of cargo space, comfort for my back, and features like power locks and air conditioning. I realized that it's been over four years since I had a car with all the comfort features and no malfunctions. It's very, very nice. Although, on my way into Vancouver I snapped the little hook that holds the sun visor in place (looks like you sold at the right time, Michelle! It's falling apart!) If anyone knows of a Caravan that's been written off or whatever, let me know because I'm in the market for a tiny piece of molded plastic. My new car's name is Isaac.

• I had some insight into my philosophy of blogging, particularly compared to my good friend Kristen. You see, we are opposites on the Introvert-Extravert scale (as defined in the Myers-Briggs Personality Type Indicator). I am an "I", while Kristen is an "E". I think this explains our different approaches to blogging. I need to have my topic and 'point' worked out ahead of time, whereas she manages to externalize her thoughts onto the blog itself. Neither is better (though I would never do it the other way!), just different.

• I'm an Enneagram Type Five. Click the image to learn more about the Enneagram:

• I saw Jenn and Wendy in Calgary, as well as my sister and her family, and my dad and Jill in Edmonton. It was great to see everybody. I also met with the Education & Students Committee from my Presbytery, which is the regional oversight body in the United Church of Canada. I have to meet with them every year to maintain my status as a Candidate for Ministry. It was a fine meeting, with some new people and some familiar faces. I didn't get any specific feedback from them at the end, but the general feedback was very positive, so I think it went well. I went to worship at the church in Fort Saskatchewan, too, and it was great to see everyone there. I had a chance to visit with my Grandma and Charlie too, and that was good.

• Whenever I'm back at the farm I tend to start reading comics, because I didn't bring any with me to Vancouver. This time I read volumes 6 & 7 of Neil Gaiman's "The Sandman." They're called "Fables & Reflections" and "Brief Lives." I also read the start of volume 8, "World's End." The Sandman is one of the few pieces of literature that I can read over and over and over, and it remains virtually perfect. In an entire ten-year run of comics, there are maybe one or two panels that I would change if I had the chance. It's always a breathtaking experience. I also reread "Calculating God," which is a novel by Canadian science fiction writer Robert Sawyer. It's not my favourite of his books, but it was still interesting enough for a second read. He's my current must-buy author. The other things I read were for school; I'm doing four week-long intensives in July. I read "The Last Week" by Marcus Borg and Dominic Crossan, and started on "Excavating Jesus" by Crossan and Jonathan Reed. I'm doing a course with Crossan at the end of the month; he's this summer's Visiting Distinguished Scholar at VST.

• I have to get to work on worship planning. I'm filling in for my former supervisor, Anna, at Gilmore Park United Church in Richmond, BC, while she's on vacation in July. I'll be in classes all month during the week, so I want to get started on choosing music and writing prayers and stuff like that today. If you're around, come check it out. Every Sunday in July at 10:30 am, on the corner of 1 Rd and Blundell in Richmond.

80's Futurist/Fantasy Action Movies

I just watched John Carpenter's "Escape from New York" (1981) and it got me thinking about the sort of futurist action movies that were made in the 80's, and what they had in common. For example, we have Ridley Scott's "Blade Runner" (1982), James Cameron's "The Terminator" (1984), "The Running Man" (1987), and to some extent Russell Mulcahy's "Highlander" (1986), and possibly "Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior" (1981). Does Sam Raimi's "The Evil Dead" (1981) belong on this list as well? I haven't seen it.

I didn't see any of these movies when they came out, being a bit too young to deal with the content. But I was watching movies in the 80's, and I've seen these ones in the years since. The films on this list strike me as having some things in common, and I would be interested in doing some comparisons and trying to see if there's some aspect of the social (or "collective") consciousness of the time that is being expressed here.

For instance, I can list some things that they seem, offhand, to have in common:

1. A hero who does not belong in his milieu;
2. Official authorities who are in some way untrustworthy or morally unsound;
3. A general sense of bleakness or pessimism about the future, that often gives way to specific sources of hope or possibility;
4. A resort to violence and/or militarism in service of "nobler" causes and missions;
5. The importance of the hero's use of his own judgement and self-discipline, compared to the anarchy and anxiety of those around him.

I might never go further into this, but if anyone has any thoughts (particularly if there are other movies that fit this pattern that I haven't mentioned, or if there are points that might be added to the list) I'd be really keen to hear them.

I think the links to the early-mid 1980's political and cultural situation are pretty clear. The Cold War and threat of nuclear armageddon, the rise of leaders like Thatcher and Reagan, and the increase (particularly in the US) of drug-related and poverty-related crime all shed light on the cultural background of these films.

Send me an e-mail or post a comment if you have any thoughts.

Blessings,
Murr

King David and the RCL

I spent today doing exegesis for the series of five sermons I'll be preaching at Gilmore Park United in July. I've decided to follow the Revised Common Lectionary and preach on the assigned passage from 2 Samuel each week.

Today my issues with the RCL were seriously triggered, not only based on what they have chosen to skip over from week to week, but also what they have excluded within the passage for a given Sunday.

Namely, all of the violence, all of the political intrigue, all of the murder and war. It suggests that the ascendancy of David to the throne was peaceful and unopposed, that his transfer of the ark from its resting place to the new royal city went off without a hitch, after taking up residence there without having to conquer its previous inhabitants (the Jebusites).

Some of the richest theological material in this portion of Samuel (2 Samuel 1-11) is in the bits that are left out of the RCL. CONSTERNATION!!!!!1111one

I think one of my sermons will have to be about all of the stuff that's left out. Friggin' RCL, making life easier with one hand and more difficult with the other. I guess that's the situation with most disciplines and practices. They result in blessings but they require effort.




Okay, so, for your edification, here are the bits that are in and out of the RCL, so you can check it out for yourself if you're as much of a geek as I am. Especially check out the gaps that are indicated by asterisks in the second list. These are verses that have been pulled out of the middle of a passage that is the assigned reading for the week.

2 SAMUEL

IN

1:1, 17-27
5:1-5, 9-10
6:1-5, 12b-19
7:1-14a
11:1-15

OUT

1:2-16
2:1-4:12
5:6-8*
5:11-25
6:6-12a*
6:20-23
7:14b-10:19
11:16-25

Movie Review: "Enron: The Smartest Guys In The Room"

I just watched this movie, which was Oscar nominated in the Documentary Feature category. It's interesting as recent documentaries go because it seems to resist making any kind of "point" - which I suppose could be seen as the basis of documentary film-making but to me seems more like an abdication of responsibility. There is no "outsider" point of view, after all... no Archimedean "fulcrum" point at which we can stand and see things in their entirety. If one is going to present this information, there is an inherent responsibility to also present an interpretation of it. There is no need to assert one's interpretation as the only possible or valid one, but to fail to present one at all is to leave the viewer adrift and unchanged.

And so, I was a bit disappointed. The filmmaker (Alex Gibney) seems to rely on his various clips and interviews to tell the story, which is quite well constructed and easy to follow. What is most disappointing to me, however, is that at various points in the movie, the people who have been interviewed deliver an important question that is never examined by the film itself, namely, "Was the Enron fraud and bankruptcy the result of the misdeeds of bad people, or by the corporate profit-driven culture itself?" By failing to examine the question, Gibney implies very clearly that his answer is the former.

This question is asked or implied at least three times by different figures in the movie, but is apparently dropped in favour of the choice to indict the top executives of the company. The final screens of the film show comparative numbers in terms of the monetary losses of various groups of employees and pensioners compared to the individual profits of the top executives, and one of the last spoken words is given to a reporter from Fortune magazine (Bethany McLean) who contributed to the exposure of the Enron fraud, who theorizes that it was the misguided, immoral complicity of the Enron executives, their attorneys, accountants, and bankers that led to the scandalous outcome (the accounting and law firms that served Enron were each being paid approximately $1M per week for their services).

This, then, would seem to be the thesis of the argument: that the checks and balances that are supposed to protect investors from corporate fraud failed due to the individual greed and pride of the people involved. The alternative suggestion, made by a few different figures in the movie, is not given any scrutiny.

But, when I watch the footage of former Enron CEO Jeff Skilling as he is brought to account for what happened (he resigned four months before the bankruptcy) I do not see the face of a man who was caught doing something immoral or that he knew was wrong.

Rather, it is the face of a man who is beginning to realize that the values and priorities on which he has based his life and his definitions of success are not shared by everyone who has power, and who is being asked to defend himself on the basis of an ethical system that is entirely alien to him. And it is here that I think the movie fails to look closely enough at its subject.

The values and priorities of the corporate world in which Skilling and Chairperson Ken Lay lived and breathed said that the only 'good' is to make as much profit as possible in as short a time as possible, and to keep the company's stock value rising. Anything that is done to pursue that solitary 'good' is the right thing to do. In embodying this value of corporate culture, Enron and its eventual collapse demonstrated the fundamental incorrectness of its basic philosophy.

In other words, it's not that Enron was a bad company, or that it was run by bad people. Rather, it was based on bad philosophy. The problem is that it is the philosophy on which so much of our North American culture is similarly based. The witchhunts of people like Lay, Skilling, and their CFO Andy Fastow therefore serve to shift the focus off of the cultural systems that promoted them, encouraged them, and gave them the keys to the kingdom. Did these men do illegal and immoral things? Almost certainly. But where is the community that created them and supported them? It's the entire society.

When you tell corporations that their ultimate goal is "higher profits, sooner" and then, as an afterthought, encourage them to practice sustainability, ethical bookkeeping, and honesty, you deliver a mixed message. And when the organizations that are meant to supervise and provide "checks and balances" are simply other corporations whose own goal is also "higher profits, sooner" and when the Legislators, Presidents, and Bureaucrats who administer the Government have their eyes on their own personal bottom-lines, Enron is what you get.

It wasn't bad people doing bad things. It was corporate people doing what they do, and doing it well. And this is what happened.

The documentary "Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room" doesn't say any of this... at best, it hints to it. Even the title of the film reveals its perspective - this was a nickname used to refer to Lay and Skilling. The incident, in the view of Alex Gibney, boils down to these two men and their misdeeds. And that, in my view, reflects a lack of perspective, integrity, or boldness on the part of Gibney as a filmmaker. And causes me to wonder what his profit-motive is, and where he draws the bottom line.

Dream about home...

I had a dream the other night... I was at the farm (where I grew up, on the northern outskirts of Edmonton, Alberta, near the city of Fort Saskatchewan) but instead of rolling prairie, the landscape was dominated by mountains to the north and east. I was walking, about to start climbing the eastern mountain range because... I don't know why.

But it makes me suspect that I now consider Vancouver to be my home, at least as much as the Fort. And that I'm eager to head to Newfoundland for new experiences.

The awareness of "home" has been an important one for me, tied in with some of the greatest hurts and struggles in my life. At one point a few years ago, I came up with the idea that my entire post-adolescent life had been spent in the search for a secure sense of home, and that it was a series of failures in this quest that led to my great depression. I have from time to time been "satisfied" with my situation, only to watch it change and disappear from beneath me.

I decided at that point that I needed to reconcile myself to the possibility (and perhaps the certainty?) that I would never be in a place that would satisfy both the sense of home and the sense of security. But how to do this without becoming paranoid and insular? Every time my situation became "satisfactory" would I begin to question its longevity? In other words, would I be saying to myself, "This is so good, it can never last?"

It was clear to me, that I would have to work and pay attention in order to find a better way. I once read a book (I believe it was called "The Gender Knot") that presented the image of a person who lives in the woods and mountains with no set place to call home. And though he rarely knows exactly where he is (relative to any permanent reference point) he is never lost, because he is so familiar with his surroundings and their processes that he is comfortable and "at-home" wherever he goes.

This became a vision for me in my work around my sense of home and security. To be "homeless" in some sort of constructive sense - to find security and home in something other than physical locations or other people. And yet, we must be "emplaced" and connected with others to be complete. How to negotiate the boundaries of self and home and be meaningfully connected with our surroundings and our community, without overinvesting emotionally?

And it is the "overinvesting" part that is key, rather than "investing" - I have to invest emotionally in my friends and in the place where I live. But I have come to terms with the fact that things will change, and it will hurt. I'm okay with the hurt. Because it means that I was engaged with something, involved with something, present to something. And instead of cutting off, closing down, numbing out when I hurt, I can instead open up, reach out, and get in touch, and know that I will hurt again.

So am I a person who is at home wherever I go? Maybe my dream says something like that. Maybe I have found a secure home in something other than people and places, like I had hoped to do. What I know for sure, is that I love Vancouver, and Edmonton, and I love my friends and my family, and I'm ready to go other places and love other people, and even if I don't know exactly where I am, I don't expect I'll feel quite so lost ever again.

Amen.

For Jenn...

This is the transcript of a (one-sided) msn convo I just had with Jenn, in which she didn't receive the whole thing. So I'm recording it here, in its entirety, for posterity.

well, something I've been thinking about recently is the Christian approach to anticipation and gratification...

it seems to me, the way the calendar is set up, and the way we do worship, it's designed to dwell in both states. We dwell in the state of anticipation, and we dwell in the state of gratification...

which is in counterpoint to the messages of the consumer culture, which tell us to move as quickly as possible through both. it demands not only instant gratification, but also that we immediately move on afterward...

I think it can be an act of devotion to focus on something that we know is coming up... it isn't denying the Now, to acknowledge that we are feeling expectant and to live in that feeling. In fact, it means we are being MORE present to ourselves...

than if we deny or reject the feeling.

As long as our expectations are realistic and non-selfish, in the sense that we aren't using our thoughts about the future to deceive, repress, or distract ourselves from the real issues that are happening to us.

If the real issue that is happening to you right now is that you're excited for the future, that's where you should be. It seems to me.

Okay, I'm done.

Top Buffy Episodes

Alright,

I am a Buffy fan. Sometimes I don't want to admit it, because I have spent quite a bit of time on this pursuit, and it seems that there are potentially better ways to spend your time. However, the fact remains that I am a Buffy fan.

I mentioned to my friend Kristen that I had been obsessing about Buffy episodes and had put together a list of my favourites, and she told me to post the list. Being the geek that I am, I couldn't just list them... so I had to include a brief commentary and analysis of each episode, too.

So, these are my personal preferences. Thirty episodes are listed (thirty-two if you count two-parters as two). The first twenty are in order of preference, more-or-less. The last ten are in series order as Honourable Mentions. If you're interested in checking out the series, putting together a night with a few of these episodes would be a good idea.

If you also are a fan of the series, I'm interested to hear if you have any comments on my analysis of these episodes.

Blessings,
Murr

TOP 20

20 Lie To Me (Season 2, Episode 7)

An early great Spike episode, "Lie To Me" focuses on a grade-school flame of Buffy's who arrives in Sunnydale with shady motives. It also features the first appearance of Julia Lee as the character who would eventually be known as "Annie" on Angel.

19 Fool For Love (Season 5, Episode 7)

Another great Spike episode, originally titled "Love's Bitch." It's a semi-crossover with the Angel episode "Darla" and includes flashbacks of Spike's timeline. It also develops his unhealthy obsession with Buffy, and digs under his big-bad facade to reveal the poet/lover beneath. The original title comes from a line he utters in another episode, where he says, 'I may be love's bitch, but at least I'm man enough to admit it.'

18 The Harsh Light of Day (Season 4, Episode 3)

I first heard about this episode when a friend (LQ) described it as the "don't have sex" episode. Three different sexual encounters result in confusion and/or heartbreak for the women involved (Anya, Harmony, and Buffy). I'm a sucker for episodes that end in a tableau with a strong musical accompaniment. This one features Bif Naked.

17 Graduation Day (Season 3, Episodes 21 & 22)

The finale of Season 3. The death of Mayor Wilkins and Principal Snyder, not to mention Larry and Harmony, and the ultimate Slayer vs. Slayer showdown (guess who wins!). Willow loses something important, and Angel walks away at the end without looking back.

16 Passion (Season 2, Episode 17)

This episode is, I believe, the first in the Buffyverse to effectively use the voice-over framing sequence as David Boreanaz' chilling narration introduces the theme of "passion." We realize the seriousness of the situation, as Buffy's little problem apparently isn't going away anytime soon. We see the depth of Angelus' sadistic hatred when he kills someone from the Slayer's inner circle.

15 Villains (Season 6, Episode 20)

In this episode, our expectations are turned upside down as the chief "bad guy" of season 6 is dispatched before we even reach the finale. All of the grief and disharmony that has characterized season 6 reaches a head, and the question that has been building for almost four years is answered: does Willow have the maturity and integrity to handle her power responsibly?

14 The Body (Season 5, Episode 16)

An entire episode with no incidental music whatsoever. A relentless barrage of imagery and a cinematic surreality make this episode as captivating as it is emotionally difficult. The unfortunate need to include a fight with a vampire (was this the network's influence?) and thus disrupt the otherwise hyper-real episode with an intrusion of fantasy keeps this one off the top 10.

13 Restless (Season 4, Episode 22)

As the denouement of Season 4 (it's not really the 'finale' - more of a follow-up) this episode may seem like pure fun, except it sets up some important elements for Season 5. Namely, it helps to inspire Buffy to become more sincere and committed to her calling. A dangerous entity threatens the gang within their dreams. Too many brilliant moments to list.

12 Once More, With Feeling (Season 6, Episode 7)

The infamous musical episode. The music isn't anything special; it's as derivative and generic as you would expect from a musical theatre fan and television writer. However, it is decent, and the lyrics and rhymes are delightful. Joss makes sure that this episode is a key moment in the grand narrative of the series, because they are not only magically compelled to sing and dance, but also to reveal to one another what is really in their hearts.

11 The Pack (Season 1, Episode 6)

I have a weakness for evil Xander, and this is the first of two episodes where we see that side of him (the other is also on this list). It's a perfect example of the three-act teleplay, and shows a disciplined hand from Joss and his creative teams. It also plays perfectly into the central metaphor of BTVS, which is the world of demons and magic as a metaphor for the life of the young person. At one point Giles describes Xander's strange behaviour: dressing differently, picking on weaker students, hanging out with a new crowd, being rude and mean, and then says, "It appears he's transformed into a sixteen year-old boy."

TOP 10

10 Prophecy Girl (Season 1, Episode 12)

Buffy must accept her destiny before she can overcome it. So much of what is great about the series, the concept, and the character is embodied by this episode. She lives in between the world of demons and the world of high school, operating in both but belonging to neither. She transcends her 'roles' as both 'teenager' and 'Slayer' by integrating them together. In other words, she kicks ass and looks pretty doing it. The difference between Buffy and other Slayers is her refusal to sacrifice her 'life' (both in the literal and the figurative sense) for the sake of her calling. What makes her a great teenager is that when it counts, she also refuses to sacrifice her calling for the sake of her 'life.' Her relationships with her friends keep her grounded, balanced, and focused. Without them, she would burn bright and hot, and die young like all of the Slayers that preceded her. And without them, she wouldn't be nearly as effective at saving the world. And it's all in this episode, which is the finale of season 1.

9 The Prom (Season 3, Episode 20)

The quiet before the storm that is "Graduation Day," this episode is relatively low on action and high on emotion. The ending of the Cordelia/Xander feud, the break-up of Buffy and Angel, and the public recognition of Buffy's contribution to the students at Sunnydale High, (apparently they have the lowest mortality rate of any graduating class in Sunnydale history) make this a significant moment that prepares Angel and Cordy to depart for their spin-off series and prepares Buffy for the transition to college life. It also features Giles telling off Wesley in an extremely British way: "For God's sake, man, she's eighteen. And you have the emotional maturity of a blueberry scone. Just ask her to dance."

8 Conversations With Dead People (Season 7, Episode 7)

This is the episode that really gets things going in Season 7. Four separate stories featuring four separate conversations (with four separate dead people). Buffy, Dawn, and Willow each encounter people from their pasts who give them disturbing messages, and we see the return to Sunnydale of the Geek Trio, including the apparent ghost of Warren Meers.

7 Lies My Parents Told Me (Season 7, Episode 17)

Another great Spike episode. The First Evil has been taking advantage of Spike since his return; even though he has a soul, he still has "demons" to exorcise. One of them is the question of his mother's love for him. We see the poet/lover even more, and we learn that when Spike is in touch with his inner poet, he becomes even more dangerous.

6 The Gift (Season 5, Episode 22)

Some wonderful theological/christological implications here. Earlier in season 5, Buffy was given a message from the spirit world: Love will lead you to your gift; Death is your gift. She thinks it means killing, but her gift is something else...

5 Tabula Rasa (Season 6, Episode 8)

In the midst of the emotional turmoil and trauma of Season 6, we have this gem that mixes pure comedy with the harshest irony and, ultimately, tragic heartbreak as everyone loses their memories and things revert to a simpler, funnier dynamic. Then, once we're really into it, it all comes crashing back. This is another episode with a strong musical finish, this time with Michelle Branch's "Goodbye to You."

4 Hush (Season 4, Episode 10)

Widely regarded as the number one episode of the series, it's hard to disagree from any perspective other than personal preference. After three years of solid viewership, Whedon et al. were facing some harsh criticisms that their series was all style and no substance... "Nothing but clever dialogue..." So Joss decided to tell a story without any dialogue, and the middle two-thirds of this episode does exactly that, to great effect. One of the scariest episodes in the series, it also manages to include humour, romance, and action in an almost perfect balance. Not only does it tell its story without the benefit of dialogue, but in the opening scenes where the characters can talk, almost everything they say has something to do with speech, communication, or language. The final image of the episode has Buffy and her love interest, Riley Finn (once they have their voices restored) sitting across from each other, deciding that they "should talk..." and then sitting silently for several moments until the credits begin to roll. Tremendous unity of theme and expert execution make this a must-see episode.

3 The Wish (Season 3, Episode 9)

The events of this episode are not remembered by any of the characters (with one exception) but they echo through the rest of the series in undeniable ways. It takes place in an alternate dimension, in which Buffy never came to Sunnydale. She moved to the Midwest instead, the Master rose, Xander and Willow were killed and transformed into vampires, whose greatest opponents in town are Giles, Oz, and Larry who fight a losing battle with no Slayer in sight. Vampire Xander is a throwback to feral Xander from episode "The Pack," and Vampire Willow (who would return in episode "Doppelgangland") prefigures in many ways the Willow that we see at the end of season 6. Without her friends, Buffy is eerily similar to Faith, providing an argument that environment and experience are important contributors to character. This episode also introduces Anya to the Buffyverse, and the climactic scene in which we see Xander, Willow, Angel, and Buffy die one by one is highlighted by Anya's question, "How do you know that reality will be any better than this one?" and Giles' answer: "Because it has to be."

2 Selfless (Season 7, Episode 5)

Anya reaches a crisis point. After more than a millenium of existence, and twice being transformed into a demon, she no longer knows where she fits in. The theme of the episode is almost buried in the rich and powerful storytelling, but it shines through: she has spent her entire life giving herself away, and has nothing to show for it. Includes a "lost" scene from the musical episode, the sudden ending of which gives me goosebumps every time.

1 Becoming (Season 2, Episodes 21 & 22)

My number one episode is the closer of season 2... actually a two-parter, the first and second portions are quite distinct in their storytelling styles. However, because they share a title, I'm including them together as one episode. This episode prefigures what would become some of the storytelling conventions of the Angel spin-off series over a year later, including frequent flashbacks to Angel's past and a focus on character development, not to mention the sage-like demon who brings Angel his mission and purpose (here, a demon named Whistler, on Angel, it is Doyle). One by one the constants in Buffy's life disappear... her mother discovers her secret and banishes her from their home; her fellow-Slayer Kendra who, even at a distance, gave Buffy a sense that she was not alone in the world, dies, and Buffy is pursued as a suspect in her killing; she is expelled from school, and at the urging of her closest friends, is forced to send her lover to hell. Though she learns from Whistler that even when you strip everything else away, you are still left with your sense of self, she takes the lesson too far and decides to leave behind everything that has already been at least partially taken from her. Another episode that finishes with a moving tableau and music combination, this time it's Sarah McLachlan's "Full of Grace" and a sign saying, "You Are Now Leaving Sunnydale."

Honourable Mention

Band Candy (Season 3, Episode 6)

Adults acting like kids? Kids having to act like grown-ups? What's not to love? Armin Shimerman steals the show with his portrayal of a teenaged Snyder, and the third appearance of Ethan Rayne is more than welcome.

The Zeppo (Season 3, Episode 13)

Xander finds his cool as the gang fights against the end of the world. The humour of this might not be fully realized by non-fans, as the end of the world becomes the sub-plot to Xander's teen-movie adventures. The sharp cuts out of Xander's predicament and into the middle of a high-drama, high-romance Buffy/Angel scene, for instance, are just jarring enough to grab your attention, and the music, dialogue, and acting in the subplot are cliched and melodramatic. In the end, they save the world, he saves the day, and Oz eats a re-animated dead guy. Good fun, and great character study.

Doppelgangland (Season 3, Episode 16)

The quality of this episode rests on the dual performance of Aly Hannigan as both Willow and Vampire Willow, and on the strength of the two characters as opposite sides of one coin. Willow is transfigured in her own eyes and, to some extent, the eyes of her friends as they see what she is capable of in different circumstances. It's also the second appearance of Anya in the series.

Fear, Itself (Season 4, Episode 4)

This one is just good fun and some good frights; but it also gives us some insight into the characters as their greatest fears are revealed. The "horrifying" climax is so anticlimactic that it becomes hilarious, and the "one last scare" at the end accomplishes the same feat only moments later.

Who Are You? (Season 4, Episode 16)

Eliza Dushku plays Buffy and Sarah Gellar plays Faith, and they both do an absolutely stunning job of it. Eventually, the way they are perceived and treated by others begins to affect their behaviours, once again providing an argument that the differences between the two Slayers are more about environment and experience than anything else.

As You Were (Season 6, Episode 15)

The turning point of season 6, in this episode Buffy is forced to take herself seriously after an old friend suddenly reappears in Sunnydale. She regains a measure of self-esteem and starts to see her situation for what it is, helping her put an end to her masochistic and self-pitying behaviours.

Normal Again (Season 6, Episode 17)

The ending of this episode remains ambiguous: is Buffy a superhero with a nagging suspicion that she might just be a catatonic asylum inmate, or is she a schizophrenic mental patient who retreats into dreams of fighting evil? We may never know.

Entropy (Season 6, Episode 18)

The jilted Spike takes comfort in the arms of another rebounding Scooby gang member; Anya attempts to curse Xander for leaving her at the altar, and Willow and Tara reconcile at last.

Sleeper (Season 7, Episode 8)

Ensouled Spike has been killing innocent people but doesn't remember doing it. His "insane in the school basement" phase may have had more to it than just insanity... but when Buffy confronts him, he begs her to kill him, because he doesn't want to hurt anyone anymore.

Dirty Girls (Season 7, Episode 18)

There's a new bad guy in town, and he's pretty bad: a former serial-killing southern preacher who has become the apostle of the First Evil, and who hates everything female. Featuring the return of Faith after her transition to the good side over on Angel, this episode was initially supposed to include the death of Xander. Instead, he suffers a permanent injury that destroys the morale of Buffy's army, on the eve of their greatest battle.

Sermon from May 28, 2006

I've decided to post the manuscript for the sermon I delivered last Sunday (Easter 7) at Steveston United Church in Richmond, British Columbia. I ended up extemporizing a fair bit of the sermon, adding material and expressing some thoughts in different ways than appear in the written version. I expect that will be a common practice for me, so I am making this caveat: the manuscript is not the sermon. It is the visual cue that gives the sermon its structure and flow; the sermon is what is spoken and heard, not what is written.

This is a sermon that I workshopped with the ersatz Preaching Club that some of us set up at VST, and so some credit for its eventual form needs to go to the four women that were at that meeting on Friday the 26th (they know who they are!). Thanks.

Comments are appreciated.

Murr

“Longing to Belong”
May 28, 2006

John 17:6-19

“I have made your name known to those whom you gave me from the world. They were yours, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word. Now they know that everything you have given me is from you; for the words that you gave to me I have given to them, and they have received them and know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me. I am asking on their behalf; I am not asking on behalf of the world, but on behalf of those whom you gave me, because they are yours. All mine are yours, and yours are mine; and I have been glorified in them. And now I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one, as we are one. While I was with them, I protected them in your name that you have given me. I guarded them, and not one of them was lost except the one destined to be lost, so that the scripture might be fulfilled. But now I am coming to you, and I speak these things in the world so that they may have my joy made complete in themselves. I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they do not belong to the world, just as I do not belong to the world. I am not asking you to take them out of the world, but I ask you to protect them from evil. They do not belong to the world, just as I do not belong to the world. Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. As you have sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. And for their sakes I sanctify myself, so that they also may be sanctified in truth.”

One of the most important questions that John’s community had to deal with was, why did Jesus come, and why did he have to go? Pretty big question.

Today’s passage is the middle part of a longer piece of scripture that is sometimes called “The Prayer for the Disciples.” It is the conclusion of this part of John’s gospel, and it takes place at the end of the Last Supper scene - these are things that are not obvious when the reading for the day is just one big speech by Christ, but that’s where it belongs. It’s the Last Supper, and Jesus has just delivered a tremendous speech to the disciples... the speech includes lines like, “Love one another as I have loved you...” “I am the way and the truth and the life...” “I am the vine and you are the branches...” and so much more, and then he begins to pray, and he prays on behalf of the people who are sitting with him.

And he says a remarkable thing to begin with... it’s not in today’s reading; it was in the reading for this day last year... at the beginning of the prayer, Jesus turns his eyes toward the sky and says, “Father, the hour has come...” The one who for sixteen chapters has been saying, “the hour is coming and now is...” now says, “the hour has come.” In some ways, therefore, this prayer is the climax of John’s gospel. It all comes down to this. And it involves the big question: why did Jesus come, and why did he have to go?

One of the things we do as preachers and readers of the bible is to look for key words that might ‘unlock’ the passage - show us where it’s going and what it wants. It’s the same thing people do who study poetry and other literature, too. And one of the key words in this passage is “world.” In Greek, it’s “kosmos” - it’s where we get English words like cosmic, cosmology, microcosm... It simply means “world” - but it certainly isn’t a simple word. Sometimes, it refers to the entire universe; the entire order of things; all of creation. Sometimes it refers to people (as in something my stepmother used to say, “the entire world was at Safeway today"). And sometimes, as in the gospel of John, it means something a little different.

According to a very influential Christian writer from the 20th Century named H. Richard Niebuhr, ‘kosmos’ in John refers to the cultural ‘world’ in which John’s community found themselves, and by extension, as we approach the Bible as revelation, the cultural ‘world’ in which we find ourselves as well. It is the works of humanity and the social world in which we move. Another writer, a man named Robert Kysar, who is a specialist in the gospel of John, says that the “world” is the realm or powers that are opposed to God’s revelation in Christ. The kosmos is the opponent of the logos. The world is the enemy of the word.

So for our purposes, let’s think of the world, the kosmos, as the realm of human achievement and culture that is not directed towards God’s revelation; God’s word. And then let’s look back at our passage for today. “The world has hated them because they do not belong to the world, just as I do not belong to the world. I am not asking you to take them out of the world, but I ask you to protect them from evil.”

When you start seminary as I did two years ago, one of the big names you will almost certainly hear is H. Richard Niebuhr. He’s the one I mentioned a little bit earlier, and he wrote a very important book almost fifty years ago called “Christ and Culture” in which he suggests that there are at least five different ways that Christ and Culture, or logos and kosmos, relate to each other.

Two of the ways are very visible in our societal environment right now. One of these is called “Christ of culture” - cultural Christians, Niebuhr says, “interpret culture through Christ” and also “understand Christ through culture” -- they pick and choose from both sources (the kosmos and the logos) those things that seem to satisfy both, and ending up with a sort of lowest-common denominator. Sometimes it’s called “reductionism.” It has the benefit of putting the church into the world - how do we love our neighbour, here and now? What is the practical dimension of the Christian faith? But it also means that we sometimes end up creating God in our image... revelation becomes domesticated to the point that God isn’t scary or challenging, and the church begins to speak on behalf of the world without reference to God.

What this means in today’s world is that churches and Christian communities run the risk of buying into the consumer culture, if you’ll pardon the pun... we run the risk of buying into the consumer culture and measuring the success of the church in terms of things like “market penetration” and “customer satisfaction” - we run the risk of sacrificing an important part of the gospel when revelation is reduced to consumerism.

Another one of NIebuhr’s five models that is visible in our world right now is what he called “Christ against culture.” Christian communities in which this is the primary model of understanding insist that one must make a radical choice to be loyal to one or the other. Either you belong to the world or you belong to Christ, and if you belong to Christ then you have no business in the world. This position is helpful and appropriate in situations of oppression under evil governments and other cases when the culture demands absolute loyalty.

The problem arises when a Christian community takes this position when it is not necessary or not appropriate. Many people today, many of our Christian brothers and sisters, isolate themselves among people who are just like them. They distrust outsiders and those who are different, and they understand Christ as someone who operates completely outside of the natural world and the human world. They’ve taken a separatist position when it’s not necessary or appropriate.

What is at stake here is the relationship between logos, and kosmos, and the big question of why did Christ come, and why did he have to go?

People who take either of the positions I’ve just described, the accommodationist or the isolationist, have both missed some important points, one of which is in today’s passage and has been printed for your reflection in the bulletin. Let’s read it together.

Jesus said: “The world has hated them because they do not belong to the world, just as I do not belong to the world. I am not asking you to take them out of the world, but I ask you to protect them from evil.”

“I am not asking you to take them out of the world.”

Clearly, there is an appropriate place for the disciples to be, and it is in the world and engaged with the culture.

How do we manage this struggle? Staying in the world, but not belonging to it?

We all have an urge to belong, and we all have an urge to be different. How do we manage this struggle?

Part of many cultural trends is the presence of a forced binary choice... a yes/no, an in-or-out, a cool, or uncool. It wasn’t that long ago that I was in high school, and in my high school in the 1990’s, the question of inside and outside was a pretty big deal. There were some people who spent a lot of energy demonstrating that they were “in” - and a lot more energy defending the boundaries of who else could be considered “insiders.” And there were some people who wore their “outside-ness” for all to see... spending a lot of energy refusing to participate or accommodate. But it always seemed to me, that the people who were actually getting important things done were the ones who refused to play the game... who were able to find a third way of being that was neither “in” nor “out.”

Cultural trends... things that belong to the world... will often present us with in-or-out questions. I think it’s the job of the church to present a third way. A way of being that neither accommodates the culture nor separates from it. Jesus is quoted as saying, in Matthew 5:31, that if a soldier strikes you on the right cheek, you are to turn the other one to him as well. You see, the culture provided only two options for someone in that situation. You either fought back and were then arrested or more likely beaten; or you backed down, and submitted yourself to public humiliation. Christ told his followers to find a third way. Do not strike out, but do stand your ground. Dare the soldier to slap you again. The act of turning one’s cheek means little, but as a refusal to participate in the culture, in the ways of the world, it means a great deal.

When the disciples in the gospel of John are told that they do not belong to the world, it means that their “fundamental loyalties and perspectives are at odds with the dominant society” (Kysar).

H. Richard Niebuhr presents us with a possible third way of being. He calls it “Christ as transformer of culture.” If you read Niebuhr’s book -- I’m not necessarily recommending it, it’s long and boring and I haven’t read it either -- you’ll see that he thinks this is the best choice out of the five he describes.

Christ as transformer of culture. He thinks that out of the five (which are all important and useful in their own ways) this is the one that comes closest to the biblical view and is the most appropriate for the world as he saw it.

According to this view, society and civilization are deeply troubled and in need of reform and redemption. According to this view, Christ is independent of the cultural world but intimately engaged with it. And according to this view, Christ has a mission, to reconcile the cultural world with the revelation of God - the kosmos and the logos - and to bring both to fruition. By bringing the word into the world, he sanctifies it -- he nudges it gently in the direction that God would have it go.

He is in the world but he does not belong to it. And the world, which is wrapped up in itself and not interested in the revelation of God, hates him because he (1) will not accommodate to them and (2) will not go away. He belongs to God, who he calls Father, and so they cannot use their tools of conformity against him. He has no longing to belong. He has no need for security, safety, or certainty, which are the things that the culture of the world uses to play with our emotions. He has these things in his relationship with God.

The church is not outside the world, but it does not belong to the world. It is not above the world, nor is it irrelevant to the world. What is it? It is called, called to be in the world and engaged with it. Called to be a transforming influence. Called to bring the ‘Logos’ into the ‘Kosmos’. Called to offer a third way.

Christ prays to God to “sanctify” the disciples in the word - to nudge them in the right direction. He tells God that he is sending his followers the way he was sent... that they might walk the way he walked, and continue the work that he has done.

The call of God in our lives, the call of sanctification, is ever-present if we are able to listen. Let those who have ears to hear, hear. Every moment is an opportunity to move in the direction God is calling us. God calls and God nudges and through the divine presence God prays constantly that we will respond, willingly and cheerfully.

Here, at the end of the Last Supper, at the emotional and theological climax of John’s gospel, after he confesses to God that the hour has come... What does Christ do? Christ prays for the disciples. He prays for his followers.

Why did Jesus come?
To bring God’s truth into a world
that was concerned only with itself.
To reconcile the broken world to a loving God.
To follow the path that God was nudging him along,
and by his example to sanctify the world.

And why did Jesus have to go?
So that, by the grace of God,
that mission could be passed on,
across the world and down the generations.
And we can all participate,
longing to belong,
but knowing that we are called.
Living in the world,
but sanctified by the word of God.

Gospel Crazy

H'okay, so here we go with my first post. I started this blog without a topic in mind; I'm sure those will come.

Well, here's something I've been thinking about, that I'm sure will work itself into a sermon or two in the future. When we start seminary, we take courses in two different kinds of theology: "Pastoral" or "Practical" theology, and "Constructive" or "Systematic" theology.

Therefore, the definition of Systematic theology is... (wait for it...) theology that is not practical!

Oh well, some days are better than others. I'm sure I'll find a good opportunity to use that to positive effect.

More to come, especially on what I think it means to be "Gospel Crazy."

Murr