A Paraphrase/Retelling of Genesis 1

Read Genesis 1 here.

At the very start of things was God, and God decided to start things. Everything was all the same, everywhere, and nothing was itself. God blew around looking at everything, and finally decided things should start.

God spoke: Light up!

And things lit up. God liked it. Part of everything was dark, and part of everything was lit up, and God stood in between. God took the light that was lit up and shaped it into spheres. Each lit-up sphere was itself and between the spheres there was darkness. And God called the spheres “stars”.

Then God decided that there should be solid ground. So God took parts of the lit-up spheres and spun them out until they were solid globes. Each globe was itself and God made them to be companions to each other and to their stars, sharing the light and the darkness. God called the solid ground “earth”. And on the earth God made air to separate the solid ground from the darkness between the stars. And God liked it.

Then God walked on the solid ground and decided that there should also be waters on the face of the earth. God made the salty seas and the fresh rivers, the lakes and the swamps, and the rains and waterfalls. God liked it.

Then God decided that there should be life on earth. God started small, with algae and fungus. Soon there were ferns growing on the earth, and God liked it. Trees began to grow, and flowers, and vines, with wonderful fruit and beautiful colours. Each life was itself.

God spoke: Move around!

And life began to swim, and crawl, and fly, and think, and learn. God liked it very much! God put a blessing on the living things, and wished that they would bear fruit and become many.

God blew around looking at everything, and liked it all very much. Then God decided that there should be someone who could look at everything and like it in the same way. So God made human beings who could reflect on their own existence and appreciate beauty. And God made the human beings responsible for all the other living creatures, and the trees and flowers, and all the water and the solid ground.

So God made human beings, both men and women, to be like God in this way. And God put a blessing on the human beings, and wished that they would bear fruit and be many, and that they would take responsibility for the earth and everything on it.

God blew around and looked at everything one last time, and God liked it very, very much.

And God rested.

My translation of John 14:1-14

Read the NRSV version here.

"Do not let your hearts be troubled. You put faith in God; put faith also in me.

There are many dwelling places that belong to my Father’s household. If it were not so, I should tell you so, because I go ahead of you to prepare your place.

And if I have gone and prepared a place for you, I come again and join up with you, so that where I AM, there you might also be.

And you already know the path I follow."

Thomas said to him, "Lord, we have no idea where you travel. How can we already know the path?"

Jesus said to him, "I AM the path, and I AM real, and I AM alive. No one comes to the Father without me.

If you comprehend me, you will comprehend my Father also. From now on you do comprehend him and have seen him."

Philip said to him, "Lord, explain the Father to us, and we will have all we need."

Jesus said to him, "So much time I AM with you, Philip, and you still do not comprehend me? Whoever sees me sees the Father. How do you say, ‘Explain the Father to us'?

Do you not trust that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The things that I say to you I do not speak from myself; but the Father who dwells in me does his works.

Trust me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; but if you do not, then trust because of the works themselves.

Very truly, I tell you, the one who puts faith in me will also do the works that I do and, in fact, will do greater works than these, because I am going to the Father.

And if you ask for something that honours me, I will make it so, so that the Father may be honoured by way of the Son.

If you ask me for something that honours me, I myself will make it so.

My fourth "Ministerial Comment" for the Claresholm Local Press

Authority, Worthiness, and Marvel Comics’ Thor

Rev. Murray Speer - May 20, 2011

One of my guilty pleasures is to watch comic book movies. The current top film at the box office is Thor, based on the comic book character which is, in turn, based on classical Norse storytelling. In the movie, Thor and his people are extra-terrestrials who live in a paradise city called Asgard and can use a portal to travel to different worlds. Thor’s father Odin is the King of Asgard, and is preparing to hand the throne over to Thor. Thor, however, is proud, arrogant, impulsive, and vain. When Thor’s actions reopen an ancient conflict, his father declares him unworthy, strips him of power, and banishes him to Earth.

What is it that makes us worthy of trust and authority? We all have areas in our lives, small or big, where we are trusted by others. We all have to make decisions that will affect people around us. Unfortunately, sometimes those who have authority are not worthy of it, while those who are most trustworthy are silenced.

Jesus tells a parable of an unjust man – destined to be king - who gives three of his servants money to trade with and then departs (The Gospel of Luke, Chapter 19). When he returns, two of the servants have made great returns on the funds while the third hasn’t even earned basic interest. The King gives enormous authority to the first two, making each the governor of a large region. The third, who was unwilling to risk losing the money, is deprived even of his own wages.

Every time we look at a parable we can see something different. What I see is that the King did not ask the first servant exactly how he managed to double the money. Was it by honest means? Was anyone harmed in the process? Was there criminal activity? The King declares him “trustworthy” without any hesitation. The King is described as a hard man, reaping where he does not sow, so perhaps he approved of ruthless means. The third servant may have been unwilling because he didn’t wish to abuse, exploit, or manipulate others for his own gain. Perhaps it was out of compassion that he buried that fortune.

Thor had everything necessary to be the King of Asgard, but he wasn’t ready to be a good king. When he was banished, his hammer Mjolnir was also sent to Earth, with this enchantment: “Whosoever holds this hammer, if he be worthy, shall wield the power of Thor.” Late in the film, when mortal-bodied Thor is able to have compassion for others and to selflessly offer his death, his hammer finally returns to him.

Sadly, power is not always accompanied by wisdom, and authority is not always tempered by compassion. A message of Jesus’ parable and the movie Thor is that if we are wise, we will always consider the effects of our choices, act with compassion, and try to be worthy of the power that we have.

Social Media and Meaninglessness - Asking the Right Questions

Originally posted on Facebook - May 16, 2011

The latest issue of the United Church Observer features a cover story on social media and its role in worship, spirituality, and salvation (Kevin Spurgaitis - "Alone Together"). It's one in a long line of such examinations that have, from their inception, left me bewildered and tired. I would find myself asking, "What does it matter?" What's the big deal?

This latest article ultimately, after stating both sides of the "controversy" in the strongest possible terms (which, frankly, borders on exaggeration) comes to the conclusion that what we are facing is a change in form and not of content. Actually, I take that back. The article lays all of the groundwork for that conclusion, then ultimately fails to conclude at all.

I think I've finally figured out what the big deal is. My epiphany came earlier today as I was making a photocopy of an old United Church of Canada resource pamphlet (Patricia Wells - "Welcome to the United Church of Canada: A Newcomer's Introduction to A New Creed", ca 1980). Wells writes on page 2 of the pamphlet: "The loneliness of modern life has become a cliche..."

"Ah, modern life," I thought to myself as I warmed up the copier. "How lonely it was." You see, I am not living a modern life. As a person who grew up in the last gasps of the Cold War and came of age after the events of Tiananmen Square and the Gulf War, I am living a decidedly post-modern life. "The modern world" made certain promises - which it failed to uphold. Technology will solve our problems, it said. Democracy is fair and just, it said. There is one best way to do things and progress is revealing it to us, it said. The ongoing collapse of modernity is leaving a different world in its wake, and I am a citizen of post-modernity. The post-modern world is still defining itself, but it is characterized by an emphasis on pluralism and a distrust of metanarratives - stories that tell us who we are and how we fit in, and which often serve to 'colonize' or disenfranchise us.

Henri Nouwen, in 1972's The Wounded Healer, analyzed the situation of what he called "Nuclear Man" - the human being who has the potential and the capacity to destroy all of creation and all of history in an instant. Nouwen proposed that the primary affliction of ministers and the church in the time of "nuclear man" was loneliness. He said that, in the face of annihilation of all that we know, we are overcome with a sense of powerlessness and isolation.

I believe that Nouwen was in fact analyzing the colllapse of self-image of the modern person. The moderns perceived themselves as participating in a greater narrative that would one day come to fruition. In the face of ultimate destruction, and the apparent willingness of prominent individuals to instigate it, this great narrative became flimsy indeed. The succeeding decades would see even greater assaults on that self-image, as progress began to be revealed as something for us to aspire to, rather than an historical inevitability.

It must be said that loneliness still abounds. It will always be a challenge for our communities and our churches, to identify those who are feeling isolated, insignificant, or invisible and find gentle and affirming ways to come alongside them in encouragement and friendship. But, by and large, the primary affliction of the post-modern person is NOT loneliness.

This is the eye-opener I had earlier today. This is why all of the fuss over social media has left me so bewildered. And, I believe this is why the Observer journalist failed to really draw any conclusion at all. The concern about social media as a means of community and redemption comes from a late-modernist point of view - a point of view that tells us that the primary affliction is loneliness and the role of the church is thus to be a community that gives people a social location from which to derive an identity.

"How does online media give a person an adequate social identity?" the late-modern interpreter asks. "How does it help them cope with the loss of self resulting from the collapse of modernism?"

Well, those of us who became ourselves in the wake of that collapse are NOT looking for a social identity. The end of modernism didn't take away our sense of self. Rather, it gave us one. In our world, loneliness (while still a reality) is a matter of PERSONAL, not SOCIETAL concern. Our societal concerns are different. We are looking for meaning in a world with no solid reference points. We are looking for direction in a world with no external reality. The end of the world (through nuclear holocaust, ecological collapse, or astronomical disaster) is something to be combated - but its prospect does not fill us with existential dread. My faith tells me that if I die, humanity goes on; if humanity dies, the globe goes on; if the globe dies, life nevertheless goes on, elsewhere.

Our primary concern is not loneliness and belonging, but emptiness and meaning. In other words, asking whether those who use social media are finding a "proper" sense of belonging is simply to ask the wrong question.

Post-moderns are not looking for belonging. We know where and if we belong.

The question becomes, "Is social media a valid site for finding meaning and direction in a post-modern world?"

The answer to this question is a resounding yes.

Sermon for Easter Sunday - April 24, 2011

Read Matthew 28:1-10 here.

I’m going to make an assumption talking to you today. I’m going to assume that, because you’re choosing to be here on Easter Sunday morning – on the Sunday morning of a long weekend – that you’re either a Christian, or what we call a Seeker. I’m not going to say anything that I wouldn’t say to a general audience, but I would word and phrase things differently. If you don’t consider yourself a Christian or a Seeker, I hope you’ll listen anyway, even though it might feel at times that the message isn’t intended for you.

Over the last number of months I have sometimes preached about ways to live the spiritual life. First, the spiritual life has to do with mysteries. These "mysteries" are not quandaries to be solved, as though we were Poirot on the Orient Express. Nor are they questions to be answered, like the mystery of cold fusion. Finally, they aren’t secrets held by some and withheld from others.

Mysteries, the way we’ll talk about them, are things that go deeper than our understanding can follow. By contemplating them, we are drawn deeper into a sense of our own lives, and into a deeper relationship with the ground of all being. No matter how deep we go into one of these mysteries, it is never exhausted.

Second, the spiritual life has to do with rhythms. You could say that each mystery has its own rhythm – its own way of drawing us deeper into itself. I call it rhythm because a true rhythm engages our entire selves – our mental processes, as well as our emotional, and physical, and social lives.

Today is the mystery of the resurrection. If we consider ourselves Christian, and we proclaim Christ risen (Risen indeed!) then we also are risen people – resurrection people.

The rhythm of resurrection has three movements. In the terms of Easter, the three movements can be called Friday, Saturday, and Sunday.

We’re all familiar with feelings of loss. Or failure. Or despair over the future. Some of us, I’m sure, are familiar with all three at the same time.

This is what Jesus’ disciples experienced on Good Friday. On Friday, there is no good news.

Friday is exemplified by W. H. Auden’s Poem:

Stop all the clocks, cut off the telephone,

Prevent the dog from barking with a juicy bone,

Silence the pianos and with muffled drum

Bring out the coffin, let the mourners come.

Let aeroplanes circle moaning overhead

Scribbling on the sky the message He Is Dead,

Put crêpe bows round the white necks of the public

doves,

Let the traffic policemen wear black cotton gloves.

He was my North, my South, my East and West,

My working week and my Sunday rest,

My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song;

I thought that love would last for ever: I was wrong.

The stars are not wanted now: put out every one;

Pack up the moon and dismantle the sun;

Pour away the ocean and sweep up the wood.

For nothing now can ever come to any good.

In our Good Friday service, we examined the possible reactions of four of Jesus' disciples. The apostle Peter wondered whether it was any good going on without him. Judas, who handed him over to the authorities, was overcome with guilt and grief, and could see no hope for the future. Mary the mother of James was convinced that as a group they had utterly failed in their task. Mary Magdalene found her perspective changed, as her devotion was now to a dead man.

This is the epitome of loss. As a community, they are fractured – splintered to pieces. When Jesus was arrested they fled, and it was every man and woman for themselves.

I’m sure some of you have experienced this level of loss. I have, in my own life. I hope that those of us who are not familiar with it will never have to go through it. The combined sense of loss, failure, and despair can often be too much for anyone to handle. Add the loneliness and isolation caused by the fracturing of community, and it can become fatal.

Thankfully for us, this is only the first movement in the rhythm of resurrection. One thing to remember about the rhythms of spirituality is that once we learn to see them, we begin to see them everywhere. One need not suffer a life-altering loss or a brush with death to understand the rhythm of this mystery. It pervades all of life.

The gospel of Matthew tells us that two days after Jesus’ death, the two Marys were sitting outside his tomb.

But he wasn’t there. As they watched, the stone was rolled away from the door. There were guards watching, also, from the moment the tomb was closed. No one went in. No one came out. But Jesus wasn’t there. There is more significance to the emptiness of the tomb than just the question of how this can be.

When we have been through a Good Friday experience, we can choose to gaze into the emptiness. We can stay, waiting, beside the thing that we have lost until our own hearts become the empty tomb. That was my own experience. I hope that none of you will ever have to feel this.

But the two Marys heard the call of God, in the form of a brilliant angel made of shining whiteness and flashing lightning. It told them that there was nothing for them in that place. It told them to go back to the beginning. Leaving the empty tomb behind is the first step towards Saturday.

Matthew doesn’t tell us how long Saturday actually lasted for the disciples. You see, the two Marys heard the call of God to return to Galilee, and they are the ones who convinced the whole group to go with them. How long did it take the group to make it back to Galilee, to the Mountain where Jesus had preached his great Sermon? A week? A year? Ten years? Matthew doesn’t say.

But they have something to sustain them. The Marys get a taste of Sunday as they’re leaving the tomb. Jesus appears to them, and reinforces the message of the angel. “Do not be afraid. I am not in the tomb. I will wait for you in Galilee.”

This is not only a story of a man dying and returning. It is a story of a community dying and returning. A story of the hearts of a small group of people dying, and returning. Their loss is reversed – it is not negated; it happened. It was real. But it is reversed. Their failure is redeemed. They CAN carry on after all. The challenges they face are mighty, but so are they. Their despair is turned to hope. It is not the same hope they had before. It can’t be. But they have hope once again.

And when they get to Galilee - a week, or a year, or a decade later - Jesus is there waiting for them. He is changed. They can see that he’s not quite the man they knew. But there he is, waiting. As he said he would be.

We might wish it could be Sunday every day. But there is brokenness in the world. Love dies. Beauty is destroyed. Christ is crucified. The gospel tells us that Friday is always followed by Sunday. But the only way to get there is to stop looking into the emptiness of our loss and despair, gather into community, and get on our way.

When we learn to see the rhythms of the spiritual life, we begin to see them everywhere. A person loses a job, and with the support of family and friends finds a new future. A family loses a child and it brings the community closer than it ever could have been. A man loses a toe or an arm and gains a new perspective on the world. A woman survives cancer and goes on to rededicate her life.

Ultimately, we are all waiting for the big Sunday to arrive. Oh, we get glimpses along the way. We hear the call of God telling us to make our way to the Mountain. We see Jesus along the way and he tells us not to be afraid – he is not in the tomb, and he will wait for us.

Christ is risen indeed.

Thanks be to God.

Good Friday Reflections - Judas, Peter, Magdalene, and the Other Mary

Originally posted on Facebook - April 22, 2011

Part One: Peter’s Tale

I told him I would never leave him. But, I have to tell you, all this strange talk about how he would have to suffer and die - and how we would leave him to suffer alone - and that I would disown him? Me! Peter, the rock! All this strange talk was getting to be too much.

When we set out on the road for Jerusalem, we knew that big things would happen. Everywhere we went, people were listening to Jesus. REALLY listening. In every town, the local Pharisees debated with Jesus. They didn’t like that he preached resistance against the government, but they had to admit that he followed the Scriptures. And the people loved him, so the authorities had to take him seriously.

It would be the same in Jerusalem, we were sure. The people would love him, and the High Priest would have to admit that his teachings were valid. Everyone would have to take him seriously. And things would change.

We knew it was dangerous. We knew what happened to the Baptizer. Herod had him executed. We had steeled ourselves to face danger. Jesus didn’t want us to fight, but we wouldn’t listen to him. We were ready to fight and die for him. It was absurd to suggest that we would desert him. But surely nothing would happen until after the Passover festival! He would continue to teach, more and more people would listen to him, the priests would take him seriously, and the government would have to start treating us differently.

So, imagine our surprise when they came to arrest him on the night before Passover. How dare they disrespect the holiday? I drew my sword, determined that no one would stop me. But, somehow, he did stop me. And then he did something I never imagined.

He went with them, willingly. Didn’t he have confidence in us? Didn’t he think we could win a fight? Does he want us to just give up, now that we’re so close to our goal?

Part Two: Judas’ Tale

Where could I find forgiveness? I never dreamed they would send armed guards to arrest him. I never imagined they would haul him away in chains like a criminal. We thought his strange talk about having to suffer and die was just pessimism. We thought he was just selling himself short.

We’d been in Jerusalem for days and still he hadn’t met with the high priests. They refused to come out to discuss with him, and he seemed reluctant to go to them. But what if I could be the one who brought them together, where they could listen to his preaching! If I could arrange that meeting, I would be guaranteed greatness in the kingdom to come!

When I told the priests where to find him, I thought they would go alone. I thought they wanted to talk privately with him, without the audience that would gather if they went in public. But when the time came, they made a public affair of it! They brought soldiers, and invited a crowd to follow! There was nothing I could do but beg them to take him peacefully. I saw the way his other followers looked at me. As though I had betrayed them all. It was almost unbearable.

I followed them into the city. Then I realized that they weren’t going to let him explain himself. He would be convicted and thrown into prison, because he held demonstrations against them and the government.

When they brought him out, I thought that maybe I had been wrong. Maybe they had heard him, and everything would turn out okay! But he was still in chains. I followed as far as I could, until I realized where they were going. They were taking him to Pilate. I couldn’t believe it! The high priests were turning him over to the Romans! That a Jew would hand another Jew over to a heathen authority! My heart turned to water. There’s only one reason that they would hand him over to Pilate. They want him killed, and they don’t have the authority. They’ll frame him. He’ll be crucified as a terrorist.

I did this. Where could I find forgiveness?

If he dies, I’ll die too. There is no life after he dies. If I can’t live in his kingdom, I’ll take my own life. So be it.

Part Three: The Other Mary’s Tale

Magdalene and I were the only ones to stay with him through his horrible ordeal. The men all ran, including my sons James and Joseph. We saw Peter and Judas in Jerusalem, but by the time the soldiers brought Jesus out of the presidium, beaten and bleeding, they had disappeared just like the others.

I don’t blame them, really. Nobody outside our group had ever noticed us at all, through all the healings and the debates and the demonstrations. The men would squabble over who was his greatest disciple, while we got to work bandaging the sick and giving alms to the poor. This meant that they were so much more visible - so much more recognizable as his disciples.

You never know with the Roman authorities. When they go after a group like ours, sometimes they take only the leader, and other times they round everybody up to be crucified. It was probably smart for them to disappear. But that didn’t make it any easier for me and Magdalene, to watch what happened.

It was horrible when the people called for Bar-Abbas to be released. Again, I don’t blame them, really. Let me tell you about Bar-Abbas. He’s a famous bandit. He and his men live in the hills and raid caravans. They’re angry over the suffering of the poor, so they steal from the rich. But, if you ask me, they’re really doing it for themselves. How much of the wealth they steal do they give to the poor villages they left behind? Almost nothing.

But Bar-Abbas says he fights for the poor, so the poor people love him. And the people he raids are either Romans, or Jews who work with the Romans. So the people who hate Rome love Bar-Abbas. They think that a man in the hills with a sword can change things. I don’t blame them.

How quickly they forgot Jesus - the man who tried to change things by tending to their broken bodies and broken spirits. They forgot the man who tried to show them that God loves each and every one of them. They forgot the one who tried to change the world by touching their hearts and opening their eyes.

I don’t blame them, really. But it was a horrible thing to see.

Part Four: Magdalene’s Tale

What do we do now? When the Baptizer died, Jesus was there to pick up the pieces and show us a way greater than we imagined. But who will pick up the pieces now?

I remember when we first came to Jerusalem - the energy and the excitement. We thought we could change things. Show people that there is another way to resist the Romans other than violence. Jesus was building a community of people who cared for each other. Before him, all you saw was people neglecting others and focusing only on themselves. That’s what the Empire is doing to us. Pilate and Herod prefer to rule over selfish people.

We tried. We tried to show people that by caring for each other, you can have the kingdom of God.

But we didn’t change anything. We failed, and Jesus is gone. I watched him, there on the cross. I didn’t take my eyes off of him. He called out, “Why have you forsaken me?” If only he could have seen me, and known that I was there. If only he could have known that not everyone had forsaken him.

I don’t know what we’ll do next. I think we’ll find each other and talk about what happened. It’s still Passover, and Jesus would want us to be together. Then, when things have quieted down a bit and the Sabbath is over, we’ll go and see where they laid him.

We’ll do our best to pick up the pieces. But things will never be the same.

Understanding the Church Year

Originally posted on Facebook - March 31, 2011

Everyone knows that there are different ways of thinking of the year – the two most familiar are the “calendar year” and the “school year”. The first is divided into twelve months and starts a week after midwinter. The second is divided into terms or semesters, starts in the fall, and includes key dates like “report cards,” “finals,” and “spring break.”

The church has its own way of thinking of the year. Instead of being based on months or semesters, the church year is based on the rhythms of spiritual redemption. The church year divides into six major sections of varying lengths, each with its own focus and pattern. The most important days of the church year are Ash Wednesday, Easter, Pentecost, Christmas, and Epiphany.

The church year starts with the season of Advent, which begins on the Sunday between November 27th and December 3rd, and lasts until Christmas Eve. The Advent colour is purple or blue, and Advent music is all about waiting and watching for God’s help in the form of the Christ (who we know will be born on Christmas Day). The Scriptures for Advent are all about God’s promises to send a messiah, and how Jesus was the embodiment of that promise.

After Advent comes Christmas, which lasts for twelve days – from December 25th until January 5th. When people talk about the month of December as “the Christmas season”, they’ve got it backwards. Christmas Day is the start of the season, and the joyous celebrations should last well into the new year! December 24th was chosen as the date for Christmas Eve because it is the first day that is observably longer than the day before – so on that day we celebrate that “the light shines in the darkness and the darkness has not overcome it.” The colour for Christmas is white, and Christmas songs are all about rejoicing and sharing the good news.

The day of Epiphany, which I call “the Mystery of Epiphany”, is January 6th. It’s the day when we mark the visit of the Magi, or Wise Ones, to the family of Jesus. Their visit is overshadowed by the threat of King Herod, who is violently protective of his own power. It’s followed by the Season of Epiphany, which lasts until Ash Wednesday. The colour of Epiphany is white, and the songs focus on the gift of light and the star of Bethlehem.

These three seasons, which can last anywhere from 63 to 103 days (this past year, it was 101), make up half the Christian ritual year.

Ash Wednesday is the beginning of Lent, and it falls 46 days before Easter. Its date can vary widely, because Easter is the first Sunday after the first Full Moon after the Spring Equinox. So, for example, in 2008 Ash Wednesday was on February 6th, while in 2011 it was on March 9th. Lent is a time for reflecting on ourselves and deepening our spiritual relationship with God. The colour for Lent is purple and Lenten songs are about examining our lives and coming to God in prayer. Lent concludes with Holy Week, when we remember the last week of Jesus’ life, culminating with the pain of his death on Good Friday. The reason we say Lent lasts 40 days and nights (when it’s actually 46) is because Sundays don’t count – they are a break from the spiritual disciplines of Lent.

Easter Sunday is the start of the seven-week season of Easter. Just like Christmas, which starts on the 24th of December and lasts twelve days, the “Easter season” happens AFTER Easter Sunday. Easter is the season of resurrection, and we use symbols like bunnies, eggs, daffodils, butterflies, lambs, and lilies to remind us that life springs forth from death. We also use the empty cross, the transformed cross (with flowering vines), and the empty tomb to remind us that not even death could conquer the power of Christ’s love. The Easter season lasts seven weeks because that is how long the scriptures say the risen Christ spent with his disciples after his resurrection. The colour for Easter is white or gold.

On the Day of Pentecost we celebrate the gift of the Holy Spirit. As we read in chapter 1 of the book of Genesis, the Spirit was active at the creation, brooding over the formless waters. On the day of Pentecost in the book of Acts, the apostles discover that the Spirit is with them in a powerful way. On Pentecost Sunday the liturgical colour is red and the symbols include flames, wind, birds, and other images for the Holy Spirit.

The season after Pentecost is the longest season of the church year. In 2011, it will last 23 weeks. The colour for this season is green, as it is the time when we are encouraged to grow and bear fruit for the gospel, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the teachings of Jesus.

The church year is an important way to experience the rhythms of redemption in our own lives, by setting aside specific times to focus on particular portions of God’s activity. Hopefully, this little introduction can help you in your own faith journey and worship life, to see how God is at work within and around you.

My Third "Ministerial Comment" for the Claresholm Local Press

Perfection, Control, and TRON: Legacy

Rev. Murray Speer - December 30, 2010

For as long as I can remember, my hobby has been movies. When I was very young, a movie came out that I found difficult to understand. It was about a man who created a world that he could only see from the outside - a world of circuits and computer programs. When the world he created was under threat, he unexpectedly found himself inside and fighting - not only for his own survival, but for the future of both the computer world, and the computer corporation he helped build.

That movie was called TRON, and there is currently a sequel in theatres (TRON: Legacy). Oscar-winner Jeff Bridges reprises his dual role as “the Creator” Kevin Flynn and his creation, the program Clu. A few years after his first trip into the computer world, Flynn disappears and leaves his son bereft. The orphaned boy, Sam, now a young man, discovers his father’s secret office and follows him into “cyberspace”. Sam quickly learns that Clu, once his father’s most trusted helper, has become a tyrannical ruler obsessed with purity and perfection. Clu intends to exit cyberspace with an army, and bring his mania for perfection to the outside world. Flynn himself is in exile, for although he is the most powerful individual in cyberspace (he is the Creator after all) he has given much of his power to Clu and can’t oppose him directly without destroying everything.

The schism between Flynn and Clu took place when a miracle occurred - cyberspace gave birth to new individuals. These beings were not programs, but were intelligent, and emerged independently from nothingness. Flynn celebrated this miracle, knowing that by studying them he could solve many of humankind’s problems in the outside world. Clu, however, was created to build the “perfect system”, and to him the spontaneous arrival of unprogrammed entities was the very height of imperfection.

How do we respond when our desire for perfection is met with unexpected intrusions? The word “perfect” appears many times in the Bible in both the Old Testament/Hebrew Scriptures and the New/Christian Testament. In the Hebrew Scriptures, it is most often used NOT as an attribute but to REFER to an attribute: perfect beauty, perfect knowledge, perfect work, perfect way.

In the Christian Testament, we find the familiar commandment to “be perfect as the Father in heaven is perfect” (Matthew 5:48). This word, however, does not mean without flaw - it means something like complete, fulfilled, or mature. It is related to the word that Jesus speaks from the cross in John 19:30 when he says, “It is finished.” Furthermore, it is in the context of the commandment to love our enemies. Don’t be childish and selfish, it says. Try to “see the bigger picture” the way the heavenly Father does.

The villain Clu is motivated by feelings of rejection and anger, and his desire for perfection is twisted into a desire for control and purity, and a hatred of all that does not fit into his ordered view of things. Psychologically speaking, perfectionism is related to issues of control and fear. Late in the film, Flynn admits that it was wrong of him to instruct Clu to seek perfection. The Church in various incarnations is also guilty of this mistake. By asking people to fit perfectly into a carefully constructed order, we have misunderstood the scriptures and created psychological trauma.

The perfect system is not one that is pure and orderly. It is one that is mature rather than childish and selfish. It is one that embraces the beauty of inspiration rather than a cookie-cutter ideal. It is one that sees the bigger picture, that true security comes not from control but from respect and equal justice for all. When we tell ourselves that we are pursuing perfection, it is really control that we are after. And that, say the scriptures, is very far from what the Creator had in mind.

My Second "Ministerial Comment" for the Claresholm Local Press

Intimacy and “The Social Network”

by Rev. Murray Speer - October 29, 2010

Currently in the Top 5 films at the movie box office is David Fincher’s The Social Network, the story of the origin of Facebook.com. Jesse Eisenberg plays Mark Zuckerberg, a young computer genius who is an undergraduate at Harvard University. In an opening scene, we watch as he bombs a date with a pretty girl. It becomes obvious that he is socially inept, highly ambitious, and has a grudge against the world.

The story unfolds in the context of two different lawsuits, as we shift back and forth between the two deposition hearings and the stories that are being told there. Zuckerberg continuously displays disdain for other people and their feelings, as well as for community laws and standards. He is convinced that he is superior, and therefore has the right to do what he wants. His actions are motivated by a deep-seated desire to be popular, successful, and accepted.

The problems arise for Mark when he launches the Facebook website as his own creation, when he had earlier been recruited by some upperclassmen to develop a similar site for them. Mark’s partner in the Facebook venture is his only real friend, Eduardo. As the story unfolds and the website expands to include more and more colleges in more and more cities, he gradually edges Eduardo out in favour of people who will stroke his genius and do what he says.

The story of the film is one of tragic failure, as in pursuing popularity and acceptance Zuckerberg betrays his only friend and surrounds himself with coworkers, and women, who are impressed only by his fame and money. The poignant final scene has him, online, requesting that his former college girlfriend become his Facebook “friend”, and repeatedly refreshing the webpage to see if she has accepted his request. The tragedy is that he had the opportunity to have a real relationship with her, but his misogyny and selfish ambition stood in his way. He continuously chooses the path that will, in fact, prevent him from forming true and fulfilling relationships.

In the 1960s, psychiatrist Eric Berne proposed a type of psychoanalysis called “transactional analysis”, or TA. TA breaks all human interactions down into a series of transactions, which take place on three levels. Within us, we each have an inner child, an inner adult, and an inner parent. We have all three, regardless of our age or stage of life. We relate to each other on different levels, but, says Berne, true intimacy is when we can relate on all three levels at once. Speaking from his position as a white middle-class professional in the 1960s, Berne believed that this kind of intimacy is exceedingly rare, and essentially unattainable – so we are all left to approximate it in the best way we can.

I can’t help thinking about Berne and his thoughts on intimacy, when I reflect on the story of Mark Zuckerberg. His misogyny, and his disdain for his “inferiors,” keep him aloof from the people he desperately wants to be in relationship with. He childishly believes that the Facebook project will satisfy his desire for intimacy, but all it does is further alienate him from those who truly care about him. As long as he refuses to relate to anyone from the perspective of his inner child, he will never, ever, find the friendship and love he longs for.

I agree with Berne that this kind of intimacy – relating to another person on every level – seems rare in our culture. And when we are looking at a story like The Social Network, it can indeed seem very difficult to achieve. But I am not convinced that it is as hard as Berne makes it out to be. In fact, I believe that this kind of intimacy is the very definition of the church. When we relate on every level, we are playmate, teacher, student, co-laborer, and companion to another.

To me, this is what Jesus was attempting with his disciples. We don’t have many stories of them being playful with each other (if at all), but particularly in the gospel of John we see the teacher/student roles being reversed. First, in John 11:34, his disciples invite him to “come and see” – words that were previously associated with his own teaching activities. In this moment, then, they become the leaders, and he follows them. Later, in chapter 13, Jesus washes the feet of his disciples, becoming their servant. Peter is highly reluctant to allow this – relating on every level is far too intimate for him. Finally, Jesus gives them the “new commandment”: that they love one another as he has loved them.

Whether we are Christians or not, whether we believe this is the role of the church or not, there is a lesson here for us. Mark Zuckerberg wanted his gifts and efforts to be recognized, but refused to recognize the inherent value of the people around him. Peter was happy to serve the teacher, but refused to be served as a friend. Both of them misunderstood what it truly means to be in relationship. We must be ready to greet others on all levels – those of the inner child, the inner adult, and the inner parent – and to allow them to greet us likewise. Then, and only then, will intimacy flourish. And that, if you ask me, is the key to the kingdom.

Neo Lectio Divina - A contemporary form of prayerful reading

Originally posted on Facebook - October 25, 2010

“Lectio Divina” – The Golden Reading

A Modified Form by

Rev. Murray Speer

We begin by entering a contemplative time and space, where we can be relaxed, free of distractions, and focused entirely on the task at hand. Set aside at least 30 minutes for contemplation and reflection. Choose a passage that is a reasonable length – possibly only a few verses.

Lectio Divina traditionally consists of four stages, but they are difficult for “moderns” and “post-moderns” to embrace. My form retains the content of the traditional form but puts it in a new box, so to speak.

Step One (“Getting Familiar”): Read the passage silently to yourself at a comfortable rate. Do not begin to look for meaning at this time. Focus on the passage as a whole. Remember to stay relaxed.

Step Two (“Paying Attention”): Read the passage aloud, with a slow pace. This time, pay attention for words, thoughts, phrases, or images that “jump out” or have power for you. Remember to relax. You may want to use pencil and paper to write down the words that draw your focus, or to draw a picture or diagram.

Step Three (“The Spirit Works”): Ask what message God has for you in this moment of engagement with scripture. Allow the Holy Spirit to work within you and illuminate the meaning of the words. This is not an act of thought, but of prayer. Don’t forget to relax.

Step Four (“We Respond”): Take the meaning you have discerned into your heart. Let it touch and transform your deepest self. When feelings or memories arise, allow them to blossom and then speak over them the message that God has illumined for you. If you used pencil and paper in Step Three, you may want to write or draw your way through this step as well. Continue to meditate on the feelings and memories that are triggered by God’s message, until you feel release.

Step Five (“We Rest”): Relax again. Rest in the wordless embrace of God until you are ready to re-enter the world. This stage may last many minutes - do not rush yourself.

My translation of Luke 18:9-14

Read the NRSV version here.

Luke 18:9-14

And now he spoke to some people who were confident in their own faithfulness and despised all the rest, and told this parable:

"Two men went up to the temple to pray. One, a Pharisee. The other, a tax-collector. The Pharisee, standing in the open, was praying:

'God, thank you that I am not like all the rest: thieves, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax-collector. I fast two times every week [instead of just once] and I give a tenth of everything I own [not only things that are normally tithed].'

"But the tax-collector stood way in the back and would not even raise his eyes upward. He kept hitting his breast, and said:

'God, show compassion to me, who is not a good Jew.'

"I tell you, when this one went down to his house he was pronounced faithful, more than the other one. Because those who raise themselves up will be brought down, and those who bring themselves down will be raised up."

Epistolary Sermon from October 17, 2010 - My Sick Day

Genesis 32:22-31

22 The same night he got up and took his two wives, his two maids, and his eleven children, and crossed the ford of the Jabbok.

23 He took them and sent them across the stream, and likewise everything that he had.

24 Jacob was left alone; and a man wrestled with him until daybreak.

25 When the man saw that he did not prevail against Jacob, he struck him on the hip socket; and Jacob’s hip was put out of joint as he wrestled with him.

26 Then he said, “Let me go, for the day is breaking.” But Jacob said, “I will not let you go, unless you bless me.”

27 So he said to him, “What is your name?” And he said, “Jacob.”

28 Then the man said, “You shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with humans, and have prevailed.”

29 Then Jacob asked him, “Please tell me your name.” But he said, “Why is it that you ask my name?” And there he blessed him.

30 So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, “For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life is preserved.”

31 The sun rose upon him as he passed Penuel, limping because of his hip.



October 17, 2010

Murray Speer, minister of grace and preacher of the word,

to my friends in the Claresholm-Stavely Pastoral Charge.

Dear friends,

Grace to you and peace in the Lord Jesus Christ. I am writing this sermon to you in the form of a letter because I fear I will not be able to be with you this Sunday morning. I am very ill with a sinus infection and to be with you would drain me terribly. So I am asking you to share this letter together.

The reading you have just heard, from Genesis 32, has long been a favourite of mine. I can identify with Jacob, alone in the night, waiting for the dawn when he knows he must cross the river and face whatever it is that awaits him on the other side.

Perhaps I should tell you a little about what brought Jacob to this place. Jacob, the son of Isaac and Rebekah, was born only moments after his twin brother Esau. The story is that Jacob left the womb grabbing on to Esau’s ankle – so they named him Jacob, “the grabber”. We might call him “the swindler” or “the backstabber”. And that’s who he became. When he was a young man, Jacob tricked his brother Esau into signing over his inheritance. And later, he tricked his father Isaac into naming him, Jacob, his heir,over the head of his older brother.

That trick meant that Jacob had to run away. He went to work for his mother’s relative Laban, in another land. As an employee, he married both of Laban’s daughters –Rachel and Leah. Then, after a long twenty years of work, he took Laban’s daughters,all the wealth that he had acquired at Laban’s expense, and his gold statues, and made off with them. God had told him to return to his home and face the music – but at this point, Jacob was still swindling and smooth-talking his way out of every situation.

He knows that he has to return to Esau and make amends. He takes all of the extra wealth that he has accumulated and sends it off to Esau as a gift – essentially saying,I am not coming to compete with you politically or economically. I will give you the upper hand and be satisfied. But will his brother accept the offering? Tomorrow, he will find out, but he is not ready to cross the river yet. He sends everyone ahead of him– his two wives, his two mistresses, and his eleven children, and all of his employees and friends, as well as his flocks and herds and all of his goods. But he cannot bring himself to cross the river with them. Not until morning. For he knows, that no amount of smooth-talking will help him against Esau.

My friends, have you ever had a night like this? Completely alone, in the dark, unable to sleep, distraught by your own feelings, with nothing to do but wait for morning? In psychological terms, it is called “angst”, a word related to “anguish” and “anxiety”. In the language of Christian spirituality, it is called “the Dark Night of the Soul”.

During Jacob’s Dark Night, something very strange happens. He is suddenly aware of another presence. We might imagine him jumping to his feet, looking all around.“Who’s there?! Show yourself!” he might shout. And out of nowhere, he is gripped by an overwhelming power. He finds himself struggling, physically, his entire self engaged in a life-and-death wrestling match. And something very important hangs in the balance– who will he be?

You see, throughout his life, Jacob was a swindler. He could always talk his way out of anything. The one time he couldn’t, he ran. Surely he’s tempted to run again. Surely one reason he sent his entire household across the river was because some small part of him thought he might leave them and run away. By the time morning comes, he will have to decide what kind of person he will be.

His struggle lasts through the night. He is gripped so tightly that he cannot run, and there is no chance to lie, cheat, or smooth-talk his way out of this. His grief, shame, and fear are overwhelming. But something begins to shift. He realizes that this struggle is not about winning or losing. It’s about holding on. So he holds on.

The struggle is so intense that Jacob’s thigh is wrenched from its socket. But still he holds on. In this life-and-death struggle, he chooses life. He says, “I will not stop until you bless me.” Finally, his opponent asks him his name, and his grief, shame, and fear all come to a peak. “I am Jacob,” he says. “I am the grabber. The swindler. The back-stabber.” And his opponent blesses him and says, “No. Your name is Israel. The wrestler.”

Finally, Jacob is able to face his brother. No matter what happens in the morning, he can be at peace. Finally, he has earned a blessing all on his own, rather than stealing it from someone else. Finally he is his own man. He has been to the very bottom of his own soul, and discovered a will to live and a desire to fight on. But he will always be wounded from this encounter. His leg will never be the same. And he will become the father of the Hebrew people. Through him, they, and we, will always be both wounded and blessed.

Jacob can be a role model for us, my friends. Some of us may be more like his twin brother Esau. Esau never doubted himself. Esau always knew what he wanted and went for it, straightforward. Esau, the elder twin, never lied or cheated because he neither had the brain nor the heart for it. But some of us are more like Jacob. And even if we are more like Esau, there is a little Jacob in all of us. For we, too, are the spiritual descendants of Israel.

Sometimes, we have the opportunity to cross a river like Jacob did. To return home,perhaps, or to journey to a new future. Right now, the river is in front of all of us. We could leave everything behind and run. Sometimes, we do. Sometimes the future is too much for us to handle. But when we are ready, we have Jacob’s experience to guide us. First, we empty ourselves of all we have brought with us. Then, we allow ourselves to feel all of our fear, and shame, and grief. And when we reach the bottom of our souls, we cling to life and demand a blessing. It isn’t easy, and we will probably limp fora good long while.

But we will have a new name. And we will be able to freely enter the promised land of the future. And this will be our song:

“I am not who I wish to be. I am not who God would have me be. But, by the grace of God, I am not who I used to be.”

Thanks be to God.

My friends, please greet one another in peace for me after your worship is finished, and know that I hold all of you in my prayers this morning. I look forward to seeing you all again.

Blessings and love,

Murray Speer.

My Translation of Luke 16:1-9

Read the NRSV version here.

Luke 16:1-9

He kept speaking to his disciples: There once was a rich man who had a steward, and this one was slandered to him how he was spreading around his wealth. And he called him and said to him: “What is this I hear about you? Produce the books of your stewardship, for you can no longer steward.”

And the steward said to himself: “What will I do now that the master has removed the stewardship from me? I am not strong to dig; I am ashamed to beg. I know what I will do, so that when thrown out of the stewardship they will welcome me into their houses. “

And calling his master’s debtors one at a time, he kept speaking to them. To the first: “What do you owe to my master?” And he said one hundred barrels of oil. And he said to him, “Take your account and sit down; quickly write fifty.” To another he spoke: “And what do you owe to my master?” And he said one hundred loads of grain. He said to him, “Take your account and write eighty.”

And the master praised the steward’s unrighteousness, because he acted with insight. Because the sons of this age are more insightful than the sons of light into this age in which they live. And I say to you: Use your unrighteous wealth to make true friends for yourself, so that when this age ends they may welcome you in the eternal dwelling place.

My first "Ministerial Comment" for the Claresholm Local Press

“Inception” and the Real World
by Rev. Murray Speer - August 6, 2010


The current number one film at the box office is Christopher Nolan’s “Inception”, starring Leonardo Dicaprio and Ellen Page. In addition to being a well-crafted, fast-paced story with superb performances, it’s also an interesting look into how we each craft our own reality and choose the world we’ll live in.

In the movie, experts can build a dream world in their own minds, and introduce an unsuspecting dreamer into that world. They then enter this world themselves, and interact with the dreamer and his or her subconscious. The goal is to extract secrets for corporate espionage or military intelligence.

The leader of a small band of dream-builders, played by Leonardo Dicaprio, is haunted by memories of his dead wife. She intrudes into his dreams while he’s working, and interferes. Meanwhile, in his own private dreams, he has constructed a mansion of memory that prevents him from moving on in his life. Under artificial stimulation, his dreams consist only of his own happy memories, and he is no longer able to sleep and dream naturally.

The film raises questions that we should all take very seriously. Of course, no such technology exists in our world. We can’t go for a stroll in another person’s subconscious and extract secrets. But, is it too far of a stretch to say that some of us live in a reality that we have constructed for ourselves, where we see only happy memories, or a perfect future, while ignoring the pain and uncertainty all around us? I suspect this happens more than we might like to think.

The character in the movie struggles to keep only the happy memories, and to lock away his pain, regret, shame, and fear. But those less-pleasant feelings find creative ways to rear their heads and threaten him. Ultimately, they threaten everything he has been working for. This is the danger of seeing only the positive. The truth is that these feelings exist, and must be felt.

Each character in “Inception” who travels into the dreamworld has what they call a “totem” - a small, unique object that is entirely familiar to them but has never been touched by another person. By weighing it in their hand, they can tell whether they are in fact back in the real world.

For those of us who are Christians, this is the role of the cross. It reminds us that we are not living in a perfect dream world, but in a world that contains pain, and shame, and fear - it is, after all, a symbol of violent and public death. By looking at it, or holding it in our hands, we know that this is God’s world, not one that we have built for ourselves. It reminds us that God does not run away from the world. It tells us that the only way to find God is to love the world that God loves.

Whether we are Christian or not, whether the cross has this meaning or not, there is an important message here for us. We can’t help ourselves by turning away from our pain, and we can’t help the suffering world by tuning it out. It’s only by waking up and taking a real look around that we can start to change anything.

In fact, we can choose the reality we want to live in. We can choose to gloss over the pain and confusion of life and pretend that everything is okay. Or, we can choose to look closely at the pain that surrounds us and get to work trying to make a real difference. For me, I want to live in a world where things aren’t perfect, where people aren’t running away from suffering, and where I know that I’m not just dreaming.

Five great Christmastime movies that aren't Christmas movies.

Originally posted on Facebook - December 4, 2009

Like Christmas but not Christmas movies? Give one of these a try.

Top Five:

Go (1999) - A madcap genX dark comedy about a bunch of people from different walks of life whose paths cross on Christmas Eve, due to a drug deal gone bad.

Love Actually (2003) - One of the greatest romantic films of the last decade, possibly ever.

Die Hard (1988) - One of the greatest action films of the '80s, possibly ever.

Gremlins (1984) - From the '80s powerhouse team of Spielberg and Zemeckis, this is a family movie that is funny, scary, and touching. It hasn't held up as well as some of its contemporaries in terms of storytelling, but it's an undeniable classic and a great Christmastime film.

Edward Scissorhands (1990) - "Batman" put Tim Burton on the A-list 18 months earlier, but it's this film that established him as a master. It's not strictly a Christmastime film (unlike Burton's following flick, "Batman Returns"), but the climax of the story and the framing sequence both take place in wintery settings and I think you'll agree that the feeling is there.

Two More:

Lethal Weapon (1987) - An excellent Christmastime buddy-cop action flick. It doesn't make the top 5 because there isn't room for both "Die Hard" and this one.

Home Alone (1990) - A fun kids' movie that's actually tolerable for grown-ups.

Odds of surviving a zombie attack

Originally posted on Facebook - October 26, 2009

I went and saw Zombieland yesterday, and on the way home I started thinking about zombie movies in general, and how long it would take for an infection to work its way completely out of a population.

First, we need some assumptions. There are no authoritative numbers for the efficiency of a zombie curse/virus, so all we have to go on is the anecdotal evidence of what we see on the silver screen. There are some basic facts that everyone can agree on, but how they fit into the simulation will depend on some assumptions on my part: first, the spread of zombification divides the populace into three distinct groups - zombies, zombie vittles, and survivors. We need to determine a ratio for these groups, and I'm going to suggest a 400:600:1 ratio. In other words, out of every 1001 people, 400 of them will become zombies, 600 will be eaten by zombies, and 1 will survive.

If it hasn't sunk in yet, let me make it abundantly clear: the odds of surviving the initial infection are 1/1000, or 0.1%. Chances are you're dead or zombified within the first 48 hours, which is the time period I'm going to assume it takes for the infection to spread from patient zero to pandemic status.

Second, odds of survival dramatically increase after the initial spread of infection. This happens for several reasons. Whatever it was that kept you alive to begin with (fitness, training, reflexes, instincts, weapons, luck, etc.) will continue to keep you alive. Also, your sense of self will have begun to adapt to the new situation and you will start to develop rules and strategies for survival. I estimate that from the 1/1000 odds of surviving the first 48 hours, the likelihood of death will make a staggering drop to only 1/10 in the rest of the first week. In other words, after one week, 0.09% of the initial population will still be alive and uncursed. In the following week and thereafter, I assume that only 5% of the survivors will die over each 7-day period.

Third, the survivors will be forced to destroy zombies in order to survive. Even if there is plenty of food, water, and ammunition, foraging, hunting, and scouting parties will have to leave shelter routinely, and groups of survivors will often have to remain on the move for days at a time until defensible shelter can be found. I assume an average kill rate of 10 zombies per survivor per day.

Fourth, geography plays a major role. A person alone in an open field with zombies converging has almost no chance of survival. On the other hand, a person in an urban setting with multiple escape routes and elevated vantage points can often gain an upper hand over a mob of mindless monsters. I will assume a closed urban district - such as an island city with all of the bridges and tunnels destroyed.

Fifth, zombie efficiency is a delicate balance. If zombies are too effective, then everyone they get hold of becomes food and no new zombies are made. If they are not effective enough, then they are easily warded off. For the sake of the simulation, I will assume that after the initial infection there is no appreciable increase in numbers of zombies - survivors who get bitten either get eaten, or mercifully executed by their companions.

So, given these assumptions, how long would someone have to survive in order to reclaim their city from the zombies, and how many survivors would be left to begin to rebuild? Or would the zombies eventually dominate, destroying their primary food source and thus eating themselves into oblivion?

Well, the results may be surprising. In an island city of 1M people, it takes 1000 survivors only 53 days to kill all of the zombies and reclaim their city - less than two months. And how many uncursed are left? According to these numbers, over 650. Yes, almost two-thirds of the initial survivors make it to the end of the zombieocalypse. More than enough to begin to rebuild. I like those odds.

Now they just have to figure out what to do with the hundreds of thousands of corpses. Yuck.

GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra - A Review (With Spoilers)

Originally posted on Facebook - August 15, 2009

There was a point about one third of the way through this movie where I found myself thinking it might not be so bad after all. Yes, the dialogue and the "acting" were atrocious. Yes, there seemed to be no actual global awareness in the script. (Cancer has apparently been cured; this is considered so insignificant next to the military applications of the technology that it becomes a throw-away line.) But the plot itself was shaping up to be reasonably strong.

The movie centers on Marine Special Ops officer "Duke" and his pal "Ripcord". There's never any indication whether these are nicknames or real names, and apparently noone cares. But that's fine. Their unit has responsibility for delivering some new experimental weapons from the developer's manufacturing site to a NATO base. They are ambushed by a third party, commanded by an exotic leather-clad beauty called "The Baroness", who seems to have a history with Duke. The marines are rescued by GI JOE, a top secret international commando unit into which they are quickly inducted.

(Spoilers follow.)

Let's leave aside for a second the two force-fed and under-nourished romantic storylines, and the "acting" of "actors" Channing Tatum and Marlon Wayans. The plot so far is interesting, possibly even compelling. Who does Baroness represent? What is the connection between her and Duke? How is her organization related to JOE? Is a massively over-equipped and trigger-happy group of self-obsessed hotshots really a good use of funds? Compelling stuff, if written properly.

Unfortunately, it was not. The answers to these questions are either simplistic and trite, or nonexistent. The first of them was answered before it arose, turning a plot "twist" into a plot "plunk".

But still, if not compelling it was at least interesting. After all, so far we haven't been asked to swallow any preposterous notions. A single development - nanites - allowed for all of the brilliant technologies in the story. Until, that is, they extract a dead man's memories - in visual format - by sticking two knitting needles into his skull.

At that point, the film shifts gear into ludicrous speed.

For instance, the JOES are attempting to prevent the destruction of the Eiffel Tower and the resulting deaths of hundreds of civilians. So they carve a path of destruction through the middle of Paris, causing the deaths of untold dozens of civilians. Okay, you could say that in the balance it would have worked out. But they don't even request the evacuation of the tower. It just doesn't occur to them as they are rampaging through the city streets, delighting in their own skill and power, to f---ing phone it in. So when the tower is destroyed, the hundreds of civilians still die. But at least all of the JOES are okay.

Then they're arrested by French police, and the President of the USA has to make a phone call to get them released. So, we're asked to believe that of the 38 countries that support the GI JOE unit, France is NOT one of them? Is this some bull---t American dig at France that I'm not equipped to understand? Or just sheer idiocy?

Nevertheless, I would be willing to overlook that gaping plot hole. But the hits just keep on coming. Ripcord flies from Moscow to Washington in about six minutes. He says he's flying Mach 6. Mach 6 is approximately 4600 mph. The distance between the two cities is about 4900 miles. In other words, it would take a little over an hour to make that flight. Not six minutes.

Then, the commander of the JOES, General "Hawk", leaves their secret Egyptian base with the entire squadron to attack their enemy who is hiding under the polar ice cap. They arrive minutes later in a submarine. Yes, you heard right. They travelled from Egypt to the North Pole in a matter of minutes. In a submarine.

And the icing on the cake, from the "Is our children learning?" category: the enemy blows up the ice cap while making an escape, and the JOES have to hurry to get out from under the sinking ice before it crushes them. Yes. You heard right. The sinking ice. Why does this ice sink, you ask? Well... um... isn't that what ice does? Like, when you put it in your drink it si-... um...

But boy were there a lot of characters to make action figures out of! And sexy shots of the Baroness and the token woman on the JOE team, "Scarlet", for the teenage boys! And a greater variety of vehicles than you could produce in a single toy line! And explosions! Lots of explosions.

Just not enough to cover the absolute failure of "acting", plot, and storytelling. 4/10

Still, at least it was better than Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.

Murray's Twelve Greatest Movies - Part Three (1990-present)

Originally posted on Facebook - July 4, 2009

I have seen 46 movies that I have rated 10/10. Here are what I consider the 12 greatest - not of all time, but of those that I've seen. I'm presenting them in order of production.

9. The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
This movie is ranked #1 in the IMDb.com user ratings poll. I’m one of over 255,000 people who rated it 10/10. Bottom line: if you haven’t seen it, do it today. Andy Dufresne is the only innocent man in Shawshank Prison, struggling to survive amid the abuse and injustice of institutional life. Gradually, over the span of twenty years from 1947 to the late '60s, he brings the other inmates the gift of hope, while transforming the relationship between the guards and the prisoners. The source of his hope is a secret he keeps from everyone - including the audience - and when the entire truth unfolds it’s both delightful and inspiring. The narrator character, Red, played by Morgan Freeman, delivers some of the most powerful lines in film history, including his description of Andy’s time in Shawshank: “Andy Dufresne - the man who crawled through a river of shit and came out clean on the other side.”

10. Atanarjuat, aka The Fast Runner (2001)
The first film ever in full Inuktitut, Atanarjuat is based on a traditional Inuit story. The chief screenwriter, the director, and the entire cast are Inuit people. It is unprecedented, and breathtaking, as the landscape and worldview of the north are brought to life on screen. The story is compelling, the characters are rich and well-formed, the performances are excellent, and the cinematography is breathtaking. I’m astonished it wasn’t nominated for a Best Foreign Language Film Oscar, but it raked in the festival awards and Genies.

11. Ying xiong, aka Hero (2002)
What happens when the greatest dramatic director in Chinese cinema joins forces with the most powerful dramatic and action stars from China and Hong Kong to create an epic action movie about the birth of the nation - and hires China’s greatest kung fu film director to oversee the action scenes? The result is one of the most beautiful, elegant, powerful, and compelling films in recent memory. The Chinese title is ambiguous - it could be “Hero”, or it might be “Heroes”. They had to make a choice when translating it into English. The theme is a meditation on heroism and the responsiblity of leadership as one man (Jet Li as Nameless) guides a would-be Emperor through a moral exercise, influencing him and evaluating him, and finally deciding whether the tyrant will be allowed to live, or die at his hand. This one was nominated for the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar.

12. Slumdog Millionaire (2008)
A unique narrative concept - an uneducated boy named Jamal explains to police how he knew the answers to a million-dollar quiz show, one at a time - lies beneath one of the grandest and most touching movies in cinema history. In the process of his explanations, we follow him on the journey of his life, from a happy but deprived childhood in the slums of Bombay, to a corrupt orphanage camp run by a Fagin-like charismatic father figure, to the constant flow of tourists at the Taj Mahal, and back to Bombay, now Mumbai, one of the fastest growing cities in the world. The only constants in Jamal’s life are the girl, Latika, whom he loses and then finds several times throughout the tale, and his brother Salim who early on takes a harsh path. How these paths unfold in the wake of Jamal’s appearance on the TV quiz show pulls us toward the conclusion, which is both redemptive and joyful, in accordance with the best traditions of Indian cinema.

Murray's Twelve Greatest Movies - Part Two (1970-1990)

Originally posted on Facebook - July 4, 2009

I have seen 46 movies that I have rated 10/10. Here are what I consider the 12 greatest - not of all time, but of those that I've seen. I'm presenting them in order of production.

5. The Godfather: Part II (1974)
Mario Puzo’s novel “The Godfather” contained far too much material for a single film, so only the first part was included in the original 1972 movie, showing Michael Corleone’s transformation from a bright young war hero into the ruthless Don of a mafia family. What makes the second film greater than the first is the parallel stories of Michael’s struggle for total power and security for his family, and his father’s struggle for survival and prosperity. Robert De Niro plays the lead in the latter plot, in a virtuoso performance that won him his first Oscar (Marlon Brando won two years earlier for the same character, the only time this has happened). The contrast between the two characters reveals theme, as Michael’s tragic quest for revenge and control mirrors and distorts Vito’s for justice and freedom.

6. One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (1975)
This is one of the few movies to have won all five of the major Oscar awards. Randle McMurphy is a repeat-offender who is serving a short term in a medium-security work farm in Oregon, when he decides that perhaps a hospital would be a more relaxing place to fill out his sentence. What ensues is a descent into madness as a sane man attempts to cope with institutional life. The chillingly calm Nurse Ratched is one of the greatest villains in film history, and the tragic ending is one that nobody who has seen it will forget. Milos Forman directed both this film and the next one.

7. Amadeus (1984)
Amadeus is a fictionalized story about the interplay between Mozart’s creative genius and the envy of his contemporary in Vienna, Antonio Salieri. F. Murray Abraham and Tom Hulce were both nominated for Best Lead Actor Oscars, and it is unfortunate that only one of them could win (the trophy went to Abraham as Salieri). Narrated in retrospect by Salieri, the film invites us into his tormented conscience -- he idolized Mozart at the same time as he hated him, and resented God for giving a miraculous voice to a childish and irresponsible clown. Salieri uses Mozart’s obsession with his father to drive him into a manic frenzy. Hulce and Abraham give two of the most incredible performances in cinematic history, and Forman does what is so rarely accomplished: he creates a second masterpiece that is greater than his first.

8. Empire of the Sun (1987)
This is my favourite of Steven Spielberg’s films, and I consider it to be the first installment in an informal “WWII” trilogy (along with Saving Private Ryan and Schindler’s List). It was neither a success at the box office nor in awards season, but it is a true masterpiece of cinema, made after Spielberg had fully developed his craft but before his two Oscars made him a legend in his own mind. A coming-of-age story set mostly in a Japanese prison camp in rural China, the film explores issues of freedom, responsibility, and the ethics of life amidst war. Spielberg handles the material with a deft and gentle hand, and Christian Bale, John Malkovich, and Joe Pantoliano, among others, deliver excellent and nuanced performances.

Murray's Twelve Greatest Movies - Part One (1930-1970)

Originally posted on Facebook - July 3, 2009

I have seen 45 movies that I have rated 10/10. Here are what I consider the 12 greatest - not of all time, but of those that I've seen. I'm presenting them in order of production.

1. King Kong (1933)
Merian C. Cooper thought that he was making a monster movie, in which a dashing adventurer (a filmmaker whose character represented Cooper himself) conquers an incorrigible beast, and a resolute hero (who closely matches co-director Ernest Schoedsack) rescues a beautiful damsel. If that had been all, it would have been relegated to B-movie status. But puppeteer Ray Harryhausen, quite on his own, created an antagonist that audiences could sympathize with, and whom they would mourn. This unintentional juxtaposition results in a film, barely 90 minutes long, that raises the questions of how a creature becomes a beast, how the modern West relates to the wild places of the world, and who has the right to enslave - or rescue - whom.

2. Casablanca (1942)
Rick is a jaded idealist who profits from the traffic in the city of Casablanca, Morocco. An African city under the rule of Vichy France, Casablanca is a sort of political no-man's land in the middle of World War II. And in the middle of Casablanca is Rick's Café Americain. When Rick comes into possession of two travel permits, free and clear, he only needs to find a way to profit. When the love of his life and her husband, a leader in the Resistance, arrive in town, Rick sees an opportunity to claim her back. Finally his deep idealism and his through-going self-interest are in conflict. Will he turn over the fugitive and escape with the woman? Or will his political convictions finally assert themselves after so many years? The film did not break any new ground in filming techniques, storytelling, or effects. But its characters, themes, and relevance to its own time make it one of the all-time classics.

3. To Kill A Mockingbird (1962)
With political attention on Cuba and southeast Asia, social issues at home sometimes seemed like an afterthought. To Kill A Mockingbird, published as a novel in 1960, is told from the perspective of a young motherless girl whose father, attorney Atticus Finch, defends a black man accused of rape in the 1930s South. The combination of Scout Finch’s youthful outlook and the challenging topics of rape and racial injustice provide a metaphor for a nation’s coming of age, in terms of civil rights. The subplot of social outsider "Boo" Radley reminds us that prejudice is not only a racial issue.

4. Dr Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)
Stanley Kubrick satirizes cold-war brinksmanship and military development, as a plot unfolds that is at one and the same time utterly ludicrous and totally plausible. A comedy of errors with apocalyptic consequences, featuring masterful performances by Peter Sellers (in three roles), George C. Scott, and Slim Pickens, among others, the fast-paced film tumbles toward its inexorable conclusion. The audience is at once delighted by the comedy (a military man is ordered to shoot the lock off of a vending machine to obtain change for a phone call that will prevent nuclear war -- after agreeing to do it he says, “Okay, but you’ll have to answer to the Coca-Cola Company for this!”) and horrified by the story. This is the only comedy that makes my list.

Thoughts on "The Fast and the Furious 3: Tokyo Drift"

Originally posted on Facebook - April 1, 2009

I just watched this 2006 movie, in advance of the fourth installment coming out this weekend. I found it extremely poor and I want to let you know why.

1. It's not a "The Fast and the Furious" movie. The first two installments established the franchise as involving illegal streetracing, organized crime, and undercover law enforcement. This movie is about a high school outsider who proves himself, finds his place, and gets the girl (a plot in which streetracing is a trope and organized crime is incidental). There's nothing wrong with that kind of movie, except the title in this case.

In fact, it's more of a sequel to director Justin Lin's 2002 film "Better Luck Tomorrow", since it at least has a character in common with that movie (Sung Kang as "Han"). Might as well have called it "Better Luck Tomorrow, White Boy."

2. Lucas Black is a terrible actor. Who decided to turn this guy into a lead performer? I thought his 'Bama accent, wooden expressions, and awkward approximations of feeling were laughable when he was a child star on "American Gothic". As an adult with ten years of experience, he should have made some progress. Alas, he has not. When your lead is inaccessible and unlikeable, your movie tends to suffer.

3. The cinematography and style are excellent and groundbreaking. The story is cliché and clumsy. The 3/10 score I gave it on IMDb is ALL for the former.

4. Ooh, he wins the big race using an American car with Japanese guts. Do I smell symbolism? Yes I do, and it smells awful.

The next Batman movie: What should be in it?

Originally posted on Facebook - March 21, 2009

Having just watched "The Dark Knight" on DVD, I was impressed with the weight of material that Christopher Nolan and his team managed to deftly include in the film. How would I continue the heftiness of the franchise while respecting what has been established?

"Batman Begins" established the ongoing characters of Bruce Wayne, Lucius Fox, Alfred Pennyworth, and James Gordon, as well as introducing Ra's Al Ghul, the Scarecrow, Rachel Dawes, and Carmine Falcone.

"The Dark Knight" continued the story, introducing the Joker, Boss Maroni, and Harvey Two-Face. Rachel Dawes was dead by the end of the film, as were Maroni and Two-Face. Batman, after facing the possiblity of retiring and/or becoming a publicly-embraced hero, instead opts to become a pariah. This movie also teased the transformation of Gotham's criminals into super-henchmen (the "clown-faces") as well as the presence of copycat vigilante groups that imitate Batman's appearance and activities.

So where does the story go from here? There are some elements that, IMO, anyone making a follow-up picture must include, and some others that are a bit more optional.

Automatic:

The big four characters of Bruce Wayne, Lucius Fox, Jim Gordon, and Alfred Pennyworth will of course have to return. The relationship between Batman and Gordon will be strained by the official position Gordon will have to take as Commissioner, hunting Batman as public enemy, while struggling to retain his friendship and confidence. The triangular relationship between Gordon, Bats, and the public will threaten to tear everything apart. Fox may also begin to show more reluctance to help Batman as time goes on, as shown in his resistance to the city-wide sonar device in "Dark Knight."

Five Must-haves:

1. Wayne Manor - Bruce's stately family home was destroyed by fire in "Batman Begins". While the Penthouse/Warehouse set-up for Bruce and Bats was fun in "The Dark Knight", we need to get back to the mansion as soon as possible - not to mention the Cave. A key element of Batman's psyche is his desire to live up to his father's example. The mansion is part of that compulsion.

2. Dick Grayson - The introduction of Robin is a delicate and complicated storyline, as demonstrated by Joel Schumacher's failure to treat it properly in "Batman Forever." Robin should not be a major player in the next Batman movie, but Dick Grayson absolutely should be. Forget about the super-villain origin - make it the good old mob. Dick's story is that he is a young circus performer whose parents refuse to pay an exorbitant level of graft in order to put on a show in Gotham. He sees them murdered and vows to fight organized crime at Batman's side. Use the character of Rupert Thorne to add a smuggling component to the story (travelling circus? smuggling? makes sense), explore the grief and rage of the boy, and tease the unveiling of Robin for the fourth film. While we don't want Robin to be too young (he needs to have near-adult physical strength, at least), Chris O'Donnell was much too old for the origin story. Cast a 14-year old actor for this movie, so that he can be 15-16 when Robin really swings into action.

3. Copycat Vigilantes - With Batman's heroic status in question, we are assuming that he is continuing to operate but perhaps on a lower profile. Look for the vigilantes who act in his name to become more organized, better equipped, and more ideological as they defend his reputation and act according to [what they believe is] his example. Batman himself should be progressively less concerned about their safety and about how they represent him, as he becomes more and more alienated from the city and the public.

4. New Batmobile - the "Tumbler" vehicle was destroyed in "Dark Knight", and Batman should be looking for a different kind of ride for the next film. I suggest something with a lower profile and better capacity to blend in. Think less "military vehicle" and more "James Bond car."

5. World's Greatest Detective - Leave behind, for a while, the flashy super-hero stuff. Bats will continue to wear a costume and utility belt, but give this film more of a whodunnit suspense atmosphere. Especially since he is alienated from the police, he will have to rely more and more on his own detective work. Picture him cracking safes, collecting fingerprints, and moving through the shadows of the city without a trace.

Five Should-dos:

1. With Rachel Dawes' death, Bruce needs a new love interest. The obvious choice is Catwoman/Selina Kyle, which I will bring up further down the page. I think the less-obvious but correct choice for this film is Talia al Ghul, who in the comics is Batman's baby-mama. She could be in Gotham representing the League of Assassins or searching for the remains of her father...

2. Ra's al Ghul - Ra's, as a character, is notoriously hard to kill. With the secret of the Lazarus pit, as long as there is life in his body he can be restored to full health and vigour. His death at the end of "Batman Begins" was never confirmed, which with Ra's means that he WILL be back. Now that the relationship between Batman and Gotham has been destabilized, Ra's may see an opportunity to bring Bruce around to his way of thinking.

3. In "Batman Begins", Ra's used a local criminal in his scheme (The Scarecrow). One of the problems with Batman movies is that there are few great villains who translate well into film. I suggest using The Penguin - in his incarnation as an eccentric nightclub owner who is also involved in fencing stolen goods, smuggling, and information trafficking. Let him represent the gray zone in which Bats now finds himself - while Bats is a public enemy who fights crime, the Penguin is tolerated in Gotham while profiting from its criminal underworld. Batman would love to bring down the Penguin, but finds his information helpful and begins to lose sight of his mission.

4. Catwoman - She will also serve to highlight Batman's moral ambiguity. She is a burglar who only steals from mobsters, to support her life in Gotham's high society. She and Bats cross paths when her burglary activities interfere with his investigations. He is reluctant to waste time on her, since she's only stealing from criminals and he has bigger fish to fry, but she continues to show up and throw a wrench in the works, so he is forced to confront her. As Selina Kyle, she is a foil for Bruce. Bruce pretends to live a wild, playboy lifestyle, but in this film he will get darker and more depressed. Selina lives the wild, high life that he pretends to, and in his loneliness he finds this very appealing. However, given what I said about Talia, Bruce's interest in Selina should be held off until the next film and the Catwoman character carried over for full development in the future (like Robin).

5. "Matches" Malone - Bruce Wayne's underworld alter-ego, Matches can see and do things that neither Bruce nor Bats would be able to. Given the story I've described above, Matches Malone is the perfect fit for this film, and would give Christian Bale an opportunity to play yet another persona to go along with "private Bruce", "public Bruce", and "Batman".


This might seem like a lot, but remember how much was so skillfully included in "Dark Knight". Many of these ideas are intended to set-up a fourth film, and not a lot of screen time needs to be spent on them. Without them, though, there is not the feeling of growth and expansion that seems to be necessary for franchises like this. The key element of this plan is the pyschological story of the man alone against the world, navigating a murky gray area, trusting no one but relying on the help of others who are all morally compromised.

Film Review: The Day The Earth Stood Still (2008)

Originally posted on Facebook - December 15, 2008

So, I went to this movie expecting to be discontented with it. This expectation was based on the reviews I had heard. With such low expectations going in, I found I was pleasantly surprised. That said, I'm sure that if I had gone in hoping for greatness I would have been soundly disappointed.

The 1951 movie of the same name is a classic, and rightly so. It was a cheesy sci-fi flick that nobody believed would be a success, but it tapped into the zeitgeist with imagery and thematic content that still resonates today. An indestructible robot that exists only to keep the peace; a fatherless child who teaches an intergalactic messenger about humanity; a physicist who speaks of the potential of culture and science; a man from beyond who is killed out of fear and ignorance and who, resurrected, delivers a way forward for all humankind. The original film emerged from the context of the nuclear cold war, which at the time was in its earliest stages. The message brought from beyond was: Destroy yourselves if you wish, but we will not tolerate you bringing your violence to the galaxy.

(Beware spoilers beyond this point.)

The remake, featuring Keanu Reeves in the role he was born to play (an alien who moves stiffly and speaks woodenly), translates the "intergalactic messenger" motif into our context, replacing the nuclear threat with the environmental one. But in the remake, Klaatu is not a messenger but a judge - and it is here that it fails to capture the ominous tone of the original. Instead of delivering an ultimatum, Klaatu's job is to decide for or against the survival of the human race. And instead of protecting the peace, GORT (the aforementioned robot) has the job of annihilating all humanity - thus allowing the biosphere of Earth a chance to start over without our destructive influence.

The result of these thematic shifts is a condescending preachiness. The message is good - share the globe, protect the biosphere, conserve the planet, be peaceful and constructive - but the tone has an "or else" implied that leaves a sour taste. Let's not forget that in 1951 we were left with three options: destroy ourselves, live peacefully, or be destroyed. In 2008 that has been reduced to two: do what's right or cease to exist. And that is substantially less satisfying as a message.

On the positive side, the acting is good. Reeves basically does what he always does, but with this character it actually works well. Jennifer Connelly, Kathy Bates, John Cleese, Jon Hamm, Jaden Smith, and Kyle Chandler all hold up their ends. The reactionary violence of the government and military is generally well-played, and the troubled relationship between the young boy (Smith) and his step-mother (Connelly) is a nice sub-plot that provides Klaatu with a window into human psychology. The climactic destruction wreaked by GORT is also new and impressive, as he transforms himself into nano-disassemblers that begin destroying the works of humankind.

Finally, I found the ending disappointing. The human population in general is left without any closure - they have faced a crisis and had it averted, but they have not been provided with an interpretation of it. This unresolved ambiguity - fashionable these days - was unsatisfying in the way it was done in this film. Much more effective would have been a brief message from Klaatu, providing a way forward and a reminder that the intergalactic civilizations will be watching. Thus, the unresolved ambiguity becomes whether people will reform their ways or not. As it is, the possibility remains that humanity will not even understand what has happened to them and therefore have no vision for change.

Overall, the remake didn't add much to the original except some improved effects. If you want to have a good time at the movies, you could do worse than DTESS '08. If you want to see a great, important, influential movie, you should probably stick with DTESS '51.

6/10

The UCC Reviews the Candidacy Process - My Response

Originally Posted on Facebook - September 12, 2008

Review of the Candidacy Process - Narrative Response

I am a Candidate for Ordination and have been involved in the discernment, candidacy, and internship processes. I have not yet been through the settlement and ordination processes. I have also watched and supported my colleagues as they have undergone these various processes.

I wish that I could say that I, and my friends, have felt supported, encouraged, and protected by the church during preparation for ministry. However, the experiences that most easily come to mind are those of trauma, neglect, and abuse. It is difficult to discuss these things because while they are occurring, the people to whom we would report such abuse seem to be the ones who are perpetrating it, and furthermore, are also those who hold the future of our vocation in their hands.

It is true that there have been many wonderful moments in my process, and many people who have challenged and supported me in effective and caring ways. Especially my home presbytery has been a model of effective operation through all of these stages (Yellowhead Presbytery). However, my Conference Interview Board experience was traumatic and not helpful, and my internship placement was a questionable choice. I am afraid about the transfer and settlement process, because as a young, single person, I am expecting to be screwed over in the assignment of charges.

Along the way, I have seen students with very serious identity and authenticity issues settled and ordained, and others with superior gifts and identity for ministry leaving the process because of a lack of support or because of the outright failure of the church to provide an effective learning environment. I have counseled other students whose discernment process was at best ineffective, and at worst abusive. Discernment committees are not being properly oriented to the Discerning the Call design and are falling into a practice which is anxiety-driven, focuses all of its attention on the Inquirer, and does not limit itself to questions of call and gifts, but inappropriately takes up matters of readiness as well. More than one female colleague has had to face questions about the suitability of her romantic partner, and one was advised by her discernment committee to break up with her boyfriend.

My Discernment experience was, I now realize, exceptional in that my committee was properly oriented to the system and followed it well. I had a wonderful experience in discernment. My meeting with the Conference Interview Board, however, was confusing and painful. I had faithfully disclosed a mood disorder on my application, for which I was in treatment and which I would continue to address during my studies. There were a number of retired therapists and counselors on the Board, and all of them signed up for my interview. The interview became a discussion of my psychiatric health, for which I was not prepared and did not feel safe talking about. After three years of reflecting on this experience, I believe that in moments like this, the members of the CIB don't really know what their job is or what they are supposed to be doing, so they focus on whatever is available in order to feel like they are at least doing something. In fact, I don't know if anyone has ever satisfactorily explained to me the role of the CIB and why they are necessary - so noone should be surprised that its members are likewise confused and anxious.

There also seem to be some serious disconnects between the courts of the church and candidates when it comes to generational shifts in values and perspectives. Younger inquirers and candidates are consistently misunderstood and evaluated on the basis of culture and values that are not their own. A prime example of this is the value of openness - a major virtue in younger generations, and a sign of foolishness to elders. To me, and those younger than I am, openness about a great deal of our lives is second nature. We are very prepared to share our spiritual journeys and struggles, to discuss our health issues and treatments, to talk about our romantic and sexual lives, and to tell stories about our families and friends. To those who were formed before the internet, the sexual revolution, and the rise of post-modernism, these open and frank disclosures seem like a sign of indiscretion, pretentiousness, or immorality. Similarly, when deeply personal information is shared without an affect of struggle or shame, members of the older generation see inauthenticity. Whereas, to members of my generation, there is no struggle or shame in such disclosure because openness is highly valued and deep openness is offered as a gift to others. These generational shifts in values, which are more various than this single "openness" dynamic, throw a wrench into the works of every stage of the process when the candidate is under the age of 30.

I cannot advocate maintaining or eliminating any particular aspect of the process, because my sense is that the process is well-designed throughout, but the functioning of the process is universally poor. I do question the value of the Conference Interview Board, as it is unclear what they bring to the table apart from wanting to have their fingers in the pie. I love the design of the Discernment Process, but the way it is enacted and supported by many Presbyteries is atrocious and loathsome. I am wary of the transfer and settlement process because it seems to unjustly disadvantage the young and single. I am disappointed with the way the Internship process is taking place, with poorly-designed internships being approved as sites, terrible supervisors being allowed to abuse their interns, and poor matches being made between applicants and sites.

But there have been very few places where I have felt comfortable discussing these things in an official way, because, after all, my career depends on it.