sigur rocks

last week i got to see iceland's sigur ros live at the greek theater. it was a great venue in which to see them because it is an outdoor amphitheater, and it was an almost chilly evening. the combination of the moody, atmospheric music, the extended times of silence, and the view of the trees and sky created a truly moving experience. at one point, i even saw a shooting star. i have never before been to a concert that had so much silence and low-volume music. normal conversational volume was enough to interrupt the show for those around us. but it was a great contrast against the normal noisy experiences that abound in L.A. it may have been the first time i have ever experienced true quiet in this city.

the concert also gave credence to the idea that music (apart from lyrics) has a powerful effect on people. sigur ros' lyrics are normally sung in icelandic and some songs are actually sung in a made-up "gobbledigook" of syllables that fit with the music. i couldn't understand a word, but i was deeply moved by the experience.

or should i say....robot?

over the last several weeks i have watched all of season 1 of terminator: the sarah connor chronicles. i got hooked on it when fox did a re-broadcast of season 1 to get people pumped up for season 2. the story picks up many of the same threads from the films and is now going in some interesting directions. they have been raising some interesting questions regarding what it means to be a human, or a person. john connor (the leader of the human resistance against the machines) has re-programmed a terminator and sent "her" back in time to protect his younger self from being killed by other terminators who have also been sent back in time to assassinate him. this re-programmed terminator happens to be a cutie named cameron, and as the story progresses it seems that john struggles to decide how to relate to cameron. is she merely a machine, or is she a "person" capable of emotions, love, and beauty. this is all the more exacerbated by the fact that cameron learns ballet and is found alone in her room dancing. if the machines learn emotions, love and beauty do we have to accept them as persons? will they then have a soul?

the crappening

this post contains spoilers!

i went to see m. night shyamalan's the happening today...and it was terrible! the previews made me think that this film was going to be a new trippy exploration into some dark force which is invading humanity. i was hoping for something like the philadelphia experiment (no pun intended) where people were fading into other dimensions...or maybe some type of spin on alien invasion...or maybe even some type of spiritual something-or-other that makes bodies hover in the air. but instead i got trees, grass and wind killing people. not particularly exciting. apparently plants are releasing toxins into the air when they detect a certain number of humans. this toxin blocks whatever brain chemicals keep people from harming themselves, and everyone (well not really everyone??) who is exposed commits suicide.

if you are a fear junkie you might like this film, and there are some crazy scenes...like the construction workers jumping off the top of a building and smashing to the ground...or the man who lays down in front of the riding mower...or maybe the mom from eight is enough purposely smashing her head through the glass of the windows of her house. and i have to admit that this is the only film where i have been scared by a fake plastic tree and the wind in the grass. but those are about all of the positive elements...

the acting is so bad that i seriously thought it was on purpose. i thought they were either doing it to create some trippy effect, or that at the end i would discover that everyone had been affected by the toxins and were going to die.

there was some expositional dialogue toward the end (and something near the beginning i think) which gave a clue to what the film may have been trying to communicate. the earth (or at least the plants) are giving us a warning about the way we live, and showing us that if we as human beings don't change, we can be eliminated. Also at the end elliot and alma are NOT killed by the toxins in the wind and it is almost as if they are spared because of their love for one another. If we live well and love, the earth will allow us to live? this is a cool enough sentiment i guess, but it could have been better written into the overall story.

ghost like swayze

ghost hunters is one of my favorite shows, and it always leads me to theological questions. i do not have a solid "theology of ghosts". however after watching a million episodes of ghost hunters (and hearing personal stories from friends) it seems evident that something is going on. do ghosts exist? if so, what are they? if ghosts do not exist, what exactly are people experiencing? joel green and others do not believe that human beings have a soul/spirit that is separate from the physical body. if he is right there are no ghosts of human persons. but perhaps they are angels or demons? at any rate i have far more questions than answers, but i would like to come up with a solid theological position on the issue.

what's your concept?

lately i have been thinking about the way we conceptualize and define certain aspects of ministry/Christianity. trinitarian. incarnational. sending. take trinitarian for example. john zizioulas sees the trinity as being primarily relational. the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all in communion with one another and therefore the fundamental concept found in the trinity is communion. to exist is to be in communion with another. "being is communion." to be trinitarian means to be relational.

for lesslie newbigin the trinity is primarily a model of "sending" which has implications for mission. the Father sends the Son, both send the Spirit, and all three send the church to the world. to be trinitarian here means to be "sent" - to go out and participate in God's mission to the world.

others (bonk, grigg) conceptualize ministry (and Jesus) in terms of being incarnational. Jesus was rich, but became poor so that we might become rich (2 Cor 8.9). Jesus came to earth as a poor person, and lived with poor people. to be incarnational is to be poor, live with the poor, and evangelize the poor.

i have said all this in order to ask a few questions. what does it mean to be trinitarian? does it mean to be relational? does it mean to be sent/sending? something else? what does it mean to be incarnational? does it mean to live with the poor? does it mean anything else?

is the trinity defined by one over-arching concept, and do we know what that is? is the incarnation of Jesus defined by one over-arching concept, and do we know what that is?

i want to give a word of caution for us as we seek to define our ministries and as we define aspects of Christianity. while it is good to seek to understand the trinity, and while it is good to seek to understand the incarnation and design ministries/concepts around the attributes of God which we understand, we must also realize that our understanding is limited.

if God were speaking for himself he may not say that communion or sending is the core of the trinity. and he may not say that living with the poor is the core of the incarnation. i suggest that we should all be a bit more cautious in designing our theologies.

random confabulation

i've been meaning to post this for quite some time now. a few weeks ago a random person on the street in pasadena walked up to me and without a hello (or any other introduction) said something like, "the only thing i really find objectionable about scientology is that it does not take into account the historical reality of the existence of jesus." i mumbled out something like "sounds good to me," the light changed, and we both crossed the street going different directions. nothing like hit-and-run theology in pasadena.

smell the clovers while you can

THIS POST CONTAINS SPOILER INFO!

friday night i saw cloverfield, the much-hyped j.j. abrams flick about a monster destroying new york city. the movie was intense, disturbing, and gave me a small sense of actual fear. a videotape is "retrieved from an incident cite formerly known as central park" - and this videotape is what we see in the film. interestingly, that is all we see, and all the information we are ever given. we are never told what the monster is (although we see it during the film), where it is from, why it is destroying new york, or what the final outcome is beyond the end of the tape. we never even know who has found the tape, or how far into the future they are. the tape was filmed by "hud" as he and his friends lily, rob, and jason (and marlena, a girl he likes) try to escape the chaos, and rescue rob's love interest beth, who is trapped in her apartment four miles away. hud was originally filming a goodbye party for rob when the poop hit the fan, so he takes the camera outside and keeps on filming.
there is only one large monster in cloverfield (and its steps span city blocks), but as an added bonus there are (hundreds?) of smaller crab/spider-type creatures attached to the large monster which drop off and scamper off into the darkness. it was great to see them drop off through the shaky lens of the hud's video camera because it really struck you with the "did i just see that?" or "what the heck was that?" kind of feeling.
the film overall seems to be a moral reminding us all to cherish the seemingly "average" days we are given, and to realize that regardless of the plans we are making and the things we are working toward, we never know which day will be our last. throughout the movie, the tape jumps between the chaos and a day several months earlier when rob and beth had first spent the night together, and then spent the following day having fun at coney island. we find out that the video camera actually belongs to rob, who had left the coney island tape in the camera, and that hud has accdintally taped the cloverfield chaos over it, leaving small bits of the coney island day interspersed throughout. even though rob is young, has a good job that is transferring him to japan, he never realized that he would be dead within 24 hours, and he probably never realized that the day with beth on coney island would be the last good day they would have together. all the characters in the film eventually die, and the last scene is of beth at coney island saying something about how "today was a good day." it very much left me with the impression that we should value each day we are given, since we never know which one will be our last. and we should also value the friendships and relationships we have, since we never know how ling they will last.
it reminds me of ecclesiastes 9.9 which reminds us to enjoy the days of our fleeting life. the "average" days are important, and we should view them as gifts. i hope rob lived the day at coney island to the full, and maybe even ate an extra churro.
also the man in jesus' parable in luke 12.20 who is doing well in life, but never realizes that he is destined to die that very night. rob was planning to move to japan, but his life was cut short 24 hours later. although the parable is primarily a warning against greed and hoarding one's wealth, we still need to be reminded that our plans can be changed very quickly.