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.