Recently in Religion Category

Fictional story:

The other morning, there was a knock on my door.  A couple in their late twenties stood there with a clipboard, and asked to talk to me about domestic violence.  They showed me some frightening statistics about the number of men and women who are abused and beaten by their spouses.  They had both statistics for the nation and our own county.  They then asked me to help put an end to domestic violence, showing me a petition in support of new legislation that would call for stricter sentencing for those convicted of domestic violence, budget for the creation of programs to better train police officers to respond to and investigate claims of domestic violence, and other measures.

I decided not to sign the petition.  Instead, I decided to hand them a card, that says the following:

I pledge to treat others the way I want to be treated.

I strongly believe that domestic violence is wrong and I would never hurt another person, even my own spouse.  So I'm offering my pledge to the golden rule in response to the issue of domestic violence.

The point:

I suspect that many of my readers are having a rather predictable reaction to the above story.  I can just hear people like Eileen (assuming she still reads me) getting ready to type a lengthy comment about how serious domestic violence and simply promising to treat others well in accordance with the Golden Rule isn't nearly enough.  And I'm in total agreement with her.

I've had the exact same reaction the last two years when Dr. Warren Throckmorton began to propose the Golden Rule Pledge as an appropriate response to The Day Of Silence, an annual event meant to raise awareness of anti-gay bullying and other mistreatment of gay people (or people who are merely perceived as gay) that takes place all over this country and to advocate for such bullying to stop.

Now, in Dr. Throckmorton's defense, I will note that his response to The Day of Silence is far superior to other responses proposed by other conservative Christian groups.  The Golden Rule Pledge is far better than The Day of Truth or merely proposing that all Christians avoid school during The Day of Silence.  And I give him credit for not trying to paint a day dedicated to the idea that it's wrong to bully and mistreat gay people as some horrible, immoral idea.

But in the end, I find it a weak response at best.  It's great that Dr. Throckmorton and those with him are willing to promise to treat others well.  However, I also want to know what they're going to do about the bullying and mistreatment being propagated by others who don't share their commitment to the Golden Rule.  Saying you won't mistreat gay people while still standing by while others do so just doesn't cut it in my book.  In my mind, justice demands that right-minded people stand up to the bullies and say, "What you are doing is wrong and you must stop."  Confronting the injustice head-on is absolutely essential.  And in that respect, I feel the Golden Rule Pledge fails miserably, just as such a pledge in response to domestic violence fails miserably.

I'm enjoying making these videos.  I hope someone is getting something out of them.  This one is about empathy and how it plays a vital role in ethical living.

I decided to do another video.  This time, my topic of discussion is on how wyrd informs my understanding of ethics.



I've been fascinated by the concept of wyrd for almost three years now.  I've explored it's implications for magic, for community, and for justice.  So it's no surprising that I'd find it an important concept when thinking about my ethics, as well.

I've been thinking about doing videos on YouTube for a couple years now.  Thanks to Tracie, I found sufficient inspiration to do my first one.



Sorry the sound is bad.  I need to learn to adjust the volume better.

From my private journal.

I sit here in my living room next to the only lamp that's lit in the entire house.  For the half hour prior to me picking up my pen, the only light in the house was made by three tea lights and a votive candle.  I spent that time laying on the couch enjoying the dimness, letting the shifting glimmers of light cast by those small flames dance around me.

There's something magical about such a scene.  Whenever I sit in such lighting, I get a sense of peace and comfort.  It's as if the near-darkness stills the world around me itself, swallowing up ll the cares and worries of my life.  In such a setting, there is no place for the myriad distractions I normally face.

And then there's the light.  Tiny and almost fragile, it flickers and dances.  And yet, it's intensely bright in comparison to the darkness around it.  It becomes all the more beautiful and powerful for that contrast.

And that play of darkness and light allows me to turn inward.  the still silence allows me to see that same interplay within myself.  For I can see the small sparks of passion, love, courage, and compassion twinkling in my very soul.  They wait for those perfect opportunities to shine brightly into the rest of my life and the world around me.  They are ready to shine even in the darkest and most empty of times.

After all, that's when they're the easiest to see.

While I was blogging yesterday about community, church, and worship my Zemanta plugin suggested a possibly related link with a quote from the author, Madeleine L'Engle.  I found part of that quote very interesting:

Artists have always been drawn to the wild, wide elements they cannot control or understand -- the sea, mountains, fire. To be an artist means to approach the light, and that means to let go our control, to allow our whole selves to be placed with absolute faith in that which is greater than we are. The novel we site down to write, and the one we end up writing may be very different, just as the Jesus we grasp and the Jesus who grasps us may also differ.

We live under the illusion that if we can acquire complete control, we can understand God, or we can write the great American novel. But the only way we can brush against the hem of the Lord, or hope to be part of the creative process, is to have the courage, the faith, to abandon control.

Personally, I think L'Engle is onto something profound here, and it's something that is as important in witchcraft as it is in L'Engle's faith.  That profound truth is that it's never about control, because control is an illusion.  Whether you're talking about art, faith, or magic, there is no such thing as absolute control.

But something that L'Engle points out that there is a difference between control -- especially absolute control -- and influence and the creative process.  It is possibl to not still be in control and still hold considerable influence.  It is possible to be a less-than-perfect co-creator.  In fact, it's the only thing we can be.  I'd even go so far as to say that it's the only thing we should be.

Our job is not to gain mastery over everything.  That's good, because that would be an impossible task.  (And my gods and my faith do not require me to undertake impossible tasks.)  Instead, ours is to look at the reality around us and identify what we can do and do exactly that.  No more.  No less.

Magic does not change that goal.  It is not a means by which we discover all the secrets of the universe and therefore become its master.  It's merely another tool we can use to manifest our limited and imperfect influence.  And it's a nice tool to have.

I also like how L'Engle makes that connection between faith and art.  I think it's a great one, and I think there's a similar connection between art and magic.  After all, they are both processes of creation, and I think all such processes are ultimately of the same essense.

A few years ago, I participated in a discussion about Wiccan devotions on an email list that focused on British Traditional Wicca.  One of the elders (I forget which tradition) commented that just about any act can become an act of devotion simply by keeping in mind the Wiccan Mysteries.  It's something that's stuck with me, and I tend to see things the same way, understanding that an act of devotion is about perception as much as it's about carrying out any particular activity or procedure.  And in many ways, I tend to see worship (which I'm not sure I see as entirely distinct from devotion anyway) in much the same way.  After all, I'm constantly reminded of my paragraph from The Charge of the Goddess:

Let My worship be within the heart that rejoices,
for behold, all acts of love and pleasure are My rituals.
Therefore let there be beauty and strength, power and compassion,
honor and humility, mirth and reverence within you.

So to me, anything which brings to mind beauty, compassion, reverence, or any of the other virtues mentioned is an act of worship.  Any situation that brings about rejoicing and good cheer is an act of worship in my mind.  And if I meet another person and as a result we share these virtues and that rejoicing with each other, that is a moment where we have joined together in worship.

I've been thinking of this due to a conversation a couple of us had over on Matt's post about "going to church."  As part of the discussion, I suggested that if a small group of believers ran into each other at the grocery story, that might be considered "church happening."  Scott disagreed:

I get what Jared is saying, and I appreciate the intent, but this is not church. Three people randomly meeting at a grocery store are not gathered to communal bear witness to the risen Jesus through worship and service.

Personally, I offered my own disagreement with Scott:

Why not? Can't service and worship happen anywhere and spontaneously? Isn't the act of just meeting and showing each other Christian love an act of worship? After all, didn't Christ himself say that people would know his followers by how they loved one another? And once those people meet so "randomly," what opportunities for service might they find in that "random" moment? Perhaps they can help the elderly woman who's trying to make her way through the crowded produce aisle. Perhaps they can help the overly-tired mother with three very active children do her shopping.

And therein lies my point. I think it's important to see ANY gathering of believers -- no matter how random or unplanned -- as church simply because ANY such situation can lead to communal service and worship. And I'll be so bold as to suggest that not recognizing each such moment as such simply blinds one to the opportunities such a moment might actually offer.

Maybe my point is moot.  Maybe Christian theology simply doesn't support my basic assumptions.  (Christians will have to decide (a) if that's the case and (b) whether that's a good thing or a bad thing if it's not.)  However, from my perspective, it only makes sense.  Where more than one person meet, see the sacredness in each other and in the sharing of lives, loves, joys, and sorrows, worship can and will take place.

And I'd like to think that, as I mentioned, such a mentality does offer a chance for service.  Going through each moment of life with this attitude tends to make one more aware of opportunities to help others and touch lives.  Certainly, they might be small ways to do so.  But who says you have to do something big for it to count?

As I mentioned in the discussion in Matt's blog, anything less than this mentality suggests to me a compartmentalization of sacred experience and sacred living.  Community -- even religious community -- doesn't happen at special events.  It's heartbeat lives in every moment lived, at least to those of us who take the time to listen for it.

To do otherwise would strike me as, well, irreligious.

Matt tagged me with a new meme he's trying to start:

what religions do you find most interesting apart from your own? Would you pick one of the major world religions? Say Islam, or Buddhism, or Hinduism or Judaism? Or would you pick something more obscure, like Wicca or Taosim or Rastafarianism or Gnosticism? Would you pick irreligion, say Atheism or Agnosticism? Or if you're not Christian, would you say Christianity?

To participate, state your own religion (or irreligion) as your first preference, state the other religions that interest you most as your second and third preferences, then pass onto five others. If you're feeling brave, say why they interest you.

So here are my choices:

Orthodox Christianity (and to a lesser degree, Roman Catholocism and those Protestant denominations that still have strong "high church" elements in their worship/liturgy.  What can I say?  My friend Julio got me fascinated.  After he read my essay explaining the concept of mystery using baptism as an example, he pointed out just how close I came to the actual Orthodox teachings on Baptism.  (He also shared my essay with his priest, who purportedly commented that I'm "really Orthodox and just don't know it yet.)  My exploration of my current path has given me a great appreciation for liturgy, and something I now feel was sorely missing and undervalued while growing up Baptist and during my stint in a Pentecostal church.

Wicca.  Now this may surprise some people (it'll come as no shock to others).  Some might even think this isn't entirely a fair answer.  But remember, I don't consider myself Wiccan.  Also, bear in mind that I tend to use a rather narrow definition of the word Wicca on this blog.  The Wicca I'm talking about fascinates me because it has some strong similarities to the relatiosnship I have with Freyja.  Also, I love the interplay between traditionalism and creativity that can be found among many of its adherents, providing you take the time to actually get to know them.

Voudun, Santeria, and the other African Diasporic relgions.  I find their understanding of the Loa and Orishas to be fascinating and far more in line with my own beliefs about my gods than most other concepts of deity.  I also find the strong animistic, shamanistic, and even tribalistic elements of these faiths to be very invigorating.

In turn, I'd like to tag Yewtree, Lauren, Tina, Barbara, and Erin.

Tonight, I logged into Tagged to find the following message waiting for me:

Romans 6:23 "...the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord"... Do you know Him?

The person who sent it to me is not on my friends list, so I can only assume that he's sending this message to random people on Tagged.  This makes him the online equivalent of door-to-door evangelists.  In my mind, it also makes him the online equivalent of a telemarketer calling me to sell something I'm not looking to buy, a Mormon missionary knocking on my door, or a door-to-door vacuum cleaner salesman (do they even have those anymore?).  In other words, like all those others, he's a minor annoyance.

I simply don't understand why people feel it is necessary or good to walk up to someone at random (or contact them online at random) and try to "sell" that person a particular religion.  To be frank, religion is far more important to me, and it's something I'm only interested in discussing with someone I have an established, fairly well-rounded relationship with.  Anything else is just someone looking to make their next "sale" and gets treated like every other salesperson that decides to peddle their wares to me unbidden.

Of course, I do pride myself on politeness.  I don't get nasty with telemarketers (unless they continue to press the matter after the polite "I'm not interested").  I don't get nasty with Mormon missionaries.  And I didn't get nasty with this guy.  In fact, I sent what I felt was a rather polite reply:

I'm sorry, but I have a policy against getting into evangelistic conversations with random strangers.  Please accept my best wishes and a blessing for a full life, however.

Bye. 

And with any luck, that'll be end of the whole thing.

Update:  As I was making this post, I received the following reply:

Well, I thought it was rather humorous.  Thanks to Shivian for pointing it out via Twitter.

Yesterday, I blogged about how the belief that we have no choices in situations is detrimental to our ability to live an ethical life.  Today, I want to discuss another reason why this belief is problematic for witches(1).  A belief that we have no choice in a given situation also destroys our personal power in a given situation as well.

We in the Pagan community talk about self-empowerment a lot.  It's a key reason a lot of us came to a Pagan path, at least in my experience.  However, sometimes we talk about it in rather vague terms, never really making it clear what it means to be self-empowered.  To that end, I would like to suggest my own definition:  Self-empowerment is the act of embracing the realization that no matter what situation we may find ourselves in, we always have the ability to choose how we will respond and act.

Note that self-empowerment doesn't mean we always get to control the situations we find ourselves in.  Nor does it mean that we can magically change everything in our environment to suit our needs.  Such a concept of self-empowerment would simply be out of step with and contrary to reality.  Hardships are going to befall us.  People are going to do things we don't like and that hurt us.  Circumstances are going to limit our options and even make us face some unpleasant choices.  Those who want to find a way to turn their lives into a fairy tale need to keep looking.  They will not find it here.(2)

But what the principle of self-empowerment tells us is that no matter what those situations are, our actions are our own to choose.  It tells us that even if our choices are limited to unpleasant ones, there are still choices to make.(3)  Self-empowerment teaches us that no matter what is beyond our control, who we choose to be and how we choose to act is still our personal domain.  And that is an incredible power to wield, in my opinion.

Saying we have no choice in a situation robs us of that power.  It turns us into victims of our circumstances rather than people who are working to not only make the best of our circumstances, but improve it insofar as we can.  And that is a great tragedy.

And again, this is a creeping problem.  The belief that we had no choice tends to spread throughout our lives.  What started as one instance where we thought we had no control or no power becomes two.  Then it becomes five.  Then it becomes a regular occurrence.  Soon, we are never empowered because we fail to see our choices.  And then we wonder why our lives are nothing like we want them to be.(4)

Now some may be ready to ask me, "But what about magic?"  And it's a good question, so I will answer it.  Back in 2007, I blogged about the role one's will plays in magic.  At that time, I suggested that our will is the part of our psyche that initiates action.  It's the part of us that actually goes about making all of these choices, and it's central to the process of working magic.

So what happens when we say that part of us is incapable of making choices because there are none to be made?  We are effectively subjugating it or turning it off.  A belief that we have no choices actually hinders our will.  And a subjugated or hindered will simply cannot operate effectively.  Which means our ability to do magic effectively disappears as well.

Notes:
(1)  As witches are not the only people who believe in or value self-empowerment, I'm sure many other people will be able to identify with much of what I'm saying here.  I think that's great.  But since I'm a witch, I'm going to focus on witches.  Though I do hope anyone who isn't a witch still shares with me what value they might find in my thoughts.

(2)  In reality, I suspect they won't find it anywhere.  But I respect their right to continue searching.  That's their choice to make.

(3)  The other advantage to realizing you still have choices, even if they're all less than ideal, is that it gives you the freedom to think creatively and look for even more choices.  The ones you see immediately may not be the only ones laying about.

(4)  Of course, there are also times when our lives are nothing like we want them to be because our desires are simply not realistic.  Again, this is because self-empowerment is not about living a fairy tale life.  Sometimes, we just have to find a way to live within our limitations.  But my experience is that even within our limitations, there's a life that's well worth living.

I've been reading a lot of blogs the past few days, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America have been a major topic of discussion.  This is because the ELCA has been holding their Church-Wide Assembly this week, and the church's response to GLBT people in various circumstances has been a huge topic of conversation.  They've voted on a statement on Human Sexuality (of which GLBT issues is only a small portion), a policy of allowing local congregations to minister to GLBT people in accordance with their own conscience, and a policy allowing the ordination of GLBT clergy in monogamous, lifelong patnerships.

It's this last policy that I'd like to talk about briefly.  Although I am no longer a Christian and don't foresee returning to that faith (and if I did, I'd be more inclined to join the Orthodox church anyway), it's something that in some ways is near and dear to me.  As someone who loves to help and serve others, it pleases me to see new opportunities being provided to GLBT to help and serve others.  And as someone who once felt called to ministry, I admit some pleasure in knowing that such an opportunity has come in my lifetime, even if I no longer plan to take it.

As I've read various people express both their joys and their concerns about this decision in the ELCA, I began to consider my own time of serving in my old (American Baptist) church back home.  While I was not an ordained minister, I spent time as a Sunday school teacher, the leader of the youth group, and even the superintendent of the children's Sunday school program.  (I also did speak from the pulpit as a lay leader a handful of times.)

I came out to myself as a gay man towards the end of my senior year in college.  When I graduated and returned home, I also returned to my small rural church an quickly found myself pulled back into leadership.  I almost immediate took over the Sunday school class for grades 7-12 as well as the youth group.  That summer, I also co-led our church's Vacation Bible School program.  A few months after that, my aunt stepped down as superintendent of the children's Sunday school program and I was asked to take over.

At the time, no one in my church (with the possible exception of a couple of family members) knew that I was gay.  To be honest, I'm not sure how the other members of the church would've reacted if they knew, and I was too afraid at the time to find out.  So I kept my sexuality a secret and focused on doing my duties as a leader in the church.  And I suffered in silence.

Yes, I suffered.  Those first few months to a couple of years after you come out to yourself can be quite difficult emotionally.  You find yourself sorting through a lot of feelings and trying to understand what it means to be gay and all the implications it has for your life.  So here I was trying to act as a leader in my church and deal with my own problems, and I was afraid to turn to any of the other church leaders to seek help during this time of my life.

At one point, I began having trouble upholding my responsibilities as a church leader began to sag due to the issues I was trying to work through.  (And things got even worse the few months before I finally left the church -- as I had also begun to add in the complications that come with one's first real relationship.)  I started to procrastinate and forgot to do certain things.  A few of the other leaders began to get upset, especially as they relied on me for certain things and I let them down on more than one occasion.  And I was frustrated because they never once asked what was going on with me or why I was becoming less dependable.  But to make matters worse, even if they had asked me what was wrong, I doubt I would've had the courage to tell them.  I just wasn't comfortable.

As I think of my experiences, I think of the ELCA's decison with some pleasure, knowing that at least some GLBT people who wish to serve in a Christian community will now be able to do so openly.  And this means that they will be able to get the support I felt was denied to me back when I was serving as I felt called.  And that is something that pleases me greatly.

Fred Clark over at Slacktivist recently made another post in his series about what motivates some people to disseminate false, injurious information about others despite that information being demonstrably false.  In this particular post, Fred uses the videos over at Good Fight Theater as an example for the continuing discussion.  While I highly recommend Fred's post and the ongoing series of which it is a part, I wanted to look at a related but slightly different topic:  The way that groups like Good Fight Ministries tend to stretch and twist whatever they're looking at to make it fit Christian theology and/or cosmology.

For this post, I'm going to focus on GFM's video regarding the first Transformers movie.  I've watched clips from a few other GFM videos, and I get the impression that my criticisms can be adequately applied to most of their videos.  But as the Transformers video is the only one I've watched in full, I'll focus on that one.

The goal of the GFM video is to suggest and argue that Transfomers -- and other movies about aliens (and an interest in aliens in general) -- is an attempt to brainwash humans into accepting the lead of demons during the final battle of Armageddon as portrayed in Pre-Millenial Dispensationalism.  (As an aside, Fred also offers a wonderful look at PMD theology as part of his ongoing review of the Left Behind series.)  GFM does this by suggesting that in Transformers, Michael Bay is effectively portraying the fallen angels of Armageddon with as the good guys -- in the form of the Autobots -- and God and the angels of Heaven as the bad guys -- in the form of the Decepticons.  However, it seems to me that GFM has to make a lot of assumptions -- assumptions I'm inclined to question, challenge, and even refute -- in order to make that argument.

The first assumption is that the Cube -- the original source of creation life on the Autobots' home planet -- is somehow representative of the Christian god.  It's not clear to me why GFM makes this claim.  While it is certainly understandable that the Cube possesses capabilities that is often considered the sole domain of the Christian god, I find that a tenuous argument for this comparison.  After all, nothing suggests that the Cube is the creator of the entire universe or even all life in it.  If the Cube is not the sole source of life -- and much in the movie left me with the impression that its not -- then the comparison between the Cube and the Christian God quickly falls flat.

Another consideration is the nature of the Cube.  Specifically, the Cube is not portrayed as a conscious being with personality or identity.  Again, this separates it from the god of Christianity, which is very much a conscious being with personality and identity.  This alone suggests that a better parallel to a divine force found in other religions that have a more impersonal conceptualization of God.(1)

This impersonal nature of the Cube creates another problem for the assumptions in GFM video.  The GFM video suggests that Transformers is based on the Gnostic idea that God is evil.  However, how can an impersonal god like the Cube be evil?  The Cube has no plans and gives no orders.  All of the actions of the Decepticons -- those GFM ministries would like us to believe are the stand-ins for Jesus and the heavenly host in the movie -- come from Megatron, not the Cube.

Theologically, this causes problems for GFM's claims.  If we accept that Megatron is the stand-in for Jesus in this movie(2), then that would mean that Megatron is acting on the authority of God's stand-in, the Cube.  However, it is clear that Megatron's authority and power is not granted by the will of Cube, but is gained by him by his control of the Cube.  Such a discrepancy further destroys the analogy that GFM is attempting to make.

This also comes into play when we consider Optimus Prime's plan to destroy the Cube.  GFM points to this as paralleling the fallen angels of his own theology who wish to destroy the Christian god.  The problem with this comparison is that the fallen angels of GFM's wish to destroy God in order to take his place and rule over the universe.  In contrast, Optimus Prime merely seeks to destroy the Cube as a last resort in order to prevent Megatron from using its power to destroy and control others.  In this sense, it's not only the actions that are being inverted in Michael Bay's supposed "retelling" of the Final Battle, but the players' motives as well.

This is particularly notable when you consider Optimus Prime's plans for destroying the Cube if it becomes necessary.  The leader of the Autobots plans to destroy the Cube in a way that will require him to sacrifice his own life.  Indeed, the decision to ultimately destroy Megatron along with the Cube is actually Shia LeBeouf's doing.  Optimus's plans for self-sacrifice strike me as far more, well, Messianic.

In order to accept GFM's interpreation of the movie, one must completely ignore the actions, goals, and motives of the characters being portrayed.  One must completely ignore where the analogy quickly falls apart.  And one must be willing to accept the wanton disregard for life and the desire to control and destroy others is an acceptable depiction of God's just wrath.  (3)

In other words, to accept GFM's interpretation of this movie as an inversion of the Final Battle of PMD theology, one has to put the entire movie through a blender and force it into preconceived notions.  It makes far more sense to me to watch the movie and consider the ideas it offers on their own merits.

Notes:
(1)  Of course, it's possible that the folks at GFM consider all non-Christian religions to be nothing more than inversions and perversions of Christianity.  So this distinction may not matter to them.  However, I personally think it's an important one.  After all, not everyone sees everything in terms of being a direct perversion of or attack on Christianity.

(2)  Bear in mind that the biggest argument for this supposition appears to be that Megatron sounds a lot like Metatron, which is a name mentioned in certain extra-Biblical texts and might be another name for Jesus according to extra-Biblical commentaries on those extra-Biblical texts.  So not only is GFM playing fast and furious with the movie to make it fit their theology, but their having to invoke appeals to theology that many of their fellow Christians might find questionable.

(3)  And there I think is the greatest problem with GFM's interpretation of this movie.  In order to accept this, one must not only believe in a god that is a wanton tyrant who treats his Creation with contempt and disregard for its ultimate well-being, but you must believe that such a god is worthy of respect and adoration.  Perhaps teh folks at GFM can do so, but my own conscience forbids it.

While guest-blogging at The Wild Hunt, John Morehead proposed using science fiction movies as a basis for interfaith dialogue. His idea and the post itself are fascinating, and I strongly encourage my readers to check it out.  It's certainly a concept I want to think over and explore more closely.  In the meantime, though, I'd like to turn my attention to one of the responses that John's post generated.  Hadiah Starlight commented a bit on the poor representation of Wiccans and other Pagans in cinema in general:

I agree that cinema is a reflection of what is going on socially in our world, but as a Pagan I find it very sad, and disheartening that we are still not presented in a more "positive light", and that people's idea of witchcraft is the Harry Potter films, or The Craft. We are briefly presented in a more positive light, in the Lord of the Rings series, but until we are presented as anything other than "Science Fiction" we will never be taken seriously.

Leaving aside the question of whether or portrayal in cinema really affects how seriously we're taken (I'm personally inclined to think that if any causation between the two points exists, it's more likely to run in the opposite direction), this comment caused me to wonder how Christianity and religion in general fairs in cinema.  So I walked over to my media cabinet, combed through the 300+ DVD's I currently owned, and started pulling out any DVD I felt had some sort of religious portrayal in it.  I ended up with about 25 DVD's (a smattering of them are represented in the picture attached to this post).  Furthermore, I felt my choice to include some of the titles might have been a bit generous.

While I don't claim that my personal DVD collection is a representative sample of all cinema out there, I do think that the relatively low percentage of titles I pulled that I felt had some religious content is quite telling.  It would seem that a great number of movies simply don't have much to say about religion at all.

I began to comb through the titles that I had pulled out and started considering the similarity between how religion was incorporated into the movie.  I began to notice that the titles seemed to fit a few different categories.  The first and most obvious category were those movies that were intended to offer editorial commentary on religion or certain aspects of some religious subcultures.  Two such examples are Saved! and Dogma.  As these kinds of movies tend to be heavy in satire and highly critical, I'm not sure we as Pagans sould be in a hurry to see these kinds of movies about our own faith traditions.  They may be helpful in the future as our traditions become more established and could benefit from such criticism.  But for right now, I think we're better off being grateful that our religions aren't being represented by these kinds of movies.

Unsurprisingly, a considerable number of movies in this category were science fiction movies.  In these movies, religion became framework for understanding the classic battle between good and evil that drive these movies.  The Exorcist, Ghost Rider, Constantine, and The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe are all good examples of this category of movie.  Indeed, the abundance of these kinds of movies suggests that it's not just Pagan religions that are most easily explored, represented and expressed through science fiction.  So that's a limitation we may simply need to accept for now.

I will note, however, that Christian-themed science fiction does appear to be of a theologically superior quality than Pagan-themed science fiction most of the time.  Each of the movies I listed above spend a great deal of time exploring a cosmology and theology that explains the world where these fantastic and even supernatural stories take place.  The nature of heaven and hell as well as their relationship to the "natural world" is explored in Constantine in fascinating detail that suggests a worldview far more complex than anything seen in The Craft.

But when one considers the amount of Christian theology and cosmology that is readily accessible to the average screenwriter, this shouldn't come as a surprise.  Many of them probably grew up learning about it.  Almost all of them have spent their lives surrounded by it.  And then there are simply libraries full of books that they can learn about it from.  And some of the best religiously-themed science fiction -- such as the Chronicles of Narnia -- have been written by Christian theologians themselves.

Compared to this, Pagan theology and cosmology (in its numerous forms and variations, no less) isn't as easily accessibe.  There's not nearly as much written about it.  Most people have not learned it first hand, nor do they come into contact with it regularly.  Is it any wonder that Pagan theology is less well developed in the movies then?

The final general category of movie I found was those movies in which religion somehow influenced the plot and created.  The best examples of this in my collection include Latter Days and Rock Haven, which are movies about young men who find themselves facing romantic and sexual feelings that their religious says are sinful and must be changed or repressed.  These movies then center around that conflict, the effects it has on the characters, and the eventual resolution.  Similar movies exist that deal with other faith struggles, such as understanding and coming to terms with tragedy and loss.

Personally, I would love to see similar movies from a Pagan perspective.  I would love to see movies where a Pagan character tries to reconcile his faith with life issues or find comfort and guidance through tragedy and difficulty from his faith.  The problem is, writing such a movie again requires a deep understanding of Pagan theology and philosophy, as well as how the affect the rest of an adherent's life.  This is not the kind understanding that the average screenwriter is going to possess.  In short, Hollywood isn't going to make this kind of movie simply because it's ill-equipped to do so.

If we as Pagans really want to see positive portrayals in cinema, I think we're going to have to find those in our community who are ready to be the story-tellers and the screenwriters who will do it.  After all, we are the only ones who can portray our lives because we are the only ones living our lives.

So as much as I'd love to see better portrayals of my faith on the big screen, I won't hold my breath until I or another fellow Pagan is prepared to write them and try selling them to a movie studio.

 

Now that it's past, I thought it would be good to do a review of yesterday's synchroblog event.  It was an excellent experience and overall, I felt it went quite well.  Wendy and her sponsors did a fantastic job putting it all together and the participants wrote some wonderful posts, some of which I will highlight in a moment.

The one thing I was somewhat disappointed in was the fact that despite the efforts of a couple of us (including Wendy), the event seemed primarily geared towards Christians.  As far as I know, Christine Bakke, YewTree, and I were the only three non-Christians who participated.  This is probably due to a number of reasons.  For one, those who sponsored this event were Christian and therefore had the most Christian contacts.  Then there's also the fact that it's much harder to convince a non-Christian to participate in an event to encourage Christians and gay people to talk to one another.  On the whole, we non-Christians probably don't see as big a need for such conversation.

More troubling, however, is that I did feel there was a certain undercurrent even among many of the participating bloggers that this was about gay and straight Christians talking with each other.  I saw more than one post in which the sentiment seemed to be that the foundation for such conversation was the fact that those involved were all "brothers and sisters in Christ."  While this is a fine sentiment and I'm glad that some people were able to find that common ground, that doesn't extend the conversation to the rest of the gay community -- those of us who don't consider ourselves "brothers and sisters in Christ."  So perhaps it may be a while longer before the entire gay community will find a welcome in the greater community.

Having said that, I wish to be clear that I don't mean to be too critical because of this.  I think that this synchroblog was a great next step in the overall dialogue process.  And I have confidence that even my concerns can be addressed as that dialogue continues.  I think we all just need to keep plugging away with patience, compassion, and a bit of understanding.

One of my favorite posts was over at Focused Conversations, which demonstrated a deep and practical understanding of the Golden Rule.  Sandy tells of her own wedding and the people who supported her and helped her with her wedding, despite the fact that they felt she was making a bad choice.  In retelling that story, she comes to a conclusion which she applies to same sex marriages:

I understand the desire to declare your commitment to your loved one in a formal ceremony. Whether or not I think it is the right thing doesn't take away from that. As a Christian I live with that tension.

It sometimes takes a special person to realize how her own situation at one time mirrored that of another person's and to place herself in that person's shoes.  Sandy's willingness to be such a person spoke a lot to me.

Over at Based on a True Story, Nathan takes a similar approach and draws parallels between his own relationship with his wife and same-sex relationships:

My relationship with my wife runs very deep and there are plenty of factors that play into it. If my relationship was all about sex, it would not be much of a relationship. We know though, that a part of marriage and relationships runs a lot deeper than just what happens with our bodies. One of the more beautiful parts of a marriage is the commitment and covenant to each other no matter what life brings. We should be affirming and blessing mutual covenants of love between any person and not denying them of a basic human need. We need to focus on what we affirm rather than what we want to get rid of. Why are we so bent on taking away all the good in a relationship? Is it just to prove our theology? Is it just to satisfy our own desires for holiness to be met around us?

In doing so, Nathan actually attacks one of the most damaging stereotypes about gay people:  The idea that our relationships are just about sex.  Nathan's willingness to challenge that stereotype and then ask very hard questions about the implication of opposing relationships that clearly have a lot of good in them is superb.

Of course, not everything was perfect.  Despite some great posts, there was the occasional argument in some comments.  Some people wanted to argue over what constituted compromise or capitulation, while others wanted to discuss who (usually the other side) needed to do what in order for their to be dialogue.  Some even questioned if dialogue is possible in the end.  But that's okay.  This conversation is long overdue and it's the kind of conversation that is never going to go perfectly smoothly.  And that's okay.  The important thing is that people are still talking.  Hopefully, that will remain the case.

And hopefully, people will continue to listen.