Fifteen films meme

From Sam: "The rules: Don’t take too long to think about it. Fifteen films you’ve seen that will always stick with you. List the first fifteen films you can recall in no more than fifteen minutes."

I am going to arbitrarily exclude documentaries and I'm not claiming that these are my favourite fifteen, just that they fit this meme.

1. Magnolia
2. Fight Club
3. American Beauty
4. The Lives of Others
5. 3-Iron
6. Pan's Labyrinth
7. The Passion of the Christ
8. Let the Right One In
9. Hero
10. Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind
11. The Return of the King
12. The Royal Tenenbaums
13. Monty Python and the Holy Grail
14. The Matrix
15. Millennium Actress

If you own a blog, then consider yourself tagged, unless you hate memes, are way too busy, or find this exercise trite or offensive, in which case, smugly consider yourself above such sillyness.

The collapse of complex societies: Joseph Tainter

Joseph Tainter wrote the classic text on societal collapse, called The Collapse of Complex Societies in 1988. Tainter is an archeologist who wanted to answer the question why human history has been characterised by ever-increasing social complexity punctuated locally by periods of rapid shifts back towards greater simplicity (i.e. collapse). His answer is simple yet profound: societies become more complex to solve their problems, yet investments in increasing complexity yield declining marginal returns, until the increasing marginal costs of greater complexity becomes enough of a liability that collapse (shifting to a simpler society) becomes the best way of solving the problem. That is, there is point where greater investment in complexity actually makes things worse.

In this interview, Tainter applies his theory to perhaps the best known societal collapse in history: the Western Roman Empire. And then to the most complex society in history: ours. Compelling listening; God has made no promises of civilisational survival.
Sam Norton has written a very useful summary and review of the book here.

On blessing enemies and burning books

I recently mentioned the plans of a small church in Florida to commemorate the attacks of 11th September 2001 by burning a Qur'an, in order to send a warning to radical Islam: "If you attack us, if you attack us, we will attack you." This is the heart of the rationale offered by Pastor Terry Jones, who plans to carry out this act on Saturday's anniversary.

In my previous post I mentioned the words of Christ in Luke 6 about loving enemies as one obvious response to this proposal. Loving enemies means the only retaliation we can condone is repaying cursing with blessing, hatred with love, and violence with vulnerable peacemaking. God retaliated against the death of his son by raising him to new life, and by commissioning messengers with the gospel of forgiveness and peace in his name. Burning a book is indeed a powerful form of communication, but the message that is intended by this action is a perversion of the gospel of Christ.

Indeed, there is a deeper and even more worrying assumption behind this action, which is brought to light by asking after the identity of the "we" in Pastor Jones' quote above. Who is it who will bring repay attack for attack? The obvious candidate is the US military acting on behalf of the US government. As well as ignoring the teaching of our Lord, this pastor seems to have confused the church of Jesus Christ with his nation and its military.

Sam Norton has suggested that the popular reaction to this story has been misguided, on the basis that the offensiveness of burning a Qu'ran, or the potential harm it might bring to US soldiers are not properly Christian reasons. It is not the place of the church to ensure the safety of soldiers occupying a foreign country, nor is the giving of offence itself a problem. On these points, he is correct. He goes on to suggest that the burning could be seen as an act of protest or resistance against idolatry. I am not opposed to symbolic actions that expose the hollowness and violence of idolatry. But I don't think this action does that. Not only does Jones' explanation fail to conform to anything like the Christian gospel, but the very act of burning a book - not least the sacred text of a minority community in his society - does not speak of fearlessness, hope or joy. It is a punitive action that attempts to silence speech and intimidate a group already the focus of hostility and suspicion.

As one of Sam's commentators (revsimmy) points out, "In the only New Testament example of book-burning (Acts 19:19) at Ephesus these were books being burned by people who were renouncing their former beliefs and practices (not the case in Pastor Jones' case). Later on in Ephesus, when the silversmiths stir up a riot against Paul, the town clerk is able to claim, with apparent credibility, that Paul and his companions have never spoken against their temple or blasphemed their goddess." This too is an important point. Whatever we make of the book-burning in Acts chapter 19, it was undertaken voluntarily by those who had formerly practiced idolatry as a symbolic, costly and effective break with their old lives. The action planned by Terry Jones for this Saturday, by contrast, is more akin to the destruction of Buddhist statues by the Taliban. The overthrow of idolatry is not through the weapons of this world (whether explosives or cigarette lighters, outrage or censorship), but through preaching, purity and prayer.

The first idolatry that needs to be addressed in this story is not the attitude of Muslims to the Qu'ran, but of Christians to militarism and nationalism. The good news is that liberation from such empty idols is possible in Christ.

UPDATE: It seems that Pastor Jones may have decided to cancel the burning. Or put it on hold. Or something. He seems like quite a confused man.

A typically good reflection on the whole matter from Andrew Cameron in the Social Issues Briefing. He asks "what would St Paul do?" and his answer is that prior to the Damascus Road, Saul of Tarsus would have joined in and led the burning. After meeting Christ, not so much.

Link love

Sam posts a list of Mennonite guidelines for doing conflict in the church, and a timely warning that the future is not what it was. I have been meaning to say more about the issues in this latter post for a while.

Climate Progress has an interesting case study summarising the complex interactions of water, food and energy requirements in China. UPDATE: Another CP post on China's massive investments into clean energy.

Just say no to socialism.

Bobby fashions an anti-creed.

Jeremy wants us to love things (as a matter of justice, no less).

Graham tries to not lose the forest for the trees (or perhaps the climate for the weather).

The ongoing relevance of ancient heresies

Today, the language of heresy is most often used in irony, humour or as a critical description of the activities of those who are perceived to be too judgemental (i.e. taking the category of heresy seriously today indicates that one is probably guilty of self-importance and silencing the voice of the other).

Sam Norton has started a series in which he is articulating why one ancient Christian heresy (known as Donatism) has great relevance for us today, particularly in light of the recent controversies concerning sexual abuse by Catholic priests. You can read his first post here. Sam shows that in this case, the heretics dangerous mistake was being too judgemental! This illustrates something of the irony about our modern inability to take the category of heresy without irony.

I would love for Sam to continue his series with some consideration of the contemporary relevance of other ancient heresies, which continue to be important guideposts in our ongoing pursuit of living together well as human beings and followers of Christ.

Climate change is not the primary issue

Play it again, Sam. Sam points out that both peak and oil and climate change are themselves symptoms of a larger issue facing contemporary society: namely, what I have previously called "the myth of infinite growth". And that this in turn is primarily a spiritual and ethical issue, not simply an economic, technological or political issue (though it is all of those as well).

Can anyone offer suggestions of published academic work that makes this point? This is quite an important aspect of my current project.

In search of a guiding virtue

This is an interesting piece comparing the primary virtues of McCain and Obama (honour and empathy), analysing their limits and pondering their implications for foreign policy. H/T Sam.*

This piece illustrates an interesting feature of ethics: the interdependence of the virtues. Is it possible for one virtue to interpret all the others? The article argues that honour and empathy are both insufficient as guiding principles in a complex world and each could lead to bad decisions as president. What then is a sufficient principle? Is there a better virtue than honour, a greater one than empathy?

"Love binds everything together in perfect harmony" (Colossians 3.14). Here is a candidate for the position of guiding principle. Yet might it not also face a similar critique to those levelled against honour and empathy? Might love be but a partial grasping of the picture that obscures as it reveals?

It all depends how we understand the "binding" to which the verse refers. Importantly, the context is one rich with all kinds of ethical language - honesty, compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, patience, forbearance and forgiveness all appearing in quick succession. Apparently this is not the kind of binding that destroys all distinction, such that no more needs to be said than the imperative "love!". There is still a place for reflection upon the relation of honesty to kindness, or of compassion to forbearance. Yet it is love that prevents these discussions from becoming wars of attrition in which the champions of truth seek to dominate the defenders of mercy or vice versa. The primacy of love does not consist of demanding that we prefer being loving to being truthful or being meek. It consists in the faith that these demands are not ultimately in conflict. "Ultimately", since the unification of the moral life in love is not simply revelation of what is, but a promise of what is to come.
*NB Sam has also posted a link to a good little piece introducing virtue ethics for those unfamiliar with the phrase.
Twelve points for picking the location of this Sydney shot.

We are just starting phase two

Stages of Oil Depletion Grief

1. Denial. "Peak oil? Baloney! There's lots of oil left. No worries, mate."

2. Anger. "It's the damn ________'s (oil companies, governments, OPEC, etc.) fault that oil prices are going up. They're gouging us. The bastards!"

3. Bargaining. "But what about new oil discovery technologies? What about biofuels? I can keep my SUV, right? Someone, or some new discovery will save us ...right?"

4. Depression. "Damn... no renewable energy source is as energy dense as oil, or quickly scalable... Holy crap. We are _________ (in for a rough ride, doomed, etc.)"

5. Acceptance. "Ok, even if we are in for a rough ride, what I can do? What can I ask my government representatives to do? How can I make a difference? How can I prepare? How can we support research into potential technological breakthroughs?"

From here (H/T Sam). If you're still at stage 1 – or 0 (ignorance) – then check out the whole page, which is a good introduction to peak oil and why it worries lots of intelligent people.

Save the planet

I have a few (slightly more serious) posts planned on this very phrase for some stage when I am not so busy, but for now I hope you enjoy this interview. H/T Rev Sam.

On talking with atheists

Rev Sam has started a series (here, here and here) reflecting on his extensive experiences talking with atheists about the Christian faith. He distinguishes between two kinds of athesist: (a) humourless atheists and (b) sophisticated atheists. The former are "humourless" in the sense that they just don't get the "joke" of theology, they think it entirely a waste of time and simply nonsense. They have a kind of aspect blindness. They often base their criticisms on stereotypes, populist or fundamentalist understandings of Christianity (which often deserve to be criticised!), but have little or not familiarity with the more significant, rigorous and creative figures in the Christian theological tradition. The latter "get" it much more, and probably feel the attractiveness of Christ, but are perhaps unconvinced by some point: the resurrection, the problem of evil, or something else. I think this is a useful distinction and the series has sparked some very interesting responses, with many of Sam's points being illustrated within the discussion of them.

This double classification of atheisms reminds me of a somewhat similar one by Merold Westphal in his excellent little book on Nietzsche, Marx and Freud called Suspicion and Faith: the religious uses of modern atheism. He very usefully distinguishes between an atheism of scepticism (à la Hume), which finds the claims of Christianity to be untrue, and an atheism of suspicion (as in Nietzsche and co.), in which Christian belief is found to be immoral.

Pedigree and privilege: class consciousness quiz

H/T Rev Sam. The idea is to highlight the elements of your own upbringing that apply in bold as an exercise in social class awareness. I've modified the language of a few statements to make them more suitable for an Australian context. For a few others, I've replaced culturally irrelevant statements with what I think might be more suitable ones.

Text below copied (with modifications) from Step into Social Class 2.0: A Social Class Awareness Experience. Will Barratt, Meagan Cahill, Angie Carlen, Minnette Huck, Drew Lurker, Stacy Ploskonka, Indiana State University, © 2008. See Rev Sam's post for the original.

Embolden the true statements.

1. My father went to university.
2. My father finished university.
3. My mother went to university.
4. My mother finished university.
5. Have any relative who is or was a lawyer, doctor or academic.
6. Had more than 50 books in your childhood home.
7. Had more than 500 books in your childhood home.
8. Were read children’s books by a parent.
9. Had extra-curricular lessons of any kind before you turned 18.
10. Had more than two kinds of extra-curricular lessons before you turned 18.
11. The people in the media who dress and talk like me are portrayed positively.
12. Had a credit card with your name on it before you turned 18.
13. Your parents (or a trust) paid for the majority of your university costs.
14. Your parents (or a trust) paid for all of your university costs.
15. Went to a private primary school.
16. Went to a private high school.
17. Your family regularly employed a cleaner.
18. Had a private tutor before you turned 18.
19. Family vacations involved staying at hotels.
20. Your clothing was all bought new before you turned 18.
21. Your parents bought you a car that was not a hand-me-down from them.
22. There was original art in your house when you were a child.*
23. You and your family lived in a single-family house.
24. Your parent(s) owned their own house or apartment before you left home.
25. You had your own room as a child.
26. You had a phone in your room before you turned 18.
27. Participated in an HSC preparation course or study camp outside of school.
28. Had your own TV in your room in high school.
29. Owned a mutual fund or shares in high school or university.
30. Flew anywhere on a commercial airline before you turned 16.
31. Went on a cruise with your family.
32. Went on more than one cruise with your family.
33. Your parents took you to museums and art galleries as you grew up.
34. Growing up, you were unaware of how much electricity bills cost for your family.
*From a relative who was an artist.

Nineteen out of thirty-four. I'm not sure whether there is meant to be a rating system to accompany the statements. How did others go? What other statements would you suggest ought to be added to the list to make it more accurate? What has been your experience of the class system in Australia (or elsewhere)?

I'm dreaming of a nice bitter Christmas

Kim Fabricius on why we ought to boycott nativity plays rather than anti-Christian movies.

And Rev Sam on why children's longings for presents might not be such a bad thing after all.

Weekend links

Blogs
• I've already mentioned Rev Sam on peak oil pledges. Go and have a look.
• Ben has been thinking about how to settle theological debates.
• Meredith has started a series of "ten things I think about the environment": Intro; I; II; III. As a bonus, there are lots of great pics by Meredith too.
• Kyle has declared War on Christmas.
• David is worried about Surnames and sexism. I suggest what I humbly believe to be the perfect solution (see discussion in comments).

The rest of the virtual world
• Bono + sacramental theology = U2charist? H/T Aaron.
• If you're feeling a little down - make sure you scroll down to 'Mediocrity' and 'Quality'. H/T Paget.
• And check out these for corny but fun political activism: The Meatrix; The Meatrix II; The Meatrix II 1/2.

Links and links

Fun
Indiana Jones's request for tenure denied
Single issue voting, or why everyone is soft on terrorism
A Young Illegal Immigrant's Tale
What if Estragon had had a mobile?

Videos (also fun)
A genius behind the stupidity: Harlan McCraney Presidential Specialist
You don't see this everyday: how many bruises?
The real state of the union

A touch more serious
A pacificst hymn by Kim Fabicius
Manifesto: The Mad Farmer Liberation Front: a poem by Wendell Berry
Discipling the imagination by Rev Sam

Two kinds of evangelical

Rev Sam over at elizaphanian has an interesting post on his observations (as an Anglo-Catholic Anglican) of there being two kinds of evangelicalism. An intelligent outsider with a sharp eye: worth a look. While we're at it, he also has some good thoughts about how The Da Vinci Code challenges a widespread uncritical christological docetism.