ScreenFish

where faith and film are intertwined

God

Plot Twist! Why We’re Thankful for 2020

by Leave a Comment

Between the pandemic, social upheaval, political turmoil, etc., 2020 has obviously been a challenging year. In this Thanksgiving episode of the Your Sunday Drive podcast, we flip the script and explain why – plot twist! – we’re thankful for 2020.

We start with some reactions to the current election drama and positive spins on this year’s political and media-related issues. Then we discuss a bunch of things we’re thankful for, such as kids’ resilience, the goodness of people, possible fruitful changes to work culture, and “small things” to appreciate such as video games (including an impromptu aesthetic discussion about the definition of art 🙂 ).

Finally, we examine how hard times, our view of God, trust and thankfulness are all intertwined in the Bible.

Come along for Your Sunday Drive – quick conversation about current events, politics, pop culture and more, from the perspective of a couple of guys trying to follow Jesus.

Hosts: Matt Hill and Nate Polzin. Presented by the Church in Drive of Saginaw, MI, as often as possible. Please visit churchindrive.com and facebook.com/thechurchindrive

Fall Kickoff: Sports; Future of College & Work; Meaning in Life

by Leave a Comment

your sunday drive podcast

Fall is here and with it the 150th season of college football in the U.S.!

In this episode of the Your Sunday Drive podcast, we use this occasion as a kick-off point to revisit the topic of spirituality in sports.

Then the conversation goes deep into the current state of higher education, and the future of college and work.

Finally, the concept of God’s image is used as a touchstone principle to connect these topics to larger questions about purpose and meaning in life.

Take a listen and let us know what you think! Want to interact with us? Comment here, or on Spreaker or Facebook!



Josh Harris & Deconversion; Mass Shootings; The Boys & Euphoria

by Leave a Comment

euphoria

How should we respond when Christian leaders leave the faith? What more can be said about recent mass shootings in the U.S.?

In this episode of the Your Sunday Drive podcast, we talk about Josh Harris, purity culture, his deconversion and issues related to “losing faith.”

We also go deep on recent mass shootings in the U.S., gun control, online influence, and whether deeper spiritual malaise is a factor.

Finally, Matt does a hot take on Amazon’s The Boys and HBO’s Euphoria as symptomatic of this malaise, yet with redemptive kernels.

Take a listen and let us know what you think! Want to interact with us? Comment here, or on Spreaker or Facebook!

Why I Love (and Fear) Jordan Peterson & Russell Brand

by Leave a Comment

Jordan Peterson and Russell Brand

tldr version

Jordan Peterson
and Russell Brand
both see a
current crisis
and both see it as
primarily “spiritual”

however, for each,
there are issues
when it comes to how
*truth*
and “spirituality” relate

and how they relate
is vital

bit longer version

fanboying

i love me some
Peterson and Brand

always generally dug
Brand’s flicks
and standup,
and have been a
fan of his podcast/YouTube
for a year plus

(fun fact:
the pic above is
from once when
Peterson went
on said podcast;
and don’t they look
smashing together?
🙂 )

Peterson came to
my attention
more gradually,
but then like a
hurricane recently –
seriously:
give him a Google
and marvel at the
moment he’s been having

i have Recovery and
12 Rules for Life
on my bedside table
(along with some more
explicitly Christiany books
and a tablet, upon which
i theoretically read,
but mainly just
obsess over guitar gear
i don’t really need)

both are excellent texts
and both feel
supremely plugged in
to a zeitgeisty sense
that something’s amiss,
in general,
with ppl rn

(i agree)

both also,
and both men
in their public lives,
propose something
like a
spiritual cause
for this
“something amiss” –
what might be called a
“spiritual crisis of meaning”
stemming from
God
(or something like God;
more on this later)
no longer holding
significant sway
for so many

(i agree for sure)

caveating

please note here
that these gentlemen
are obv far more complex
than i’m making
them seem, as is
this whole topic
(and i’m not
even addressing
their politics);
i’m attempting to
essentialize here;
i considered deep diving,
but am refraining
for the sake of brevity
and also because i’m
kind of lazy

in any case, here are
some decent articles
related to this post;
go ahead and Google –
there’s plenty more:

“Jordan Peterson vs. Russell Brand”

“The religious hunger that drives Jordan Peterson’s fandom”

“Is Dr. Jordan Peterson A Gateway Drug to Christianity, Or Just A Highbrow Joel Osteen?”

here are two of my own,
also related:

“Get Re-Enchanted: Stranger Things 2, Pop Culture & God”

“What IT Means (and How *Any* Good Story “Means”)”

problematizing

but here’s the problem:
as much as i *love*
Peterson and Brand’s
respective approaches
to the significance
of the spiritual,
i *fear* that
neither approaches
*truth* sufficiently

what do i mean?

well, with Brand,
the issue appears to be
lack of specificity –
many manifestations
of spirituality
might address the
problems he sees
(note that his book
is based on the 12-steps,
which speaks of “God,
as we understand him”)

and while this is
well and good to a point,
of course,
in the end,
truth commonly understood
is *specific* and *exclusive*
by its nature,
and not addressing this,
it seems to me,
is a problem

for Peterson,
the issue is confusing
*truth*
with something like
“what works”

he tells us to live by a
certain ethic
and seek a certain meaning
grounded in
certain Jungian archetypes,
not because it is true
or because the
archetypes are –
at least not in
the usual
historical/correspondence
way generally meant –
but because it
just happens to reflect
how things have gone
re: humans
when it comes to
our psychology
from an
evolutionary perspective;
it is what is and
therefore what “works”
and therefore “true”

again, all well and good
to attach some
functionality to truth,
of course,
perhaps,
but conflating the two,
it seems to me,
is a problem

also, this is why
Peterson kind of
dodges/ducks/complicates
the question he’s
often asked:
“do you believe in God;”
he may or may not,
but he definitely
does not think of
that question primarily
as it relates to *truth*
commonly understood

finning

and so:
when it comes to
Peterson and Brand,
i love them,
but i also fear them

i find them both
engaging and articulate
and brilliant, etc.,
and *correct;*
but, concerningly,
on this point,
only to a point

i want people to
hear their message(s) –
i know good can come
of it –
but i fear ill may too

i see them as
important,
*prophetic* even
in this current moment –
both have
cut through the mix
in a way that’s so
unusual anymore,
given the noise –
but probably only
“part way down the path”
to the true destination
they both seem to
have glimpsed
(or, better,
which has glimpsed them):

not God
“as we understand him,”
not a “God” that
simply works,
but the *true* God

the true God
as He really is

 

4.17 Mercy, Madness and Everything Else in AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR

by Leave a Comment

As one of the biggest films in box office history, Avengers: Infinity War has definitely left its mark on pop culture but the real story of the film is its surprisingly engaging villain. In Thanos, Marvel has created one of its most compelling characters, maintaining intelligence with equal levels of insanity. As his power grows, so too does his brutality as creates disasters of Biblical proportions with a snap of his fingers. But, is there a method to the Mad Titan? Does he really believe himself to be God-like in power or is his legacy more noble than we realize? This week, Greg Banik stops by to speak with Steve about mercy, madness and everything in between.

Want to continue to conversation at home?  Click the link below to download ‘Fishing for More’ — some small group questions for you to bring to those in your area.

4.17 Avengers Infinity War

Thanks Greg for joining us!

The Ready Player One “Easter Egg” That Bypasses the Backlash

by Leave a Comment

this quick post plays
through three short stages

the third contains
the Easter egg

all three potentially
contain SPOILERS


Stage One: “Microreview”

if you haven’t seen Ready Player One
(or read Cline’s book),
you really should;
particularly if you’re the
target demo:
a “nerd,” “geek,”
pop culture afficionado
of a certain stripe
(70s-80s gaming, sci-fi, etc.)
(more on this later)

but even if you’re not
the target demo du jour,
you should still see it,
cuz it’s a fun,
eminently Spielbergian,
bombastic popcorn flick
(tho, prepare to
suspend plenty disbelief
and prepare to groan
at the too-neat ending)


Stage Two: “Context”

if you’ve seen this movie already –
more certainly if you’ve
read the book,
have this kind of thing
on your radar, etc. –
you may have a sense of the
Ready Player One backlash
that’s been afoot:

e.g. 1: Steven Spielberg’s Oblivious, Chilling Pop-Culture Nostalgia in “Ready Player One”

e.g. 2: The Ready Player One backlash, explained

(those two pieces are helpful
primers and there are others)

the gists of the criticisms
have to do with
Cline, Spielberg, or both
succumbing to certain
negatives of nostalgia and some
nasty exclusivity concerning
particular pet passions
(this involves something
called “Gamergate”)

i think there’s obv
plenty valid points here,
but delving in fully
is beyond this post

(for some
thoughts on nostalgia, see my
good, bad, ugly: nostalgia edition)

(for some
thoughts on how groups
(like gamers)
crave things like
ownership, community, etc. –
relevant to them
playing out negatively
re: Gamergate – see my
a pop invite to the church)


Stage Three: “Spiritual < Spiritual”

while in general i agree with
Rob Bell that
“everything is spiritual,”
i think some
desires
(longings,
hungers,
senses of privation,
experiences of lack,
problems,
issues,
whatever)
are more clearly so

in this instance, by “spiritual”
i mean something like
“essential to our being
as humans;”
i also mean something like
what’s at play here:

“If I find in myself desires which nothing in this world can satisfy, the only logical explanation is that I was made for another world.” ~ C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

here, in other words,
spiritual = supernatural

and HERE is where we discover
the titular EASTER EGG –
the “secret” that “saves”
Ready Player One
from some potential negatives
brought up in Stage Two….

Ready Player One, really,
is about these spiritual/supernatural
longings/desires;
specifically, i see
The OASIS
(the movie’s VR game world)
as a proxy for
desires for
things like:
love, belonging, community,
escape, freedom, victory,
meaning, enjoyment, passion

Ready Player One
says this about people:
people need
love/meaning/etc.
and they’ll do
whatever it takes
to get it
(including create
fictional worlds where they do)

but now notice how
Ready Player One‘s
counterintuitively anti-gaming ending –
when we’re told something like
“the real world is what’s real” –
also says this about people:
real (read: spiritual) problems require
real (read: spiritual) solutions,
and *bigger* ones, too

in other words: spiritual < spiritual

it may seem like The OASIS
can give Wade (the main character)
what he needs,
but nah: he needs Samantha (the girl)
irl for that;
in this same way,
our ultimately
spiritual/supernatural
desires for
love/meaning/etc.
must be “solved” by something/someone
ultimately
spiritual/supernatural –
and *bigger –
too

and,
to me,
with this Easter egg
of perspective in hand,
Ready Player One –
though imperfect –
communicates something
very valid,
very real
about being a human

(for some
thoughts on how
humans often
sneak these kinds of
Easter eggs
into pop culture, see
what it means that you like things that are like other things that you like
and
Get Re-Enchanted: Stranger Things 2, Pop Culture & God)

 

 

Sorry, Ricky Gervais: Humanity Still Needs a Cure

by Leave a Comment

i genuinely dig
Ricky Gervais plenty,
and i’m thankful for
The Office,
like, for sure

i appreciate his
iconoclastic approach
to comedy;
i relate to his atheism,
tho i’m not an atheist myself,
as you’ll gather below

however,
i noticed him make a move
in his recent Netflix comedy special,
Ricky Gervais: Humanity,
that i’d like to call into question,
because it raises a
significant issue
for someone like Gervais

(Ricky, i hope you’ll appreciate this;
you seem to appreciate
close thinking,
or at least attempts at it 🙂 )

last year around this time,
Netflix was
releasing a slew
of comedy specials;
at that time, i posted
“comedy needs Crashing”

in it, i noted:

…a certain “typical”
comedic perspective –
generally hilarious,
of course,
but also
sardonic, cynical,
melancholic and
world-worn and weary,
endlessly observational
when it comes to
finding problems,
but seldom (apparently)
when it comes to
actually addressing them,
actually living with them
in the day-to-day
(other than offering
its own oddly biblical
and plenty true
pseudo-spiritual
prescription of
“just laugh through it”)

i submit that Gervais
affects this perspective
in Ricky Gervais: Humanity
*to the letter,*
almost as if he’d
read what i wrote

he even chooses to
end the special –
having already advertised,
importantly,
his own atheism,
as he’s wont to do –
with his own version
of the prescription:
“just laugh through it”

in other words,
how does Gervais
suggest we approach
(obv universally rough) life
in this Godless universe?

“just laugh through it”

*this* is the move i want to
call into question

first let me say again:
i agree with this suggestion;
it can be, in fact,
found in the Bible
(Proverbs 17:22, e.g.)
and other religious traditions

but here’s the thing:
in the Bible,
such a prescription is
clearly but a palliative –
something to help you through,
but not something
that ultimately cures
any ultimate issue

for,
importantly,
in the Bible,
there is an ultimate issue,
and more importantly,
there is an ultimate cure

and so this is the part where Gervais –
where any atheist –
encounters a problem;
here’s the rub:
either there isn’t really
an ultimate issue to cure,
or there is an ultimate issue,
but no ultimate cure

either the way things are
in this Godless universe
seem wrong –
like something that
could be,
should be “fixed” –
but they’re really not
(because “wrongness”
isn’t really a thing);
or they really are wrong
(whatever that could
even mean sans God),
but there’s nothing
and no one “ultimate” enough
(no God)
to ultimately do
anything about it

to me, tbh,
neither of these
really seems okay

to me, tbh,
neither of these
really seems to
match up with
our experiences, our intuitions,
our wisdom about the world

and so,
to me, tbh,
a palliative like
“laugh through it” –
nice and true
and helpful as it may be –
is just not enough
once we’ve dismissed
the possibility that
something is really wrong
and
something can
really be done about it

in other words,
it’s just not enough,
once we’ve dismissed God

\\\

so…
calling into question complete…
where one goes from here, of course,
is up to that one

thanks for the laughs, Ricky –
humanity is certainly a
fertile topic for it

here’s to hoping for
options kept open 🙂

 

 

Get Re-Enchanted: Stranger Things 2, Pop Culture & God

by Leave a Comment


i am
*so* psyched
for Stranger Things 2

like, *psyched* psyched

i want more mystery,
more stylish 80s homage,
more dope soundtrack,
way more Eleven;
i want #justiceforbarb,
Eggos ate raw,
Winona Ryder everything,
coffee and contemplation

honestly, who can deny
that the whole
Stranger Things thing –
like much of what
it lovingly calls back to –
is one of those
oh so pleasant
serendipitous revelations;
one of those things where,
now that it’s happened,
you can no longer imagine
the pop landscape
without it

however,
(serendipity be damned),
why?

why such a strong reaction
to Stranger Things,
by so many,
seemingly
“out of nowhere”
?

i thought
Alissa Wilkinson
(in a Christianity Today
article called
“How ‘Stranger Things’
Re-Enchants the World”)
was onto an answer:

In a modern world—where science can explain everything from depression to deja vu to the Aurora Borealis… even religious folk yearn for a re-enchanted world, one where fairies, or demons, or other intelligences exist just beyond what we can see.

What we’re after is joy—the serendipity of discovery, the thrill of mystery, the feeling of excitement lurking around the corner…

Our desire for magic doesn’t let up… art still seems best poised to capture that magic. Stranger Things is just the latest version of this yearning…

agreed for sure:
part of the draw,
the allure
of Stranger Things,
is that it sort of
re-imbues the world
with a magic,
a mystery,
an enchantment;
Stranger Things
takes the “regular world”
and adds the “upside down” –
takes plain old “things”
and makes them “stranger”
(again)

so is that it?
Stranger Things
speaks to us so
cuz it’s a reminder that
“there’s more to things
than meets the eye”
?
and cuz the experience
of that is… fun?

no, that’s not (just) it

as Wilkinson notes,
the show is
“the latest version
of this yearning
[for magic];”
Stranger Things is also
powerful precisely
because it participates
in this long line of
pop culture manifestations
of a specific
human yearning

what yearning,
specifically?

a yearning not only for magic –
read: the supernatural –
but for a universe
*built* with and on magic;
a magical universe
that not only
brings “joy,”
but makes possible
an explanatory
and existential
completeness
that an un-strange,
mundane,
materialistic,
naturalistic universe of
pure scientism
actually *cannot*

a yearning, in other words,
for a universe of meaning

what meaning?

literally *any* meaning

for in an un-strange,
mundane,
materialistic,
naturalistic universe of
pure scientism,
science is the only
game in town;
but though science excels
at explaining the “how”
of things,
it is exceedingly bad
at explaining the “why;”
in fact, science
does not,
*cannot*
speak the language of “why”
at all, and therefore
cannot lend meaning
in the sense we mean

you need things to be a bit…
stranger…
for that kind of meaning;
you need a magic universe
of possibilities
for that kind of meaning;
for that kind of meaning,
you need
a universe with a God

once you have that,
magic and the
possibility of
knowing the
“why” of things
reappear,
along with all
our dearest, deepest meanings –
good is better than evil,
love defeats hate,
sacrifice overcomes greed –
the narratives
we inescapably spin
to demonstrate
those meanings,
and the pop avatars
we create to animate
those narratives…
Stranger Things,
thankfully,
awesomely,
 among them

(for some related
ideas about narratives,
see “What IT Means
(and How *Any* Good Story ‘Means’)”)

What IT Means (and How *Any* Good Story “Means”)

by Leave a Comment

this thing you’re reading
is going to have
zero jump scares in
three expedient little parts:

1. a micro-review of the
2017 movie IT

2. mini-musing on the
meaning of IT

3. more mini-musing on
how *any* good story
“means” in a similar way

so, here we go…

IT Reviewed

you know what IT was?

super good, i thought

it made great use of
the superb,
monstrously mineable
source novel
(by the by-now-legendary
Stephen King);
captured that novel’s
unique blend of
coming-of-age story
and horror story
(thankfully ditching
the adults for now,
nailing the terrifying
scary/funny of Pennywise);
masterfully employed
genre movie tropes;
was well cast,
well acted,
capitalized on
1980s nostalgia
(no small thanks to
Stranger Things);
heck, it was even
timed and marketed
nearly perfectly

was it perfect?
nah.
imo there were
some pacing quibbles,
some moments where
i was taken out
the moment,
etc., (i could go on),
but, bottom line,
IT is excellent,
and especially if
you’re already a
fan of the story,
seeing it’s a no-brainer

IT Dissected

but what does IT mean?

the beauty here is:
most people already know,
or have a sense of it,
anyway;
the movie even does
(what i’d call a
too-heavy-handed)
bit of service here, having
Pennywise literally speak
his symbolism aloud –
“FEAR” –
as he is dispatched
(for now)
by “the losers”

and what defeats
Pennywise/FEAR?
something like
courage through
togetherness,
something like
love –
the central image of
the signed cast
with “loser”
made into “lover”
becoming a sort-of
stand-in for the point of
whole damn thing

(reminding people
familiar with scripture,
maybe,
of lines like
“perfect love casts out
all fear;”
prompting questions,
perhaps,
like:
how are the losers
like the church?)

but tbh, to me,
these meanings are
pretty clear,
pretty obv;
they are, tbh,
too big to miss

i don’t disagree with them,
of course,
but i found myself watching,
remembering the book,
and wanting to take time
to unpack some of IT‘s
knottier themes –
how does sexuality tie in?
cuz it seems to;
how do the kids’ parents?
they seem to;
what about race and
identity and history and
how they’re related?
does King mean to say
that growing up and
fear are inextricable?
(the book, of course,
provides plenty
more fodder for
these kinds of questions)

however, i promised
mini-musing only
and zero jump scares,
and so these peripherals,
uberrelated tho they be,
aren’t for here/now

besides,
IT is a good story,
at least partly,
because
its themes
and meanings –
losers become lovers,
evil dies to good –
operate at this totemic,
mythically big
and primal
level of largeness

which gets us to…

IT Related

finally,
i want to say
something like:
all good stories
(like IT) –
inevitably,
when dug at
deeply enough –
will have a
thematic bigness
like i’ve just described;
and it’s this bigness,
at least partly,
that makes us
see them as good
and which allows them to
“mean”
for us in such a
consistent,
seemingly ever-present
and popular-to-the-
point-of-compulsive
way

if i were being
Jungian or Campbellian,
i might say:
all good stories
are variations of
the monomyth

if i were being Christian,
which i am,
i would say:
all good stories are
reverberating echoes –
forward and backward
through time –
of the true story
of the universe…
the one where
good defeats evil
through love…
the one about Jesus

C.S. Lewis,
in The Voyage of
the Dawn Treader,
said it like this:

On the next page she came to a spell ‘for the refreshment of the spirit.’ The pictures were fewer here but very beautiful. And what Lucy found herself reading was more like a story than a spell. It went on for three pages and before she had read to the bottom of the page she had forgotten that she was reading at all. She was living in the story as if it were real, and all the pictures were real too. When she had got to the third page and come to the end, she said, “That is the loveliest story I’ve ever read or ever shall read in my whole life. Oh, I wish I could have gone on reading it for ten years. At least I’ll read it over again.”

But here part of the magic of the Book came into play. You couldn’t turn back. The right-hand pages, the ones ahead, could be turned; the left-hand pages could not.

“Oh, what a shame!” said Lucy. “I did so want to read it again. Well, at least I must remember it. Let’s see . . . it was about . . . about . . . oh dear, it’s all fading away again.

And even this last page is going blank. This is a very queer book. How can I have forgotten? It was about a cup and a sword and a tree and a green hill, I know that much. But I can’t remember and what shall I do?”

And she never could remember; and ever since that day what Lucy means by a good story is a story which reminds her of the forgotten story in the Magician’s Book.

so,
do you have
a sense
that you know –
very, very deeply
in your heart,
though you can’t
fully explain it –
a magic story?
a story that
is the best thing ever?
so much so that
every other good story
reminds you of it?

a sense that

There’s a song that’s inside of my soul.
It’s the one that I’ve tried to write over and over again.
I’m awake in the infinite cold,
But You sing to me over and over again.

in the words of
“Only Hope”
by Switchfoot?

a sense that,
for example,
when Pennywise loses,
you somehow win,
because there’s
something afoot there
that’s more than
just that story?
that there’s
something afoot there
that’s story itself –
a story you’re
actually a part of?

maybe?

take a moment
to consider…

yes? no?

maybe not.

maybe i took
The Neverending Story
too seriously.

but, then again,
maybe that’s just
another good example
of exactly 
what i’m talking about

and maybe –
oh, so hopefully –
maybe now,
you might
at least
consider
seeing it so too

don’t be scared…
try it

Of Course All These Alt-Right Racists Are Wrong, but Why?

by 1 Comment

you’re likely upset about
what happened in Charlottesville

maybe you’ve talked about it,
maybe took  some kind of
social media stance,
maybe just sort of saddened inside

it’s probably super obvious to you
that all these alt-right racists are wrong,
that racism is wrong
(“evil” as Trump (finally) put it),
has always been wrong,
that we should do something about it

fair enough,
understandable enough
(of course i agree)

but have you asked yourself
why?
not why you feel as you do,
or why racism seems so clearly wrong,
but actually
why is racism wrong?
what makes it wrong?
put another way,
how do we know it’s wrong or
are we justified in saying it’s wrong?

i mean . . .

is it wrong cuz it seems wrong?
(but unfortunately it doesn’t seem wrong to everyone)

is it wrong cuz everyone agrees it’s wrong?
(but unfortunately they don’t)

is it wrong cuz it’s not “fair?”
(what’s “fair” mean?
who defines it?
who says everything is
or should be “fair?”)

is it wrong cuz you wouldn’t want someone
to be racist to you,
so you shouldn’t be racist to someone else?
(wait, what makes this line of thinking
the line of thinking?
is there some other similar line of thinking
that applies certainly?)

is it wrong cuz humans (or Americans)
all “deserve” “dignity” “equally?”
(again: problems abound)

maybe you think racism is
self-evidently wrong
and that saying so
requires no justification at all
(but is it possible the alt-right racists
feel they’re self-evidently right?

can science prove racism is wrong?
(or could a solely Darwinian/naturalistic understanding
of eugenics in fact be used to support racism?
has it been? is it currently being?)

(we could go on)

what i’m saying is this:
none of these lines of thinking can
truly justify the claim that
racism is wrong;
further,
none of these lines of thinking can
justify the claim that
anything is wrong (or right)
in general

further,
there is but one line of thinking, in fact,
that can truly ground these kinds of moral claims,
and it’s the one where
we know, cuz God;
where things are wrong (or right),
in general,
cuz God

and so, further,
as a consequence,
making moral claims sans God,
ultimately,
is making ungrounded,
unjustified claims

so,
to circle back,
of course all these alt-right racists are wrong,
but why?
why is racism wrong?
what makes it wrong?
what right do we have to feel and think it’s wrong?
what justifies us when we say it’s wrong?
. . .
cuz God says so

(now, exactly how we know he says so,
how and where he does so,
what reason we have for thinking so,
what to do in response,
how to deal with the fact that
we continue to make horrible errors
even given all of this, etc. etc. . . .
those are (excellent) questions
for another time)

[For some awesome unpacking of these ideas that I stumbled upon recently through the Unbelievable? podcast (which you should totally subscribe to), check out “The Most Important Thing This French Atheist Taught Me About Christianity.” 

This article doesn’t necessarily make what’s called “the moral argument for God” – as I have above – but it does specifically look at philosopher (and atheist) Luc Ferry to trace our western ideal of human equality back to Christianity itself. As Ferry puts it:

. . . the Greek world is an aristocratic world, one which rests entirely upon the conviction that there exists a natural hierarchy…of plants, of animals, but also of men: some men are born to command, others to obey, which is why Greek political life accommodates itself easily to the notion of slavery.

In direct contradiction, Christianity was to introduce the notion that humanity was fundamentally identical, that men were equal in dignity – an unprecedented idea at the time, and one to which our world owes its entire democratic inheritance.

This [idea of human equality] may seem self-evident, but it was literally unheard-of at the time, and it turned an entire world-order upside down.

Given recent events in our country, it seems like a good time to remember that – just as much racism is culturally inherited – much of our outrage against racism is culturally inherited too, insofar as our culture is still “Christian.” However, we can intentionally choose these values and be justified in doing so, as described above.]