ScreenFish

where faith and film are intertwined

religion

What’s the Deal With 2020? Hamilton, Cancel Culture & Legacy

by Leave a Comment

your sunday drive podcast

2020 is nuts. Pandemic. Polarization. Social upheaval. The election. We try to put our arms around where the year is and where it might head next, seeking how we might respond from a Christian perspective.

Everyone is talking Hamilton (again). We discuss this cultural juggernaut in terms of its artistic value, how it relates to our current climate, what it says about legacy, and more.

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

“New Normal:” What Happens After the Pandemic?

by Leave a Comment

your sunday drive podcast

❓❗️ Are you starting to wonder how things will be different after the pandemic? So are we 🙂

In this special Zoom episode of the Your Sunday Drive podcast, we ask “What happens after the pandemic?” What will the “new normal” be? How will our lives, work and world be different? Most importantly, what good can come from this dark time?  

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

Islam and the Future of Tolerance

by Leave a Comment

Image result for islam and the future of tolerance the movie

An atheist and a former Islamist extremist walk in to a bar…

Joking aside.

Image result for sam harris

Sam Harris is a known atheist and the author of The End of Faith, among many others. The End of Faith was Sam’s immediate reaction to the events of 9/11, and includes numerous references to Islam. To roughly quote Sam, he believes that the conventional dogmatism and divisiveness of religion is more tragic than the view of most of the average atheists, who think its a combination of fraud and delusion and it doesn’t need to be paid attention to.

Image result for maajid nawaz

Maajid Nawaz is a former Islamist extremist turned liberal activist and author. Maajid was raised in England and was recruited into one of the first groups to popularize the idea that Muslims needed to form a global caliphate.

When these two extremely well-spoken and educated men, who have exceptionally different pasts and views on religion, sit down to a conversation, what would one expect? Quite a heated debate, to say the least. But what comes from it is an extremely important lesson on a group of individuals that are deeply discriminated against based on one small sect of their religion.

Some of the questions that are debated include if, textually, Islam is a religion of peace. Are Muslims violent people or do these violent actions stem from a particular interpretation of scripture in the Quran?

The film makes an interesting point that agreeing to disagree on such important and catastrophic issues isn’t just a cop-out, but it’s actually incredible dangerous. The topics of human freedom and life and death are not something we can agree to disagree on.

A fair portion of this documentary is dedicated to Maajid’s background story including what brought him to join a Islamist extremist group. As a boy, Maajid was physically attack for his colour. During his teen years he was exposed to racism running rampant around the world. At 16, he was recruited into a group of Islamists, Hizb ut-Tahrir. It is absolutely fascinating to hear Maajid discuss his time in Hizb ut-Tahrir.

One of the most interesting portions of this documentary, and the part that I think everyone needs to hear, is the difference between conservative Muslims, Islamists and Jihadists. Every Islamist is a Muslim but not ever Muslim is an Islamist. In fact, the majority are not. Similar to other religions, not all of the people that follow a certain religion are radical. Maajid makes a comparison with the “Bible Belt” in America. Not all Christians are fanatical (like the KKK for example), just as not all Muslims are fanatical like Islamists and Jihadists are.

During the film there are clips interspersed between the conversation of someone walking a tightrope. I thought this was a spot-on metaphor for the way people can feel and act when discussing religion. It’s become so passe, and perhaps even formidable. When if fact, if we were to treat the discussion of religion like a lesson as opposed to being resistant to it, we might find we understand people a lot more. As it says in this documentary, this conversation is not about proving you’re right. It says that conversation is the key! Without the conversation, we become more and more entrenched in our views.

Islam-Profile-Sam.jpg

Islam-Profile-Maajid.jpg

Interestingly, during the first half of the film, Sam is being interviewed in a bright white room, wearing light colored clothing. Maajid, on the other hand, is placed in a dark dungeon-like space. As we progress, they are interviewed in front of the same background. And at the very end, during the credits, we see them finally face to face, sitting at a table having conversation. I don’t know how much intention went into this, but it really speaks to the vast differences between these two men and perhaps the initial stereotypes one may have. It was refreshing to see the progression. The swallowing of pride, so to speak, when these men could finally understand and respect each other.

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

 

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 🙂

 

 

comedy needs Crashing

by 5 Comments


now, if you’ve
Netflix, you’ve
noticed a
number of
new stand-up specials
nestling about the
new releases

i do and have,
and dig the comedy,
and so recently dug
Chappelle, Louis C.K.,
Jo Koy, Amy Schumer;
got eyes on others

i also dig on
Pete Holmes,
and so dug
season one
of Crashing on HBO,
which is
Judd Apatow produced,
and stars comic
Pete Holmes
as himself –
a person,
not incidentally
to the show,
who happens to have
some semblance
of oh-so-quaint
Christian faith

and this is
just
it:

the confluence of
Holmes’ perspective
and 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”) –
just *struck* me

now it strikes me:
“confluence” isn’t even
the right word;
something like
“incongruence”
is better;
something like
“juxtaposition”

it’s the dissimilarity
that struck me
between, e.g.,
a Louis C.K. –
who, no matter how
much i love him,
comes off, sadly, like a
man miserable
because he’s
smart enough
to see the world
as it is, but
faithless to the
point of having
no recourse
but misery –
and a Holmes,
with all his
boy-in-the-big-city
optimism, his
bright-eyed hopefulness,
his faith that
may not be perfect
or make everything perfect,
and which will
probably understandably
evolve over the series, as it
apparently understandably
has over his actual life,
but which nevertheless
addresses the day-to-day,
affects it, affects him,
affects those around him,
rousing responses of
“D’awww, you’re a
‘God person!'”
as Sarah Silverman quips
in a stand-out episode

and now it strikes me:
“struck me” isn’t even
the right way to say it

it doesn’t just “strike me,”
this incongruence,
it makes me long for
the world –
that of stand-up comics
and the rest of us –
to also see and notice
this incongruence
and conclude:
faith is still a live option

it is an option
that real people
still actually choose,
and when they do,
it actually affects things

when they do,
they still may
laugh through tears
with the comics,
as we all unfortunately
must in this world,
but as they do,
they do so with
the ultimate end to tears
in mind –
the ultimate end
which those without faith
do not,
unfortunately
cannot see

[SPOILER]
at the end of
season one of Crashing,
comedian Artie Lange
dives into a baptismal pool
(it’s a whole thing
you’d have to watch to get)

all i’m saying is:
there are still
baptismal pools

there are still
baptismal pools,
and entering them
is still a thing that happens,
and when it does,
other things –
brighter things –
can also happen