I did not find this movie funny

Normally I only blog about movies I like and would recommend. Most of the movies I watch I do like because they have been well researched beforehand, usually by my son. Occasionally, I pick a dud. A few years ago I went through a bad patch and my family used to tease me about my poor selections.

Last night we watched In The Loop and I was quite disappointed. I thought a political satire could be insightful, if not slightly depressing. I was hoping for something like "Yes Minister". However, this just seemed a bit inane. I did not find the black humour very funny. Although, elements of it are believable, some of it is a stretch. Some of the swearing and workplace verbal abuse was tiresome. It is worrying that there may be people like this "running" countries and starting wars.

Who are we? Thinkers or lovers?

This month the theology reading group is discussing Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview, and Culture Formation by James K.A. Smith. The last chapter has a helpful summary of the main claims of the book. (p. 215-216)

First, we humans are liturgical animals, whose fundamental orientation to the world is governed not primarily by what we think but by what we love, what we desire… 

Second, some practices are 'thicker' than others – rituals of ultimate concern that are bent on shaping our most fundamental wants and desires, trying to make us the kind of people who desire a vision of the kingdom that is antithetical to the kingdom of God… 

Third, Christianity is not only (or even primarily) a set of cognitive, heady beliefs; Christianity not fundamentally a worldview; rather, Christian practices, and particularly the practices of Christian worship, are the matrix for what can be articulated as a 'Christian world.'" 

I think the book offers a valuable corrective to any overly intellectual approach to the Christian life. However, in doing this I feel Smith overstates his case (and keeps making the same point again and again...).  He seems to claim a universal anthropology with little room for a diversity of human personalities. To illustrate this let me consider two characteristic (somewhat extreme) personalities that one may encounter among the Christian university students Smith is concerned with.

John is a literature major. He chose his current church because of the lively worship service. He has never read the church doctrinal statement. He does not understand why some people get in arguments about doctrine. As long as we love one another and worship the Lord from our heart that is what matters. John often tunes out during the sermon. He does not find it engaging. His favourite books in the Bible are the Psalms and Revelation. He mostly reads Christian devotional books. He really enjoys the music and the social time after church. But he has had personal conflict with people on the music team at church.

Joan is a mathematics major. She chose her current church because the teaching was "biblical" and aligned with her personal beliefs. She does not particularly enjoy the music and finds some of the social time after church awkward. Her favourite book of the Bible is Romans. The Christian books she mostly reads are systematic theology or Bible commentaries. She has had personal conflict with her Bible study leader about some of his interpretations of specific passages.

Is the Multiverse scientific?

Here is an interview about the multiverse with my physics colleague Robert Mann. He is currently on sabbatical at UQ.
The interview is a prelude to a seminar, Puzzled by Particularity in 2 weeks at the Centre for the Study of Science, Religion, and Society at Emmanuel College, UQ.
Robert has a chapter on the subject in a new book on God and the Multiverse.

Christianity for bobble heads

This month the theology reading group is discussing Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview, and Culture Formation by  James K.A. Smith.

Hopefully I will write more later when I have finished it.
In the meantime, I thought the following was appropriate and amusing!

"this rationalist picture was absorbed particularly by Protestant Christianity (whether liberal or conservative), which tends to operate with an overly cognitivist picture of the human person and thus tends to foster an overly intellectualist account of what it means to be or become a Christian.

It is just this adoption of a rationalist, congnitivist anthropology that accounts for the shape of so much Protestant worship as a heady affair fixated on "messages" that disseminate Christian ideas and abstract values (easily summarised on PowerPoint slides). The result is a talking head version of Christianity that is fixated on doctrines and ideas, even if it is also paradoxically allied with a certain kind of anti-intellectualism. 

We could describe this as 'bobble head' Christianity, so fixated on the cognitive that it assumes a picture of human beings that look like bobble heads: mammoth heads that dwarf an almost nonexistent body." (pgs. 41-42)

Troubled by inequality

My wife and I finally watched the documentary Inequality for all, featuring Berkeley economist Robert Reich. I highly recommend it. It is a bit depressing but the issue is not one that can be ignored.  The movie does a nice job presenting the issue in an engaging and at times humorous manner. Although it focuses solely on the case of the USA, the issues are increasingly relevant in the rest of the world.

Why does economic inequality matter? After all don't those CEOs deserve their high salaries and tax breaks because they do such a good job creating wealth and jobs for others? Isn't inequality a necessary and even good consequence of capitalism?
Well no, it is all a matter of degree.
Furthermore, CEOs pay themselves more and more regardless of their companies performance. Jobs are not created by billionaires but rather by middle class consumers.
During the Eisenhower (Republican and former WWII general) Presidency the top marginal tax rate was 91% !! Now it is like 35%.

But, the biggest problem with extreme inequality is the negative implications for democracy and for political and social instability (Remember the French revolution).
The top 1% increasingly use their wealth to influence the political process to preserve their vested interests and undermine democracy.

The movie focusses solely on the stagnating middle class. They increasingly struggle to just make ends meet: two incomes, longer hours, second jobs, and increasing debt...
Yet, my biggest concern is actually the bottom 25%.
They are voiceless and their prospects for the future are even bleaker.
Someone needs to make an engaging documentary highlighting their plight.