It's been a very grey winter so far in Melbourne, what with the rain, cold, and the swine flu... there's really not much one can do apart from rugging up with a good book, and trying to stay warm.
Yes, I'm still working my way through
Burr. No, I'm not that slow a reader - I fear, however, that I am slowly losing my interest in the man, given that he's already shot Hamilton, and there's still another 300-odd pages to go... it feels like there's no end in sight!
But hey, if you're hanging out for that book review, I promise I'll write it up as soon as I am finished with the novel. In the meantime, I plan on visiting a couple of my favourite second-hand book stores and spending a number of lazy Thursday afternoons in there...
I've also been able to indulge in a number of blockbuster movies that have come out recently - the new
Terminator flick (too much Christian Bale posturing),
Star Trek (very good, and not just for closet Trekkies),
State of Play (big fan of Russell Crowe, not so much of Ben Affleck, and Rachel McAdams reminds me alot of Alethea!), and the
Wolverine movie (Hugh Jackman is good, the plot isn't).
Surprisingly, the movie that I have enjoyed the most this winter has been
Angels and Demons - yeah, that Dan Brown movie. OK, so I know that the
Da Vinci Code was one painfully long history snorefest (and this from a history graduate!), and that Tom Hanks isn't the most charismatic lead going around, and that
Angels has pretty much been universally panned by critics... but what the heck... Ewan McGregor puts in a brilliant, and totally underrated, performance as the Camerlengo.
I also managed to watch
Gran Torino on DVD a couple of nights ago, which I really enjoyed ("all my Hmong homies out there, put your hands up! put your hands up!") - and to me, Christopher Carley really made me sit up and take notice of his character (Father Janovich).
Both movies really made me think of the contrast between the depiction of Ewan McGregor's character, and that of Chris Carley's; between the Camerlengo who was articulate, smart, passionate about serving and protecting the Church, idealistic, and full of fervour, and a seminary graduate priest, who believed more in living than in speaking, and was presented as shallow, naive and largely out of touch with reality - but who still somehow managed to connect with his parish (and Walt Kowalski). It's interesting that the directors in each case have pitched each character as being ineffectual, misguided but yet sincere in their efforts to present the Gospel as best as they both knew how.
I think that Christians do tend to fluctuate between both extremes; sometimes we are singularly articulate, smart, driven and passionate, and yet at other times, as a body of believers, we are clumsy, naive, out of touch with reality, and misguided. It's as though we've been taught that there are only two alternatives in presenting the Gospel; either to be driven, passionate, and idealistic, just like the Camerlengo (and let's be honest, until the very final twist at the end, most of us Christians who watched the movie probably thought he was a shining example of everything a Christian should be), or, like Father Janovich, to be the quiet, undemonstrative, St Francisian-style Christian.
Somehow, a belief has developed to hammer the thought into our collective conscience that if we fail to flow into either 'style', we're not doing an effective job in promoting God, the Church, and/or the Gospel.
It makes me wonder; what type of Christian would Jesus rather have promoting His Church? Would He prefer one type over the other, or does He really care? Is there, perhaps, a third way - a compromise where we are able to live as real 'human' Christ-followers, acknowledging His complete divinity, whilst at the same time pitching the Gospel at a level that is relevant to our fellow human beings?
I'm not sure. Maybe I've gotten it wrong; perhaps, as so many Christians seem to think, the archetype of the perfect Christian is found in one of the two stereotypes presented by Clint Eastwood and Ron Howard. I do know this, however; I'd rather find my archetype in the person of Jesus Christ, than in any book, televangelist or movie that tells me how to act, think and perform as a Christian, or how to 'live that driven life'.
I guess my point to all this seemingly pointless rambling is that if we do not take much notice of the motives, and the reasons, behind why we present ourselves in the ways that we do as Christians to the world, we can quickly descend into caricature, and become irrelevant, regardless of what 'style' of Christian we see ourselves as.
Thus, it's a good thing, especially if we're serious about this whole Christ-following thing, to sometimes stop and ask ourselves 'why' (as in '
why are we passionate about what we believe in?'), instead of asking 'how' (as in '
how do we get others to believe in the same things that we do?') all the time.
:)
