The morality of 'Game of Thrones'

Hello my dear reader?

Have you seen 'Game of Thrones'? I have. However, I have not read the books so I have no opinion regarding how the series compares to the books; I am planning to read those later.

In his article Can a Christian watch 'Game of Thrones'?, David Gibson explores different points of views regarding this question. He says that the appeal of the series seems bound up in the senseless violence and amoral machinations – not to mention the free-wheeling sex – that the writers use to dramatize this brutish world of shifting alliances and dalliances. He also adds that for some, the most damning aspect of “Game of Thrones” may be the way that it subverts the work that it most closely tracks: J.R.R. Tolkien’s “The Lord of the Rings” saga that’s beloved by so many contemporary Christians.
I found that second point very puzzling because I was not expecting a Tolkien type of world, and in fact many 'contemporary Christians' that I know also never expected anything similar.

He quotes Jesuit priest Rev. Jim McDermott, who said that the series finds unlikely heroes among “the shattered, the shunned and the disregarded.” and that "salvation is not the purview of some elect, nor does grace inherently reside in a crown...As with horror, so hope springs from the most unexpected of quarters.”

What do you think of the series?

Evangelical pastors...and their "smokin' hot wives"?

Hello my dear reader,

Have you heard about this? Zach J. Hoag talks about the current obsession among evangelical pastors/leaders with talking/tweeting endlessly about their "smokin' hot wives" and how he himself used to be part of this trend: 

Recently, I saw one megachurch pastor post a photo of his wife on Instagram with a caption from Proverbs 31 (I know, surprise surprise). Part of it took some, ahem, liberties with the text: "herleather pants are like water to her husband's soul." This particular fellow is known for free and frequent hot wife posts, including one photo of the couple with a room full of new church members where he commented that despite his joy at meeting such great new people, he was really just staring at his wife's (no doubt leather-clad) butt. 

He opens up regarding the time when he spoke to his wife about this:

And worse, even as they go on and on about the hotness of their spouse, they are demeaning her.

When I asked my wife how that kind of thing made her feel when I was half-heartedly trying to be one of the guys, that's the word she used.

Demeaning.

Marriage, words, dinghys, and talking lions

Marriage.

Some think of it as religious, some as civil, some as both. When some say marriage can be treated in strictly secular terms, a usual counter-argument from some of my Christian conservative brothers and sisters is that this cannot be done; that once you take away the religious aspect out of marriage, then it is no longer marriage, and/or you cannot call it 'marriage'. This reminds me of this great phrase by Ludwig Wittgenstein: ...if a lion could speak, we could not understand him. Wait, what? Well, there are many ways to analyse this phrase but this is why I bring it up: what are 'words' and what is 'language'? 

Here is an example: think of the word 'happiness'. Alright, now: define happiness. Or, here is another: God. That's right, go ahead: define 'God'. Yes, indeed. For those of us in the Christian tradition we have many words, terms, and definitions about 'God' for over 2,000 years. 

So, back to the word in question: 'marriage'. Tony Jones writes about it in the following way, particularly how the word and the meaning of the word has change, regardless of arguments to the contrary that claim that marriage has just one definition that has never changed:

--

On a flight last week, I sat next to a conservative Pentecostal pastor. We talked about demons and miraculous healings. And, probably to the consternation of those around us, argued vociferously about “marriage.” He was, like so many conservative evangelicals these days, in favor of civil unions for GLBT persons. But not “marriage.” No, “marriage” is something totally different, he told me.

Of course, he’s wrong. “Marriage” is nothing more than a word, composed of an assortment of letter — symbols with correlated vocal sounds. The definition of that word has changed since it was first used in English, and it changed over time in the many other languages that preceded English.

--

He then quotes linguist Geoff Nunberg, from NPR’s Fresh Air when he noted that Lexicographers know they're on the hot seat as they confront the changing uses of the word 'marriage' and presents the example of the word 'love':

Until just a couple of years ago, the Oxford English Dictionary defined the romantic sense of "love" as "[a] feeling of attachment ... based upon difference of sex." But the English language has never precluded describing a romantic attachment between two men or two women as love. It's just that those relationships were officially invisible to the OED's Victorian compilers. And other definitions would have led you to conclude that only men could have girlfriends or pay court to someone. In fact, the OED still defines a "couple" as "a man and a woman united by love or marriage." No doubt they'll get around to replacing "a man and a woman" with "two persons" — not because "couple" has a new meaning, but because we can finally see what was really basic to the old one.

As I sail the fun/scary waters of Theology, Biblical Hermeneutics, Philosophy, Ethics, etc I believe that people will continue to agree/disagree/agree for years to come on this issue; I am only a newcomer to these waters and at best I can still only handle a dinghy ha ha. But one thing is certain: words as symbols (and the meaning that these symbols point to) will continue to challenge us and will continue to change, including the word 'marriage'.

I wonder what a lion would say about marriage....