Kat Reinholdt

On Thursday, August 30th, 2012 in place of Chapel, the Beutow Music Center Auditorium hosted Concordia's Festival of Beginnings. The festivities began with a processional called "A Mighty Fortress". This was followed by an invocation by Dr. Carter and by student leaders Liz Bartels and fellow honor student, Jordan Voges. With dialogue from Philippians and Psalms, the invocation dialogue was spoken. The Old Testament and the Gospel lessons were read to a new group of student leaders, new faculty, returning faculty, and returning students. Rachel Lindemann then sang a solo, beginning our Hymn, "Greet the Rising Sun". After the hymn, President Ries gave a homily and introduced the rite of induction. Next prayers, benediction, and dismissal were given. The festival ended with a recessional hymn, "O God, Our Help in Ages Past".

          The processional that began the festival's purpose was to give the ushers time to bring in the new student leaders, new faculty, and some returning faculty to their reserved seats. The invocation was read by Dr. Carter, the campus' chaplain, and by familiar students in order to make the dialogue more familiar while praising God. The lessons of the Old Testament and the Gospel were to remind all students and faculty of the Law and Gospel of Jesus Christ. The next hymn, "Greet the Rising Sun", served the purpose of introducing an inspirational view of beginning a new school year. The homily given by President Ries explained to the audience that people will seek God for both strength and refuge during the school year and he also related this to the book of the year, Picking Cotton. The rite of induction took place in order to introduce the new faculty and the new student leaders to the returning faculty and students. The prayers, benediction, and dismissal were to bless the audience and thank God. Finally the recessional hymn was a last segment of the festival in order to unite the audience. The organ postlude was so everyone could exit the Auditorium with the God in their hearts.

          I thoroughly enjoyed the Festival of Nations. It was a peaceful time to get together with fellow students to recognize who among us had been chosen as student leaders and to celebrate new faculty. The songs were beautiful and President Ries' homily was well spoken and heart touching. His words about us needing Christ throughout the year for both refuge and strength were very true and thought provoking. He also connected his message to the book of the year, sparking some interest in me to reading it sooner. This festival was a great way to have a service in which we, as a campus, celebrated Christ and inducted new student leaders and faculty. I left the auditorium with a skip in my step as I thought about the year ahead, knowing that I can count on Christ for both strength and refuge in my sophomore year at Concordia St. Paul.

         As the Zetas and both Dr. Schulers know, I am a movie fanatic. In reading this book, unChristian, I can't help but recall all of the movies I have seen that reflect negatively on religion, the church in particular. Many times, I don't believe we even notice the digs that are taken at religion in Hollywood because it happens so often. In fact, only one or two films stood out in my mind as having spoken ill of religion. Yet, as I spent more time thinking about all the films I have seen, I was able to add many more to the list. Among the movies I was able to make anti-religion connects to, I will write a little something here about Priest, Easy A, and The Devil Inside.

Priest, a science-fiction movie about vampires, takes place in an alternative world after a war has taken place between humans and vampires. The so-called "priests" are those who were born with fighting ability and whom were taught to fight the vampires in the fictional war. After the priests defeated the vampires, humans sought refuge from the church. Humans in this movie live in one of two places, either in "The Cities", which is a sealed area controlled by the church that has no sunlight, or they live as "outsiders". As Cam Gigandet's character puts it, those who don't live in "The Cities" are seen as "Godless Heathens and that's how they like it". The story of the movie is about the first human-vampire hybrid. This creature kidnaps a Priest's niece in the hopes of drawing him out of The Cities in search for her. When the Priest asked the council for permission to go on this quest, the council (the church) tells him that there are no more vampires, an obvious lie. They also tell him that he is to stay within city limits or he will break the covenant he made when he became a Priest and as they put it, "To go against the church is to go against God". This line has always stuck with me. In the movie, it is written on billboards, said over loudspeakers, and force fed to the people. This puts the main character in a moral debacle as to whether or not to save his niece from vampires he knows the church is lying about. He makes his decision at a bar when speaking to a member of the council in a non-formal capacity and when he is told the same, tired line he has been told his whole life, he replies, "Then I go against God". Yet, he continues to pray for strength and forgiveness throughout the entire movie. I believe the writer of this movie probably believes that the church has this "to go against the church is to go against God" philosophy. Although, some instances in history may support this belief, all churches cannot be bunched together and given the image of a lying, manipulative power as this movie labels "The Church". I personally like how even though the character is told he has gone against God, he continues prayer. He seeks forgiveness and he seeks strength in God on his journey. There are a lot of implications about religion as an institution and churches in this film, but it also explores the realm of individual spirituality.

Now, many more people have probably seen Easy A with Emma Stone. (This, ironically, also stars this writer's favorite actor: Cam Gigandet) However, for those who haven't seen the film it is about a girl who is virtually unknown in her high school and how a rumor about her losing her virginity leads to much attention, both positive and negative. Focusing on the topic at hand, the negative attention she receives is from a girl, played by Amanda Bynes, who is referred to in the film as a "Jesus Freak". This girl is judgmental, pious, and acts as if she knows what is best for everyone. At one point in the film she can be quoted saying, "Jesus tells us to love everyone, even the whores and the homosexuals, but it's just so hard." She says this with tears in her eyes as if forgiveness and acceptance are two words that never entered her vocabulary. At one point, Bynes' character personally attempts to get Stone's character expelled from the school, having a group of people follow her with signs reading: "Slut", "Jezebel", "Olive Penderghast is a slut/tramp", and "Exodus". After this traumatic experience, the character of Olive attempts to explore religion in the hopes of finding which is worse: to be an adulteress or to lie about being an adulteress. She goes to a bookstore and asks to be directed to the religion section because she is looking for the Bible. The worker says, and I quote, "It is in the Bestsellers section, right next to Twilight." This is obviously meant to be a "facepalm" moment in the movie, for those who believe in the Bible's teachings and for those who don't. After looking over the Bible, Olive travels to a couple different churches in search of answers. Firstly, she goes to a Catholic church and enters a confession booth. She spills her story, with some tears and a lot of emotion, only to find that there is no priest on the other side and no one has been listening at all. She then travels to another church where she asks about hell and she refers to it as "theoretical". The pastor tells her, "Christianity recognizes there is a hell" and when she continues to refer to it in a theoretical tense, he says, "Oh, it's there. Right beneath your feet." This pastor is of no help to her because he is forcing his beliefs on her before she can even ask any of her questions. She ends up running from the church for reasons that are made clearer in the movie, and are not relevant to this blog, but the main point remains the same. This girl, the character of Olive Penderghast, is ostracized as a harlot and a tramp by a religious group, yet when she seeks help from religion, she finds no support. This is supposed to be a modern-day adaptation of The Scarlet Letter, although I believe there to be a lot more involving the hypocrisy of religion in this film than in the original book. Although, having read the book a few years ago, I do know that there is hypocrisy of religion in the novel as the man whom she had an affair with was a minister. However, this movie frustrated me because I see religion and church as a place to ask questions and seek guidance but this poor girl was hung out to dry by religion and offered no real explanation as to why and no help as to how to get herself out of her situation.

The last movie I would like to write about is The Devil Inside. This is a horror "mockumentary" about a girl searching for answers about her mother, who killed three people during an exorcism in the 1980s. In her research, she takes a course on exorcism and learns that the rules regarding exorcism were changed by the Catholic Church for the first time in hundreds of years. The church refused to recognize Isabella's mother as "possessed" yet she is transferred from a United States hospital to a religious hospital in Vatican City. When she takes the course on exorcism, she meets a couple men who perform exorcism without the church's knowledge because, quite frankly, they believe the church is wrong. According to the film, thousands of cases of possessions are submitted to the Catholic Church each year, and almost all are rejected as mental illness. The men that perform these illegal exorcisms are risking their jobs because they believe that the exorcisms they are performing are saving people from the devil and that the church is simply refusing to acknowledge that possession occurs. Being a fake documentary ("mockumentary") this film is very self-explanatory when it comes to the negative views it holds of the Catholic Church, because it is said and not just implied as it is in the fictional movies that I wrote of earlier in this blog.

These are just three of many, many movies that either directly or indirectly, show a negative view of the institution of religion. All three of these films were made by the same generation that Kinnaman is writing about in unChristian. Thinking back to many older movies that I have seen, the church was looked at in a very different, often much more positive, light. As a person who analyzes movies for fun anyways, I look forward to adding how religion is portrayed in the film to the list of the many things I look for when I am watching films.

Special Thanks to IMDB for the photos

David Kinnaman is presenting a lot of data about who he refers to as "outsiders" of Christianity. This demonstrates, perhaps even perpetuates, the "us versus them" mentality that Kinnaman himself writes of on page 27. To quote Kiara, Simba's daughter, from Lion King 2, "Them? Us? LOOK at them, they ARE us. What differences do you see?" One can't help but ponder the spectrum of these "outsiders" and their beliefs. Kinnaman tells the reader the age group of these groups but one cannot assume that these people have the same degree of exposure to Christianity. To group all of these people as "outsiders" of Christianity is very vague. Technically, Kinnaman's label of "outsiders" includes all other religions, any races, any sex, any profession, and people with any type of background.

          This label could become an issue because this "us versus them" mentality could grow and even perpetuate many of the negative views of Christianity that are presented in this book. The term "outsiders" suggests that they are in the wrong and that the "insiders" are the ones who are correct. Usually to be on "the inside" means to be in the know and frankly to be superior to those on the "outside". To be on "the outside" implies that these people don't understand, that they don't want to be on the inside (or perhaps the opposite), that they are below the "insiders", etc. These terms also bring up the common phrase, "on the outside looking in", which means that those on "the outside" desire to be on "the inside". Whether "the inside" is referring to the popular kids at school or perhaps the rich, the saying suggests that "the inside" is where people want to be.

          I do not like the terminology that Kinnaman uses to describe the people he interviewed. If I were not a Christian, I would rather be referred to as a Non-Christian than an "outsider". Similarly, I would consider myself a Non-Buddhist, but I do not believe it is fair to call me an outsider. I do recognize the author's struggle with what to call his interviewees as he writes about it on page 17. I believe, however, that he could have created a word for this group of people. In fact, "questioners" or something of the sort as a label, to me, would have been less offensive and better than "outsiders". Although I do not agree with Kinnaman's choice of words, I do acknowledge what a tough choice he had to make and what a vulnerable topic he chose to write about.

Special thanks to The Huffington Post for the photograph.

A different kind of convocation took place today on the Knoll at CSP. With finals and projects every which way, most students found it refreshing to get outside in the sunshine and get their noses out of their laptops for a little while. Six students were asked to help with the convocation, some being our very own honors students. The students and faculty were then told what they were going to have to do. Each group got a horse and a carrier for their horse, then they had to mark items as things they would need for finals, and lastly they were given an egg which was to represent something they needed but that was fragile and very important to them. There were different colored cones around the knoll that the group had to reach without breaking the egg or leaving anything behind. Each member of the group was responsible for the distances in between cones. While in between cones, the member's teammates were unable to help them if they dropped anything. It was up to them to get themselves, their baggage, their egg, and their horse from one cone to the other. They were told to make a goal and if they got through all the cones, they would be successful.

                The different objects that the students and faculty had to carry were representative of things that students and teachers have to deal with during finals week, and all the time for the most part. The students had things like studying, a social life, meals, homework, and faith. The teachers cut themselves short by neglecting to carry a social life, sleeping, or meals but did have some effective representations for exercise, relationship, and "the hoops they have to jump through".  The students had many, many more objects than the teachers but still finished before the teachers. They did, however have a goal closer to the last cone. After both teams had finished, there was a debriefing. First both groups explained all their items and what they struggled with during the activity, then they were asked some questions. They were asked what they thought the horse and the egg were supposed to represent. For the horse, both groups believed it was to be considered a "wildcard" and "life" since it was the only living thing they were carrying. They believed the horse was unpredictable like life. Each person had a different personal meaning of the egg, some said it was their motivation and others said it was their potential. Something significant was that the students dropped the egg a few times and it did not break. A student pointed out this was because they dropped it on the grass and if they had dropped it on the concrete it would have broken for sure. This started a discussion on what the grass could be; a possible support system.

                I really enjoyed this convocation. It was something different; it caught a lot of attentive eyes from passerby students.  It was a beautiful day for it as well.  The moral of this activity was pretty obvious to most of us as we watched both groups struggle at first then move from cone to cone with more and more ease; that we would be more successful in our lives if we organized better and things can get easier after we do them a few times. Something I thought interesting was the leader of the event recalling out loud that she never told either group that this was a race, but that is pretty much what everyone in the audience thought and definitely what both groups thought. The horses were a nice addition to CSP's landscape for a while and despite some, let's say inconsiderate, behavior they were well trained and very calm for the most part. This activity was a good visual to keep in mind around this stressful time of year.

2012 will go down in history as the year the Trapp brothers did the Poehler lecture. Dale, a professor of a mostly secular field, and Tom, a religion professor, began the Poehler lecture with some childhood pictures. They introduced themselves and told a little bit about their families. Dale lectured about the vastness of our University that can sometimes be forgotten or downplayed. He encouraged us to think about how science collaborates with God, not how they contradict because God is involved in all science. He also brings up the five questions, how, what, when, how much, and why. He said that most people feel the need to separate these questions and answer them disjointedly but he encouraged us to combine them. Dr. Dale Trapp reminded us that the answer to why can always be found in scripture, but we don't always know the other answers and that is okay. We don't have to know the answer; we should be more worried about strengthening our thinking and our faith.

                Dr. Tom Trapp, on the other hand, spoke more of spiritual pursuit and the factor we play in the development of our own. He defined two terms: teleology and ontology. Teleology being an example of "give me more" and ontology being more "help me use what I have". He reminds us that we don't have to live by rules to get into heaven because we are not in the old covenant and salvation is not something we do, but something God has done for us. The motivation that we need to have faith is within us. Tom also showed us how we are active through God and vice versa. God helps us look for opportunities but we are the ones who choose the opportunities or take action on them, so both parties are active. He gave us assurance that we didn't need to try to know everything in the bible, "as if God has to prove himself to us." Lastly, he gave advice to both the faculty and the students. For the faculty he encouraged them to keep their beliefs, be unashamed, and to see their disciplines within eternal dimensions. He told the students not to doubt teaching but to expand our talents ad value our work because that's how we develop.

                Having two teachers, brothers even, on either end of the two "spectrums" of science and religion is a great way to capture audiences. The reason "spectrums" is in quotations is because by the end of the lecture, the audience has realized that these "different spectrums" are not so different and they have seen the ways in which the two overlap. Both Trapps express in different ways the necessity of learning in both a secular and a religious setting.  Each dedicated to their field, they still shared the stage with their brother who most people would categorize as their "opposite".  They spoke together, yet apart.

                Simone Weil was a political figure of sorts that taught philosophy until she became involved in worker's rights. She labored on a farm and in an auto factory.  She escaped Germany's invasion of France, but died of consequences due to her refusal to eat more than what her people were being fed in France. She was Jewish, hence the necessity to escape Germany's invasion of France, but life brought her to Catholicism. In 1942, she wrote an essay about Christian's and their school studies. She writes of attention and how it is truly only given to God during prayer. However, school exercises can command a lower type of attention. Weil believed that through school exercises, students would be able to strengthen their attention to prayer.

                Weil believed there were two conditions to the idea that student's work could strengthen the student's attention to God during prayer. The first condition is that students cannot contribute their attention to school studies unless they contribute them equally to all subjects and without any desire to pass tests or get good grades. She contends that without the wish to do the work correctly, the work cannot be approached with true effort.  The second condition Weil mentions is that students must revisit each and every task we fail in order to learn and find the origin of our fault.  She does say that it is enough to simply wish to be able to do this if it is not possible. Weil talks about how students focus by muscular efforts and this is what makes us tired, not the work we accomplish. Will power has no place in Weil's equation. She brings in the factor of joy in work that would accurately prepare them for spiritual life. True attention is very difficult, especially in our sinful, fragile nature. She points out that if school studies were like this, they would be like sacraments. In like sacraments would be exercises to strengthen our connection with God.

                I believe that Weil has many points that humans do not usually take into consideration.  It is true that prayer is supposed to be true attention to God, and I find it funny that she assumed we are all able to do that.  If we were unable to focus on schoolwork, she had such great faith to believe we still could have 100% attentive eyes on God whilst in prayer. That is a pure faith. I think that in a perfect world, prayer would be our undivided, whole-hearted attention. However, I suspect that this is not true most of the time. I absolutely wish that we as students could focus our attention evenly among all subjects and find joy in all subjects. As a student and as a sinful human being, I can honestly say I do not find joy in all my class subjects and I easily focus on some work compared to others. I would love to live in this situation that Simone Weil wrote of in this essay.

      The Vespers service is traditionally an evening service to celebrate Easter, so it technically is a little off on the timing. However, the participation by everyone is what made it a true church celebration and so much more than just a choir concert. This service was different than other choir concerts due to the collaboration of so many moving parts: the organist, the choir, the audience, the conductor, the chapel workers, the musicians, and those people who lit all the candles. One of which was a member of our very own honors group. This celebration was truly effective due to the overall teamwork of Concordia University and those that make it.

       I wholeheartedly enjoyed this Vespers service. I went into it thinking that this was going to be another dark choir concert that I would have trouble staying awake during, however; it was completely the opposite. The chapel was well lit, the audience was kept involved, and the songs were incredibly touching. Serving Jesus with such a great group of people that were all involved was such an amazing experience and I hope to have many more like it.

            The famous monk Father Zossima uses eloquent words to get his opinion across on views of Western ideas and their view of the monastic life. He begins by describing some of the slurs and negative conations that Western ideas have spread about the monastic life. He agrees that some monastics live up to these "expectations" that have been set by Western nonbelievers. Yet he continues to talk about how there are true monks that are simply living what they believe to be the truest form of a Christian life. Zossima seems to not understand why the monastic life would be judged simply by their beliefs that they are living the best life they can according to God. He then goes into deep description of what he believes the monastic life to be and why it is the correct way to live. He concurs with some ideas such as that the monastic way of life is very different, and even quite possibly extreme.

            Zossima seems to be attempting to meet some of his critics halfway by admitting that monastic life has its faults. However; he still stands up for his lifestyle and as the reading goes on he does get a bit more self-righteous about said lifestyle.  He begins speaking of the monastic lifestyle as the only way to truly be with God and do right by God. He talks of the seclusion of solitary life as becoming less and less common in the world and that is why monastic life is looking more and more foolish. Alas, he does interpret his own lifestyle as the highest form of worship and has an obvious bias.

            I liked Zossima's excerpt less and less as I read through. At first, it seemed he was going to show a different view of monasticism, but all he truly did was bash Western ideas. He still viewed his monastic life as the holiest of all ways to live, but he slightly agreed that some monastics do not live up to what the true meaning of being a monk is. I appreciated that he was willing to admit that not all monks are the holiest of the holy, because according to the medieval readings that we had once read, being a monastic meant you were a holier human being and Zossima acknowledges that not all monks live up to what they are supposed to be.

            On Saturday, March 31, 2012 at 4:00pm in the Buetow Auditorium at Concordia University in Saint Paul, MN a lecture was given on the relationship between a Buddhist Temple called Thamkrabok and the Chao Fao, which is the name of the followers of a guerrilla resistance movement in Laos. This specific temple was unlike others and strongly supported the Hmong's anti-Laos and anti-communism agendas. The speaker, Ian G. Baird, believes that this and other such temples could be involved with indirectly perpetrating violence while practicing Buddhism simultaneously.

            The founder of this temple, Luang Por Yai, is key to understanding the relationship between Thamkrabok and the Hmong people. This woman was actually believed to be crazy as a child. She claimed she could tap into her past lives in order to deliver high-level Buddhist sermons, which she began presenting at the mere age of two. However, she lost all her "special powers" at the age of 12 for reasons not understood by others or her. The Hmong have many versions of how or why this woman had such a positive impression on Thailand and their view of Hmong people. Some believe she was an animal in a past life, some believe she transformed from a wild animal and traveled to Thamkrabok, and some even believe men from the temple found her in a cave. The main idea of the stories, however, is that Luang Por Yai was asked to come live at the temple but she refused until they called "her people" down as well, "her people" being the Hmong.

            The Thamkrabok's aid to the Hmong people first came in the form of addiction treatment as opium had recently become illegal. The first addicts were sent in 1970 funded by only private donations. In later years, the Ministry became impressed by the results and provided additional funds. Following the Ministry, the United States Agency for International Development sent funds to help, as well as the Asia Foundation. Altogether, 3,000 opium addicts in Laos were treated at Thamkrabok. The Hmong were transported by truck from Laos to the temple. The new leader of the temple, Luang Por Chamroom was allegedly considered a candidate for the Novel Peace Price in the mid-1990s.

            This temple known as Thamkrabok and its original founder, Luang Por Yai, aided thousands of Hmong rebels whom had addictions to Opium. This temple receives considerable support from right-wing parties and was strongly against communism. Thus, when the political change and conflict in Laos began, the Hmong saw Thamkrabok and Luang Por Yai as heroes of sorts. This relationship has been very well studied, especially by Professor Baird and is obviously a very influential one in history.

                On Saturday March 31^st, 2012 at noon, the Concordia St. Paul Golden Bears' Women's Softball Team beat Northern State University from Aberdeen, South Dakota 3 to 2 in the 7^th inning of their first game on Carlander field. The air was brisk as the temperature was in the 40s and the bleachers were deviously cold. It was also a very windy day for Softball. The stands were not too full nor were the fans very enthusiastic. NSU's team, however, yelled rehearsed chants and shouts at every opportunity.

                The lack of CU fans showing their support for the softball girls should greatly be attributed to the cold. Unless it was a complete necessity, not many people care to sit on a cold bench to watch a girls' softball game. The team's enthusiasm even seemed to be effected by the chill in the air. Practice between innings seemed to bring more than one definition to the phrase "warming up". The game was called at seven innings due to lack of time. The second game started at two and the game was called at 1:35 in order to prepare the field for the next game.

                Personally, I felt bad there wasn't more support for the softball team. I think these girls are much underrated here at Concordia and I feel obligated to attend more games myself, despite the weather. The girls played extremely well and with good sportsmanship. These girls pulled through for Concordia University in the face of the autumn-like weather. I vote to take a stand to better support these girls that work so hard to give Concordia University St. Paul a good name in the category of softball.