Movie Paper 2

Emily Rice
Religion 124-08
Professor Bass
Movie Paper 2

My Good vs. Yours

In an old-style French village it is easy to imagine one version of God; omnipotent, omniscient, but not necessarily all forgiving. This is the picture of God that we see in the beginning of Joanne Harris and Robert Nelson Jacobs’s Chocolat. The characters in Chocolat have a variety of views on God and religion which seems effected by their levels of status, from Vianne’s atheism and independence to Caroline’s deference and godliness. In this essay I’m going to focus on the Comte de Reynaud, the mayor of the village and the driving moral force, and Pere Henri, the priest who leads the village in worship and allows the Comte to run all over him.
The Comte de Reynaud rules over the village with an iron fist in both the religious and social-political realms. He sets an example for the others in the village by being patient, working hard and by being self-disciplined. When Vianne and Anouk Rocher enter the village and set up shop he takes an immediate dislike, and even vendetta, against the chocolate shop. While in the beginning we see him as a noble, honorable man, once the Vianne arrives he acts immaturely, spreading rumors, insulting her behind her back, and banning the people of his village from entering her shop.
The Comte de Reynaud sees God as a being that requires complete obedience and repentance for sins. The Comte’s God is a hard God to please. It is his belief that his God’s way is the only right way the leads him on his vendetta against Vianne. His vendetta and his belief that only his God’s way is right leads him to adopt Serge as his pupil. It becomes a battle of his civilized God versus Vianne’s chocolate. And ultimately he is defeated, which forces him to latch onto a new cause: the drifters that land on the shore of his village.
Although the Comte is harsh, demanding and often times unforgiving, he still has a heart that cares for the people of his village. When he realizes that Serge attempted to kill the drifters by setting fire to one of their boats, an action which he believed was originally just an “act of God”, he is devastated, banishing Serge from the village, and heartbroken that he caused those lives to be threatened.
The Comte has all of the power in the village. Because of this the people of the village obey his orders. It is unusual for someone to disobey an order from the Comte. When the Comte says (via Pere Henri) that the chocolate shop is a temptation from the devil, the village stays away from it. And when he establishes the “ban on immorality” the town follows his orders, because he has the power, and they are deferential to him. Because the Comte has the power of politics and the church is behind him, for the majority of the movie, the people follow him.
However this is not true for the entire movie. Shortly after the Comte sends Serge away he comes to the revelation that Vianne’s chocolate really is the devil’s temptation and sets himself out to destroy it. In the middle of the destruction a smidge of chocolate falls on the Comte’s lip and he falls into a chocolate-induced craze that causes him to devour some of the chocolate, laughs and then cries himself to sleep. In the morning Pere Henri, who has been the Comte’s pawn for most of the movie, finds him. Henri and Vianne awaken him. At this point the Comte goes through a major change, accepts Vianne and her chocolate shop, and even asks his secretary to dinner, although it takes him six months after his change.
But what about the Comte’s pawn? Pere Henri has been with the village for five months, compared to his predecessors five decades. He is an amicable young man, with a “weakness” for American music. He allows the Comte to rule over him, to boss him around, and to make large changes to all of his sermons (showing the Comte’s control over the church in the village). Pere Henri appears like a naïve, innocent, and weak man, especially when compared to the Comte and to other men in the village. Most of what we see of Pere Henri is his sermons behind the pulpit, which he never appears comfortable saying. We do not see a clear image of Pere Henri’s picture of God until the very end of the movie, after the Comte’s breakdown and when Henri has to stand on his own two feet behind the pulpit.
He sees God as a fair God, and believes that goodness should be measured by who you include, rather than what the Comte was promoting who you seclude, and by what you do rather than what you do not do. His view paints a more accepting picture, one where everyone is equal and the community can include and help everyone rather than try to push potential community members out the door.
His sermon seems to spur a change, especially in the Comte, that is embodied in Vianne’s chocolate festival. People who had stood against Vianne and her chocolate, especially the Comte’s secretary Caroline who followed the Comte’s rules on the bans and even helped promote the ban on immorality, join together to help Vianne, who had previously been a social outcast. After Pere Henri’s sermon the entire villages, including the Comte, go to the chocolate festival. Because chocolate has been the element of conflict for the story, that the community is able to bond together at a chocolate festival speaks of a large change in the social and religious atmosphere of the community.
Ultimately it is Pere Henri’s vision of God that affects the most people. Because of his belief in equality he is a gracious and kind person. His scale of measuring goodness, to measure it by who you include and what you do rather than who you seclude and what you do not do, creates a powerful new philosophy in the village that promotes equality and a safer, healthier atmosphere. Chocolat presents a variety of views of God which effect and change the small French village.

March 23, 2010

Looking at Barbara Reid’s The Gospel According to Matthew page 96 to 98, and the correlating Gospel text, Matthew 19: 1-15. I find lessons in divorce that might help our divorce-focused society out.
The issue of divorce comes into play when a group of Pharisees ask Jesus whether “’It is lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?’” While Moses made it reasonable to divorce a woman (evidence brought forth by the Pharisees in verse seven) a reasonable cause for divorce had been strongly contested. An example given by Reid is that of Shammai and Hillel. “The latter held that a man could divorce his wife even for spoiling a dish for him, whereas the former argues that only sexual misconduct was grounds for divorce.” Jesus takes a firm stance against divorce, “whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery” (19:9). Jesus concludes that “it is better not to marry,” which was probably a radical statement for a society where it was unusual to not be married.
But the issue appears to be a bit different when you see it from a 21st Century perspective. I’ve heard people announce that when a man and woman file a prenuptial agreement on dividing their assets when getting married, divorce is almost destined to happen, and that if you’re going to expect a divorce in that manner, it is not worth their time to get married.
I believe that this argument as credence. However, in a society like America, the rising divorce rates have made marriage, which was once a serious and important institution, into something that can usually be seen as momentary and as a great tax break.
Marriage has lost a lot of the reverence that it was given by past generations. As it slowly becomes a middle ground that both religion and government can lay their hands on a world of issues arise, not the least of which is the high divorce rate. The high divorce rate leaves the country with a large number of single mothers, and a lot of scarred children.
Reid goes elaborates on page 98 to discuss why Jesus blesses children so quickly after denouncing divorce. The core of her explanation is on the fact that children “may be the ones who suffer most when the parents are contemplating divorce” (98). This is another theme that we see strongly reflected in current culture. It is not uncommon to hear about parents who “stayed together for their children” to only put their children through unpleasant arguments and stressful living conditions. What may be worse is when children blame themselves for their parent’s divorce, or have to split their time with parents who live in different states, ultimately seeing very little of one parent.
While in some cases it may be better for parents to get divorced than to argue all the time and cause stress on their children, in our society it may help to take Jesus advice, and another look before deciding to tie the knot.

Jesus at the Movies No. 1

Emily Rice
Religion 124-08
Professor Bass
March 15, 2010

The Ophthalmologist vs. The Professor
The world around us is not always fair, and it is not always just. Religion and society often build upon the fact that the world, or God, is just and will watch over those who follow a set of moral guidelines, such as those established in the Ten Commandments or the laws that guide the actions of people in society. In the film Crimes and Misdemeanors written and directed by Woody Allen, the main characters have distinct personalities, and with these personalities they have a strong image of God or reality, and an ideology of justice that those views reflect. Ophthalmologist Judah Rosenthal and Professor Louis Levy are characters that show distinct differences in their opinions of the world.
Judah Rosenthal is the main focus of the plot. He goes through the most drastic character change during the movie. Rosenthal begins the story believing that “the eyes of God are on us always” describing those eyes as “unimaginably penetrating intense.” Rosenthal sees God as a just God; a God that judges fairly and punishes the wicked. Despite this he appears pessimistic and judges the world as harsh and empty of value. The strongest insight we have into Rosenthal’s character comes after he hires his brother to kill his girlfriend Delores. He describes God as “a luxury I can’t afford,” again perpetuating the image that he sees God as just and fair and because his actions were unjust he fears punishment.
While Rosenthal believes that God punishes the wicked his actions, as a whole, don’t reflect this belief. Within the first few minutes of the film we learn that Rosenthal is cheating on his wife, and has been for several years. We later learn that he has embezzled money, and see him hire a killer to murder his girlfriend when she threatens to tell his wife about their affair and his misuse of funds. The only action that coincides with Rosenthal’s belief of a just God is seen in his deep guilt about murdering Delores. The guilt comes close to destroying him. He remembers what his father told him, that “the eyes of God see all,” which is echoed back to him by Ben the Rabbi. Because he believes in a just God he waits for punishment. He expects, as his father taught him, that murder will out. However when four months pass and he remains unpunished, Judah’s image of God changes. He no longer sees the world as just. Rather than follow in the steps of his father, accepting that murder will out, he leans towards his schoolteacher aunt, who believed that the reality of the situation boils down to the fact that you can get away with anything, as long as you aren’t caught and don’t allow morals to destroy you.
Professor Louis Levy presents an opposing picture. In the documentary that Clifford Stern creates Levy argues that it is “out of our capacity to imagine a truly loving God.” He provides the evidence that although the Jews were able to think of a loving God one of the first actions of that God was to ask their leader to sacrifice his only son. Levy’s personal opinions are reflected in this analysis and he appears unable to imagine a loving God, despite having a positive view of the world. Levy strongly argues for the importance of love, arguing that without love life isn’t worth living. Although Levy doesn’t imagine a truly loving God he does see humanity as loving and argues that it is humanity’s capacity to love that gives the universe meaning. While he sees God in a pessimistic light he appears to find hope in humanity by the fact that most people will keep trying to find love and take joy from the simple things in life, like their “family, work and the hope that future generations will understand more.” Halley Reed describes Levy’s overall view of life as “large and life affirming.” And Stern agrees acknowledging that in all the footage he has of Levy he says how great life is.
Although Levy sees the world optimistically his worldview doesn’t seem to affect his actions. Levy commits suicide; leaving the simple suicide note: “I’ve gone out the window,” which Stern denounces as an incomplete and confusing note for someone that he had hailed as an intellectual. The characters express a deep seated confusion over why a man who had a positive life philosophy, and had been through a hard life, would kill himself now. Reed hypothesizes that despite the fact that Levy had established a strong philosophical system in the end that philosophy was incomplete. However, there may be more to Levy that both Stern and Reed miss, Levy presents the argument that life isn’t worth living without love, “a great deal of love.” If he feels that this is true, it may make sense that even an optimist will give up on life.
In Woody Allen’s film Crimes and Misdemeanors the worldviews of Judah Rosenthal and Professor Louis Levy show opposing elements of life. In the beginning of the film Rosenthal sees the world as a just world where God punishes the wicked. However when his life doesn’t support this thesis Rosenthal’s views on life change, instead of justice Rosenthal sees an unjust world where crimes and misdeeds go unpunished. Although this reality keeps him out of jail, in the end of the film he appears to have lost faith in the world. Levy, on the other hand, seems to have a life philosophy which is described by key characters as a positive and life-affirming view of reality. However in the end he commits suicide. Although from the picture of Levy we see, it seems unlikely that he has lost his hope for the world’s future generations. From the eyes of Rosenthal and Levy the universe is not a friendly place, it’s a place without real love or justice, but it can sometimes have a few glimmers of hope.

Reflection Paper No. 3

Emily Rice
February 25, 2010
Religion 124-08

Jesus nationality is something that most European Christians like to forget. Jesus was a Jew living in Galilee, which is made clear through the Gospels when we take into consideration that Jesus celebrated Passover, and had a message that was directed mainly at the Jewish community. Barbara Reid in her analysis of Matthew (The Gospel According to Matthew) points this out in one very simple paragraph. “He is a thoroughly observant Jew who is devoted to keeping the Law. He does not replace the Law, nor does he break it; rather, he fulfills it, bringing it to its intended purpose. He is authentic interpreter of the Law for a changed situation“(36). The verses (Matthew 5:17-20) make his intentions clear, and the interpretations in the following verses do not stretch the mind unreasonably. Jesus teaches that anger is on the same level as murder, and that to be angry at your brother is an equivalent sin to killing your brother. In the same interpreting style, he teaches that lustful looks are measured on the same vain as adultery. On the level of the Jewish law, these are not unreasonable. Laws are the lowest acceptable moral measure, so the simple laws of “You shall not kill” and “You shall not commit adultery,’ are the moral minimums required for participation in society. Jesus establishes a higher moral level. This isn’t a high stretch, only an interpretation that makes sense in the context of the time.
And this probably wasn’t the first time a prophet told the children of Israel to have higher moral standards either.
But the key to this statement is that Jesus is one of the Jews, speaking from a Jewish perspective about Jewish laws. And to the original intended audience of this message that makes sense. As we talked about in class, Christianity wasn’t always separate from Judaism, just another teaching on the laws, however as the Gospels were written and Jesus became more and more divine a wedge was driven between the two. Christianity grew into the religion of the Roman Empire, thanks to Constantine I.
And as it became a European religion the concept of Jesus’ nationality changed.
When I was a child we had a large painting in our house of Jesus, a man highlighted in a halo of light with a long brown beard, and for a long time I didn’t question the fact that Jesus was from the Middle East and therefore would not be white.
In a youth group we discussed Jesus image, but not his color. We were told that Jesus had not been a handsome fellow, so instead of a respectable man with a long brown beard I pictured a slightly rough around the edge Caucasian hippy. And this image slowly got pushed aside as I was enveloped in the typical Christian perspective of Christ. It wasn’t until high school I realized that the area Jesus lived didn’t make sense with the skin color he was portrayed with.
It’s interesting that the symbol of the Christian religion isn’t the right color to be, the savior that the Gospels were written about, and that when a more right picture is given to them, that they oppose it so forcefully.

Response Paper 2

Response Paper 2

While reading Borg Chapter 2, two things really caught my interest; Borg’s analysis of the exorcism of Legion and his analysis of women in the first few chapters of Mark.

In the exorcism of Legion, I find it interesting that Jesus listens to the demons’ pleas to not send them out of the country, and instead sends them into a herd of pigs. That Jesus listens to the demons’ request is unusual for the son of God, in most exorcism stories Jesus just sends the demon out of the man, the miracle being to focus of the story. In this case however, Legion seems to be a greater focus than the man he is possessing. Legion takes up about two-thirds of the story, while the man who was possessed gets just one line, a line asking Jesus to let him go with Jesus and his disciples, which Jesus refuses. It is interesting that Jesus grants a demon its request, but not a man. And while the story gives the man a job to do, he continues afterwards preaching about what Jesus has done for him; but he doesn’t get the courtesy of having his request granted, this strikes me as being a strange balance.

The analysis the Borg goes into intrigues me, I like how he goes into an in depth description of the impurity of this scene. I think that Borg’s points on geography, possession, proximity to corpses, and animals make very good and reasonable points. However, I’m more confused on the direct relation with the name “Legion” to a Roman military unit. Although I understand that they share the same name I would have been less puzzled if Borg had gone into a more in depth description of why a Roman Legion is being used as a demon. Borg continues with a series of rhetorical questions that address my confusion. “Is this story about personal and political possession, and the exorcism of ‘Legion’ as the path of both personal and political liberation?” (47). But Borg doesn’t answer it. He also provides a rhetorical question on whether Jesus was on a whole attempting to rid the Jewish homeland of Roman forces, but he doesn’t answer it. I feel that it is unfair for the author to pose such questions to the reader, they may be intrigued by the concept but without an explanation he quickly loses their trust, if Borg can’t explain a concept it probably shouldn’t be introduced.

Finally, I was interested in Borg’s comments on women in the Bible. I find it interesting that he points out the important role of women in the Gospels, especially about Jesus being anointed for burial by a woman, and the women witness Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection. Borg goes on to mention that women have a role of importance in Paul’s seven genuine letters, and that women were patrons of the Jesus movement and even apostles (49). Considering we were discussing a few weeks ago that the Pope told the 80’s women’s movement that women could not be priests because Jesus didn’t choose any female apostles, I find the proof Borg provides (Junia in Romans 16:7) to be very intriguing (49).

From what I’ve read so far, Borg seems to do a very good job of explaining and analyzing the text, my biggest complaint is the rhetorical questions he used when discussing Legion instead of providing a clearer, more interesting explanation.

Reponse Paper No. 1

I find some of Kloppenborg’s theories interesting. On page 70 he discusses the fact that when Jesus stills the storm the disciples question, “Who is it that even the winds and seas obey him?” Kloppenborg continues, “Unknowingly paraphrasing the Psalms in which God is depicted as the one who commands the wind and sea.” Personally, I find it strange that Kloppenborg assumes that the disciples are naive enough to not know what they are saying. To my knowledge, the disciples were Jews and as Jews they would have had a rudimentary knowledge of the Torah, if this is true, the disciples would recognize their words. In our discussion in class we have spoken about the fact that the gospels were not written for at least a hundred years after Jesus’ death, that being true we can’t be sure whether these words are merely an interpretation by the author, or passed down through tradition. In writing the gospel the authors would have had to rely on either documents like Q, other firsthand narratives, or on word of mouth. In the firsthand narratives, personal judgment, opinion and personal interpretation play a large part. In a bank heist although six people could have been in the room seeing the same thing, they would tell six different stories. Word of mouth is even more precarious because stories change with each telling, an ongoing game of telephone, so that when they are written down they are drastically different than the original. In turn, a document like Q, a conglomeration of Jesus’ sayings would also have its flaws unless a scribe followed Jesus everywhere he went and wrote down his words, which is unlikely. This being the case, it is entirely possible that the authors used quotes from verses in Psalms to foreshadow Jesus’ divinity while portraying the disciples as unenlightened to that fact, as a literary device or as an interpretation of what could have happened when Jesus calmed the storm. It is possible that this is just an interpretation of the oral-scribal traditions (which Kloppenborg discusses in his Introduction) that had passed these stories down, or, a change that had occurred as the stories were passed down for a century. I find it confusing that Kloppenborg puts the disciples at fault on page 70 when so many other forces are acting upon the text. And although I realize that he is not discussing the many different sources that have affected the Bible, I still find the interpretation awkward and unmerited. He goes on to say: “If only they had listened to their own words, they would have known that Jesus must be God’s son.” But he doesn’t take into consideration the reason behind their confusion. It’s illogical to hold the fact that the disciples are naïve of Jesus’ divinity and to appear to hold it against their intelligence as Kloppenborg does, especially when, as we talked about in class, literary Jesus didn’t become completely divine until John’s gospel, more than a century after the disciples had lived. In this sense, I find the illogical assumptions that are introduced make it hard to take Kloppenborg as a scholarly writer, and easier to take his work as a man expressing his opinions of religion.

Assignments One and Two

Assignment #1
1. Describe Jesus in one paragraph.
Jesus is a Biblical figure portrayed in the New Testament as the son of God. According to the gospels he died on the cross so that those who believed in him could join him in heaven. He was born in Bethlehem, and performed many miracles that gave him followers, fame and the enemies that eventually led him to his death. He was betrayed by one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot for thirty pieces of silver.

2. Now describe Jesus in one sentence.
Jesus is the son of God who died for man's sins.

3. Describe Jesus in one word.
Light

4. Attach a simple image that represents that word.






















Assignment #2
1. Describe yourself in one paragraph. You may focus on anything you wish, including interests, personality traits, past history, future goals.

My name is Emily Rice, I grew up in Marysville, Washington but moved to Republic, Washington my freshman year in high school. I was very involved with the school while I was in Republic. I was captain of the Debate and Knowledge Bowl teams, student assistant of the Republic Jr-Sr High school pep band, served one year as class secretary and served two years as ASB Treasurer, among other things. I am an English major with a public relations minor. I play the flute and the sousaphone/tuba and am learning to play the bass. I enjoy acting, and have performed in more than a dozen plays including working with a group of students and adults who perform Shakespeare's comedies during the summer. I am also a member of G.U.T.S.

2. Now describe yourself in one sentence.
I am a quiet, studious person who enjoys the arts.

3. Describe yourself in one word.
Persistent

4. Attach a simple image that represents that word.