Dark Nights Of The Body And Soul

by Dish Staff

Richard Beck, a Christian psychologist, wants his fellow believers to be more constructive participants in discussions about mental illness, especially asking them “to see how attending to and caring for the body in mental illness is as ‘spiritual’ as bible study and prayer”:

Within Christianity discussions about mental illness are often afflicted by Gnostic and dualistic assumptions, where there is a hard (even ontological) division made between the soul/spirit/mind and the brain. Specifically, we often assume that the soul is separate from the neurotransmitters in the brain. Thus, even though you might have, say, low serotonin levels in the brain in the case of depression, the soul has the ability to override the brain to “chose differently.” Willpower and choice in this vision are radically separate and distinct from those low serotonin levels.

But things like willpower, motivation or mood actually are those serotonin levels. And even if reducing the soul to brain-function makes you nervous at the very least we must admit that the soul is radically affected by and dependent upon those serotonin levels.

In short, when it comes to mental illness we have to reject the Gnostic and dualistic assumptions that have governed the conversation about mental illness in our churches. What this means is that mental illness requires incarnational theology and reflection. Depression is about our bodies. But the Gnostic impulses within Christianity often obscure that fact. The brain is an organ of the body as much as our stomachs and livers.

Face Of The Day

by Dish Staff

dish_fotdsun17

Nina Azzarello captions:

croatian photographer ino zeljak cultivated an interest in the similarities and differences between people and reveals a series of rare resemblances in ‘metamorfoza’. with a simple format against a solid backdrop, zeljak has captured the portraits of two different people — brothers, best friends and parents — and merged them into a single face using photoshop. split in half, the stitched images are so closely related that upon first glance, they’re almost indistinguishable as two distinct individuals. the startling effect exposes how innately homogenous we can look, and how closely — in spite of billions of hereditary modifications — we can be so similar to a total stranger.

See more of Zeljak’s work here.

(Photo by Ino Zeljack)

When Religion Gets Into Your System

by Dish Staff

Michael Schulson is rather amused by a recent paper in the journal Biology Direct that “suggests that the impulse behind some religious rituals could be driven by mind-altering parasites.” His quick summary of the authors’ argument:

Essentially, [researcher Alexander] Panchin et al. have noticed that some rituals spread germs. (They’ve mostly ignored the many, many cleansing rituals that seem to do the opposite). So, they ask, what if germs, looking to spread, drive people to perform rituals? This isn’t quite as outlandish as it sounds. Many germs really do alter their hosts’ behaviors in ways that help the germ spread (think of rabies, which spreads by biting, and which alters the brains of infected mammals to make them feel very, very aggressive; or consider Toxoplasmosis, a protist associated with cats, that seems to cause infected rats to feel less fear of felines).

Of course, the urge to bite your fellow mammals is, perhaps, a shade less nuanced than all the possible reasons that might motivate a person to take communion, or kiss an icon, or travel to Mecca and mingle with strangers.

He sees such a notion as part of a long history of reducing faith to a kind of mental illness, a comparison he finds wanting:

[T]hinking of religion as an illness of the mind gives an enormous amount of power to abstract ideas, and very little credit to individual people. Unlike, say, the experience of having a virus, we can usually exercise some choice over our religious lives. When we can’t exercise that choice, the constraints are as likely to be sociological as they are the result of some multi-tentacled idea that has become lodged in our brain (or in our gut). And, unlike a virus or a gene, we can take the religious practices given to us and consciously shape them, change them, deploy them in new ways, and use them for practical ends.

One feels, reading the Panchin paper and its viral ilk, not that they’ve plumbed the psychology of the religious impulse, but that, unwittingly, they’ve revealed their own total bafflement at why someone might actually want to do something spiritual. Fortunately, there’s a cure for that bafflement. It’s called interacting with human beings who are different from you.

Though not about bacteria, Patrick McNamara details his work on the neurological basis of belief, especially dopamine’s place in our spiritual lives. The origins of why he started digging into this topic:

I had a lucky break during routine office hours at the VA (Veterans Administration) Boston Healthcare System, where I regularly treat US veterans. I was doing a routine neuropsychological examination of a tall, distinguished elderly man with Parkinson’s Disease. This man was a decorated Second World War veteran and obviously intelligent. He had made his living as a consulting engineer but had slowly withdrawn from the working world as his symptoms progressed. His withdrawal was selective: he did not quit everything, his wife explained. ‘Just social parts of his work, some physical stuff and unfortunately his private religious devotions.’

When I asked what she meant by ‘devotions’ she replied that he used to pray and read his Bible all the time, but since the onset of the disease he had done so less and less. When I asked the patient himself about his religious interests, he replied that they seemed to have vanished. What was so striking was that he said he was quite unhappy about that fact. What appeared to be keeping him from his ‘devotions’ was that he found them ‘hard to fathom’. He had not stopped wanting to believe and practise his religion but simply found it more difficult to do so.

How A Thing Of Beauty Is A Joy Forever

by Dish Staff

dish_westminster

Cody C. Delistraty offers a lovely meditation on the connection between beauty and happiness:

In The Architecture of Happiness, Alain de Botton weighs the feeling of walking into an “ugly” McDonalds in the Westminster area of London compared to the feeling of entering the “beautiful” Westminster Cathedral across the street. He says that because of the harsh lighting, the plastic furniture, and the cacophonous color scheme (all those bright yellows and reds), one tends to feel immediately “anxious” in the McDonalds.

What one feels in the Westminster Cathedral, however, is a calmness brought on by a series of architectural and artistic decisions: the muted colors (greys and bleak reds), the romantic yellow lighting that bursts out onto Victoria Street, the intricate mosaics, and the vaulted ceilings. Although the Westminster Cathedral has the same principle elements of architecture as the McDonald’s—windows, doors, floors, ceilings, and seats—the cathedral helps people to relax and reflect, where the fast food restaurant causes one to feel stressed and hurried.

It seems part of humans’ appreciation of beauty is because it is able to conjure the feelings we tend to associate with happiness: calmness, a connection to history or the divine, wealth, time for reflection and appreciation, and, perhaps surprisingly, hope.

(Photo of interior of Westminster Cathedral by Steve Cadman)

When Christ Comes To Compton

by Dish Staff


Black Jesus, Aaron McGruder’s new live-action comedy show on Adult Swim set in contemporary south Los Angeles – where Jesus, played by Slink Johnson, has returned – is drawing criticism from the usual suspects. NPR’s Neda Ulaby, however, spoke with one theologian who wasn’t upset:

Yolanda Pierce of the Princeton Theological Seminary says the show raises some important theological questions. “If Jesus were to return, what would Jesus look like?” she asks. “What would Jesus do? And would we, those people who consider themselves as Christians, as I do, recognize Jesus if the historical Jesus is not the blond-haired, blue-eyed [man] of our usual stained-glass depictions?” Pierce also says that the provocative setting — a Jesus who drinks 40s, curses and smokes weed — might also reflect the reality of people who could use some ministering. “Especially people at the margins, who may be using weed or who may be drinking as a way to soften the brutality of their everyday existence,” she says. She says Jesus would preach to those whom Scripture calls “the least of these.”

Jay Parini is on the same page:

As a Christian myself, I like the idea of seeing Jesus return in various guises, skin colors, outfits and social contexts. Why not? The Jesus I know and love was something of a party animal. His first miracle was to turn water into wine at a wedding: and lots of wine was apparently drunk.

At the Last Supper, in keeping with Jewish tradition (if you regard this as a Passover feast or seder), everybody was obliged to drink four glasses of wine. In Luke 5:27-32 the Pharisees condemn Jesus and his friends for eating and drinking with “publicans and sinners.” In Matthew 11:18-19, we read that Jesus is accused of being “a drunken and a glutton, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.”

On and on, the image of Jesus and his band, which includes a fair number of women — including Mary Magdalene, Joanna and Susanna (see Luke 8:2-3) — seems one of a merry-making group, not a pious and bedraggled or depressed conclave.

Placing Black Jesus in the context of previous religious satires, Jimmy J. Aquino compares the show to another famous depiction of Jesus:

The uproar over Black Jesus is just the latest in an endless cycle of controversies ignited by Christian groups who immediately take offense at religion being satirized in comedic works and denounce those works as blasphemous. Will the outrage over the McGruder show last as long as the controversy surrounding Monty Python’s Life of Brian, which continues to this day? Life of Brian drew protests from Christians around the world in 1979 and ended up banned in Glasgow for 30 years. As recently as 2013, the 1979 religious satire was banned from being screened in Germany on Good Friday.

The accusations that Life of Brian is blasphemous against Christ make little sense because the Python troupe actually respected and admired Christ’s teachings and backed off depicting him comedically in any way; he’s played completely straight in the film by Kenneth Colley. In fact, Life of Brian isn’t even about Jesus, who appears in the film for about only 30 seconds and is always filmed from a distance. Instead, the film targets Jesus’ followers, and in keeping with the Python troupe’s disdain for authority and institutions, it points out the absurdities and failings of organized religion.

The Ambivalent New Atheist

by Dish Staff

Ten years ago this month, Sam Harris published The End of Faith, perhaps the first example of what would become known as the New Atheist publishing phenomenon – Dennett, Dawkins, and Hitchens weren’t far behind with their own polemics against religion. Looking back at what’s happened since the book’s release, Harris clarifies one way he doesn’t fit comfortably with that cohort:

I’m not a big fan of rallying around the concept of “atheism” — for reasons that I once spelled out in a talk entitled “The Problem With Atheism.” In fact, I never even used the term “atheism” in The End of Faith, simply because it never occurred to me to use it. I agree that it serves a narrow political purpose, and [can] sometimes be useful, but it comes with a host of liabilities. I prefer to talk about the conflict between faith and reason, religion and science, bad evidence vs. good evidence, etc. One very dangerous blind spot engendered by generic “atheism” is a default assumption that all religions are the equally bad and should be condemned in the same terms. This is not only foolish, it’s increasingly dangerous. Anyone who is just as concerned about the Anglican Communion as he is about ISIS, al-Qaeda, and rest of the jihadist menace needs to have his head examined.

The future of “atheism” — one in which our hopes for a truly secular and rational world are fulfilled — is one in which we keep important distinctions in focus. Above all, it is a future in which we remain free to criticize bad ideas, and are moved to criticize them in proportion to how much harm they are doing in our world.

Read a transcript of Andrew’s recent conversation with Sam Harris here.

A Dark Discovery

by Dish Staff

Jeanette Bonds calls the above NSFW short film, Good Grief, a “uniquely pleasant dark comedy about death and grieving”:

Molly receives a voice mail from her seemingly emotionally vacant father informing her that her mother has passed away. Immediately following we see Molly at her father’s house reading a ‘Grieving for Dummies’ book while her father is sleeping in a tent in his backyard. Molly tries to go into her mother’s bedroom when she sees a lock on the door, tries to enter, but fails. While on the toilet talking to her brother on the phone, as one does, she hears her father entering her mother’s locked room. She rushes out of the toilet to get into the room and her father makes every effort to prevent her from entering but she fights through. Upon entering the room Molly is surprised with a colorful display of her mother’s dildos, whips, chains, and an array of pornographic polaroids of her mother plus various men and women. …

Despite explicitly dirty pictures of naked women with their legs spread open, the film itself leaves a lot to the imagination. The toys and images we see trigger an archive of images we’ve seen (or at least some of us have seen) in movies and television. In some ways we look at the toys and think to ourselves exactly what Molly is thinking, “what on earth was she doing with all those things?”, yet in reality, we know exactly what was up.

The Rashomon Of Rock

by Dish Staff

A new documentary from Jeff Krulik, whose 1986 film Heavy Metal Parking Lot remains a cult classic, turns the camera on a concert that may never have happened:

It’s Jan. 20, 1969, the day of President Nixon’s inauguration. At a suburban Maryland gymnasium, a band starts playing to a crowd of about 50 teens. That group’s name: Led Zeppelin. This story is just too crazy to be true, right?

Maybe not. In his new documentary, Led Zeppelin Played Here, director Jeff Krulik tries to get to the bottom of this legend by talking to some musicians, writers and local fans who don’t believe the concert happened … and others who swear they saw them.

Richard Metzger digs the film:

What I loved about Krulik’s charming, low key film is that the whole mystery of this did-it-or-did-it-not occur spur of the moment Led Zeppelin show is something that he uncovered while making a film about something else entirely. The Rashomon-like onscreen narrative becomes quite intriguing as the viewer goes along with the filmmaker on his fact finding mission, Krulik serving as a dogged rock snob gumshoe on the trail of this elusive and either legendary—or apocryphal—Led Zeppelin show. In the end, we’re left to decide for ourselves if this concert actually took place or not, his Columbo with a MOJO subscription sleuthing having provided no definitive answers.

What Krulik had to say while working on the film in 2011:

I do hope to present a strong case [that] the concert happened. It’s a mystery worth solving/explaining. And I personally believe it did happen. We just live in such a proof driven/conspiracy theory/immediate info society now that people doubt these unbelievable claims unless there’s concrete example, i.e. ticket stub, photo, diary entry. Nothing has turned up yet, and will likely not turn up. This was a hastily assembled concert on an off night, a rainy, cold Monday in January ‘69, and the band was new and hoofing it, taking whatever gig they could.

Watch Krulik’s 30-minute Heavy Metal Parking Lot below:

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whZuz5Dwtw8]

Parenting On Pot

by Dish Staff

Brittany Driver is a legal-weed-smoking mom who uses the substance to soothe an irritated stomach. She fields some common questions about her habit:

“Does your child see you when you are stoned?”

If I’m being real here, most people see me when I’m stoned — or medicated, rather. I smoke as a natural way to settle my normally irritated tummy and to give me an appetite, which I usually just don’t have. (And it’s not a thyroid thing — I’ve checked.) I don’t smoke excessively while I’m taking care of my son. Certainly don’t infer that I’m sitting on the couch barely conscious or stoned to the point of recklessness. It is the same as taking any medication, and I always put the safety of my child first. But if I don’t smoke at all then I don’t eat. And if I don’t eat, I don’t feel well or have any energy. I know that I can’t parent that way and, luckily, I don’t have to. …

“Does it help with your parenting?”

This one is a double-edged sword.

I know marijuana helps me medically. And so when I smoke it, I shouldn’t hear a tiny voice that says, “You’re doing drugs,” “This isn’t good for your kid,” and “Go get a real job, ya hippie!” But sometimes I do. Sometimes that D.A.R.E. officer’s rhetoric in elementary school comes back to haunt me.

Because of the (unproven) stigmas drilled into my head over a lifetime, there is sometimes a feeling of guilt. It’s a guilt I know has no real legs to stand on, but even so, it pops up here and there. But I think that’s normal. A conscious parent knows that what they do affects and shapes their child. And a conscious parent is going to question their actions, hopefully often, to make sure they’re on the right path.

Does smoking a bowl help me relax and make dancing with my son a little more fun? Sure, it does. But that’s not why I’m doing it. I could have fun with my guy even if all the cannabis in the world was eradicated. (Truth, but please no.) I smoke because I need to, and my son is better off having a mommy who is stoned and eating and living life than a mommy who is wasting away. Just sayin’.

Waiting Till The Wedding Night

by Dish Staff

Samantha Pugsley doesn’t recommend it. When she was 10, she took a pledge at her church to remain a virgin until marriage – a pledge she kept, and ultimately found damaging:

Ten-year-old girls want to believe in fairy tales. Take this pledge and God will love you so much and be so proud of you, they told me. If you wait to have sex until marriage, God will bring you a wonderful Christian husband and you’ll get married and live happily ever after, they said. Waiting didn’t give me a happily ever after. Instead, it controlled my identity for over a decade, landed me in therapy, and left me a stranger in my own skin. I was so completely ashamed of my body and my sexuality that it made having sex a demoralizing experience.

I don’t go to church anymore, nor am I religious. As I started to heal, I realized that I couldn’t figure out how to be both religious and sexual at the same time. I chose sex. Every single day is a battle to remember that my body belongs to me and not to the church of my childhood. I have to constantly remind myself that a pledge I took when I was only 10 doesn’t define who I am today. When I have sex with my husband, I make sure it’s because I have a sexual need and not because I feel I’m required to fulfill his desires.