Finally, I had some time to sit down and watch the recent docu-fanta-movie, What The Bleep Do We Know.  I say docu-fanta-movie, because this film is a unique blend of documentary, movie, and fantasy.  But the unique "blending" that this film is comprised of doesn't stop here.  The producers of What The Bleep Do We Know have embarked upon a cultural phenomenon that we will no doubt see much more of in the future: the blending of science with New Age spirituality.

The affinity between quantum physics and postmodernity has long been attested to.  And the contemporary and widespread interest in spirituality has also been observed as our culture's response to the failure of The Enlightenment project -- of modernity's inability to deliver on its promise to cure the problems of our world and deliver a reliable hope for our future.  Science no longer reigns supreme in today's culture as THE guardian of truth.  This is likely a disturbing thought, no doubt, to secular scientists, and I'm not all that surprised that, while continuing to discredit organized religion (Christianity in particular), some scientists are becoming bedfellows with New Age religion, in an attempt to integrate the legitimacy of scientific advances with the popular appeal of mystical spirituality.  And that is exactly what What The Bleep Do We Know appears to be doing.

Now, the science being presented in the film is very interesting -- quantum mechanics, string theory, and recent advances in neurological studies.  The film makers have done a fascinating job of presenting fairly complex concepts in an entertaining and easy-to-grasp manner.  But what especially bothered me was the way What The Bleep crosses the line between science and mysticism, presenting everything as equally true.  And that is why...

This is a disturbingly misleading film.

I am one of many bloggers who have drawn attention to the syncretism found within the Church -- and the evangelical Church in particular.  But here in this film, is a good example of how syncretism is a characteristic of our entire culture paradigm.  Ours is a postmodern world, and we should expect to find syncretism (among many other things) in all sectors of our world.

What is especially telling about What The Bleep Do We Know, is how the producers have featured the wisdom of the supposed 35,000 yr. old god of Atlantis -- Ramtha -- as "channeled" through Anerican, J.Z. Knight, AND have done so in a way which places this "ancient wisdom" on equal par with their panel of Ph.D's, M.D.'s, and the like.  This is almost beyond belief.

But the most striking thing about What The Bleep Do We Know, is the subtle (or perhaps not so subtle) arrogance which characterizes the film's message: we are our own gods, who can (in ways consistent with various scientific theories) control not only our future destinies, but our present realities.

I strongly suspect that many more films of this type will be produced in the years to come.  Hollywood knows that our culture is thirsty for spirituality.  Hollywood has also long been known for the way it commonly discredits and criticizes organized religion, especially Christianity.  We therefore need a new generation of apologists to arise within the body of Christ to engage this culture in thoughtful and effective ways.  Our modern techniques will no longer serve this purpose.  We need scientific theologians and theological scientists to help us navigate our way through the times ahead that will continue to challenge our ancient and most holy faith.

If you haven't seen this film, I urge you to.  And if you have, I'd enjoy hearing your thoughts regarding what I've shared here.

*for an interesting critique of the film, go here, or read my friend's newspaper review at Cinema In Focus.

Over the past week, I have been in Washington, DC, traveling through our nation's Capitol with a group of 8th, 9th, and 10th graders, and contemplating the role that Christianity played in the founding and formative years of the United States.

As we entered the rotunda of the National Archives, and filed past the original "Bill of Rights", I started wondering...  have personal rights become too important in our culture?  Have the rights of the individual been stressed too much -- even to dangerous and/or destructive levels?

I fear they have.

.

In part, it was probably the timing of my visit to the National Archives and how it coincided with news surrounding Pope Benedict XVI's recent remarks concerning what ails today's society (e.g. relativism, radical individualism).  As I caught the news coverage each night concerning former Cardinal, Joseph Ratzinger, I was struck by how many interviewees opposed or were disappointed by the selection of this Pope because he did not espouse their own personal opinions on issues of morality, theology, or ecclesiology.  A host of various opinions have also begun to appear around the blogosphere concerning what the Pope's top agenda matter should be.

While not unique to this particular topic or subject; personal opinion always seems to rule supreme these days.  We commonly defend OUR RIGHTS, and our right to have rights... unless, of course, it's the right to hold conservatve, religioethical  convictions -- especially if one is being considered for judicial positions within our nation!

The Problem: we defend another person's individual rights until they infringe upon our own. Our own sovereign realm of comfort and self-justification must come first. We're bound to look out for "number One".

And so, ours is an out-of-control culture that rarely values self-sacrifice over personal preference and gratification.  The value of the individual is, however, important.  In part, this belief helps to identify and guard against the marginalization and victimization of fellow human beings.  But where's the counter-balance?  Where's the flip-side of the coin?  Where's the mediating and essential pursuit of humility, of self-sacrifice -- of dying to one's rights?

Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, 'If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all.' (Mark 9:35, NIV)

"Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you." (1 Peter 5:6, ESV)

In light of scripture's many, many exhortations along these lines, I'm wondering: why are individual rights so vehemently defended with so very little being said about humility and voluntary self-sacrifice? Can we somehow begin to talk about a person's "rights" at the same time we emphasize the importance of laying down one's rights for a higher cause?  Can we find a way to embrace this paradox surrounding rights and sacrifice?  Can we admit that the new Pope may be right about radical individualism being an enemy of our faith?  Can we accept the notion that here -- in the 'land of liberty' -- personal rights have become too important?

Choosing the high road -- it's a principle that my spiritual mentors and teachers bred into me years ago.  But it frequently remains a challenging principle to follow.

Life and ministry is often difficult. People, problems, pressures, politics -- they're just a few of the things that test our faith, and our love for God and others.  And it's commonly during those times of testing that we're confronted with the choice of taking:

The low road -- where we succomb to our base emotions and fleshly impulses, and then either do or say something we may end up regretting.  It's also this lower road where we are preoccupied with and committed to justice -- our own.

The high road -- where we choose to set aside our "just" causes and our self-defenses, and we humble ourselves for the sake of the "higher good."  This is the road that our Savior would likely take --the road of serving rather than being served; the road of going the extra mile and turning the other cheek; the road of laying down one's rights and life rather than defending them.

When we choose the high road, we do so with the belief that -- in the final analysis -- it will prove to have been the right choice.  And there's a enigma here: taking the "high" road involves a "humbling" of ourselves.  And yet it's this sort of humbling that eventually lifts us to great heights. Peter draws attention to this sort of thing: "Humble yourselves, therefore, under God's mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time." (1 Peter 5:6, NIV)

I bring all this up because something happened today that confronted me once again with this choice of which road I should choose.  And it's got me wondering...

• What is it that keeps people from taking the "high road" more often?
• Is it possible to miss the mark here, and to confuse the "high road" with the road of emotional abuse?
• What benefits or liabilities do you see as being connected with our taking the "high road?"
• Have you ever taken either the "high road" or the "low road" and regretted it?