What Dreams May Come: A Pastoral Care Perspective

Recently, I was sitting in the passenger seat of a car with a friend on our way to the grocery store to buy food that we were both going to prepare together. It was no coincidence that the meal we would share together was very communal; almost spiritual. While in the car various songs came on the radio, and I turned to my friend, who was driving, and said, “do you find it an interesting phenomenon that almost all the songs we listen to are about interpersonal relationships.” I found this epiphany rather revealing about the human condition, and humanities need to connect with other people even through our mediums of entertainment. Like music, Film is another media that often looks at establishing interpersonal connections, and can be viewed as a form of devotion. Nathaniel Dorsky writes about his experience with film as,

In fact, film’s physical properties seemed so attuned to our metabolism that I began to experience film as a direct and intimate metaphor or model of our being, a model which had the potential to be transformative, to be an evocation of spirit, and to become a form of devotion. [1]

Film, with its visual quality combined with sound and story meld together to create an emotional response in the viewing, and it is this emotional response that captivates the viewer and helps them to make the judgment call of whether or not the film was good or bad. Films are often metaphors for our own existential predicaments, and it is on this level that we can view a film from a philosophical or a theological perspective; and frequently from both.

A particular field of theology is pastoral care, which is a practical discipline concerned with the needs of individuals and their care; and typically includes a spiritual dimension as well. In the course of this paper I will be evaluating the 1998 film What Dreams May Come. The film itself is a complex film suitable for many types of theological reflection; however, I will be analyzing the film through a pastoral care lens and showing example of pastoral care throughout the film. The basic plot of the film is succinctly summarized by Deacy and Ortiz with,

This is a movie in which Robin Williams plays a children’s doctor who dies in a car accident four years after his two young children were killed in a similar manner. Unable to cope with her loss, his wife, played by Annabella Sciorra, commits suicide and, like her husband, finds herself in an afterlife – only, whereas he ends up in a paradisiacal, heavenly realm more beautiful than anything he had ever imagined on earth, she journeys to a very different plane of existence, namely, a hellish environment where she is perennially punished for her violation of the natural order of things and her failure to honor the sanctity of life. [2]

While this movie is typically evaluated for its eschatological qualities, it is also a film depicting intense love and devotion and the hope and despair resulting from loving and perhaps loving too much. There is a scene in the film where Chris Nielson (played by Robin Williams) travels to hell to attempt to bring his wife Annie out of her despair invested afterlife, and when he thinks it is hopeless he decides that being with her in hell is better than being without her in heaven. The love that Chris and Annie have for one another is expressed throughout the film.

Before Chris is killed in the automobile accident he frequently takes time out to help Annie cope with the emotional turmoil created by the death of their children. There is a scene early in the film where Annie calls her husband unable to deal with the stress of her job, combined with the guilt and distress over the memory of the loss of her children. Chris is attentive to her suffering, and offers compassionate solutions to alleviate her frustrations. Listening is an important part of pastoral care as Carolyn Bohler writes, “Listening to a person, hearing what she is saying, is an ability that takes sincere effort. To listen requires that we move our own assumptions out of the way.” [3] The love that Chris has for his wife is the sincere motivation necessary for him to effectively listen to her needs, and help her through her daily routine; however, there are opportunities where Chris – after his death – needs to work through his own emotional turmoil. He is helped by three individuals in the film; Albert, Leona, and The Tracker. It is later revealed that these three individuals are not as they appear, but are actually people from his past; namely, his son and daughter along with a mentor from his days as a medical intern.

Charles W. Taylor’s Metanoia Model is expressed throughout the film; Taylor describing his model as, “…a prelude either to coping with a problem situation or to make changes in it.” [4] The point of this particular model of pastoral care is to help the recipient of the care cope with problems. The stages of this model operate in a reciprocal arrangement between the one giving care and the one receiving it. The care giver shows presence, proclamation, and guidance while the receiver of care goes through the stages of exploring, understanding, and acting. [5] In the film after Chris dies in the automobile accident he is greeted by Albert, who helps him go through the process of realizing he is deceased and working through the initial trauma of someone in a new state of being. Initially, it is difficult for Chris to leave the material world, where he can see but cannot be seen. He witnesses his wife’s grief over his death, and eventually withdraws from the material word to his own paradise, but before he was able to cross over he had to be ready, and was told by Albert that he will leave the physical world once he is ready. Albert maintained a steady presence, keeping Chris informed of his situation, and guiding him through the transition needed to move forward. Chris in turn, had to come to an understanding that his presence was not helping his wife’s grieving process as she could sense his presence and it only exacerbated her grief. In the film Chris, seeing his wife suffering over his death, speaks to her, “That's when I realized I'm part of the problem. Not because I remind you. But because I couldn't join you. So I left you alone. Don't give up, okay?” While she couldn’t hear him, he was working through his predicament, and realized it was time for him to move on. Once he came to this understanding and had made the choice to move on he was able to enter his paradise; another new state of being for him. A similar process needed to be negotiated when Chris arrived in heaven, as he learned to cope with his new environment he was assisted by both Albert and Leona.

When Annie commits suicide she isn’t greeted by Albert or Leona, or by anyone else. She finds herself in a hell of her own creation. In discussing Annie’s situation Albert tells Chris, “Everybody's Hell is different. It's not all fire and pain. The real Hell is your life gone wrong.” Annie’s despair lead her to suicide, and upon death she denied her own death and lived a liminal state of perpetual despair. Once Chris discovers that his wife has committed suicide, and will not be reunited with him in the afterlife, he resumes his previous role of providing care for her. He seeks the help of The Tracker, a guide who can lead him through the maze that is hell. He is warned that the longer he spends with Annie, the likelihood increases that he will be sucked into her world of despair and unable to return to the paradise he enjoyed. Eventually Chris is able to get his wife to recognize her despair, and challenge it; this, in turn, allows him to take her out of hell and into heaven to meet with Albert and Leona who are actually their children Ian and Marie. The implications of pastoral care seen in the descent of Chris into hell displays an important feature within pastoral care and how the care-giver attends to the person receiving care; namely, that the care provider needs to stay focused and attentive and not get too wrapped up in his or her own emotions in the process. It is often stated that laughter is contagious; the same can also be said for despair, hopelessness, and frustration. In an intensely emotional situation it can be a challenge to keep enough emotional distance to be effective, while still maintain a sufficient level of empathy to provide the necessary care. In the film, Chris is able to maintain the balance between emotional distance and empathy and is able to facilitate the change necessary within his wife so that she can let go of some of the pain she felt and leave her self-imposed prison.

The film concludes with both Chris and Annie choosing to re-enter the physical world via reincarnation; however, Annie has chosen to return to the realm of the living as a means of accepting responsibility for her suicide and desiring to live again in hopes that she will live more effectively a second time around. Chris, because of his intense love for her, chooses to return to the world of the living in the expectation that he will always be with her. The desire to take responsibility for her actions, and return to life is a profound pastoral care lesson. Elizabeth Liebert alludes to this taking of responsibility in her essay Coming Home to Themselves,

Adequate spiritual care of women will include assisting women to become more deeply in touch with reality, however it is expressed in a given woman’s life situation. It will assist women in their moves toward self-transcendence and will help them come home to themselves as creative, autonomous and life-giving members of human communities. It will deal, at moments, with beliefs, convictions, and patterns of thought, with emotions, with desires, and with behavior, all in relationship to what the women themselves judge to be Ultimate. [6]

In the film Annie works to transcend herself, and her depression, and seek her own self apart from her children and her husband. This does not diminish the love she has for either of them, but allows her to ground more firmly in reality and see more objectively.

What Dreams May Come is a film that expresses deep interpersonal relationships, and captures multiple aspects of the human condition. Everyone will eventually die, and everyone will experience loss of some kind in their life. Being able to cope with change and loss is an important aspect of pastoral care, and helping others manage change in a healthy and life affirming way is indicative of good pastoral leadership – whether the care is given in a clinical, clerical, or everyday setting matters very little. What is important; however, is the spiritual and psychological care of the person in need. Listening, being present, offering guidance are some examples in which care can be given. What Dreams May Come is a film that reminds us that we are not along in this world, or the next. In the film there is a scene were Chris asked Albert, “Where is God in all this?” With Albert responding, “Oh, He's up there. Somewhere... shouting down that He loves us. Wondering why we can't hear Him.” Often when depressed it is important to be reminded that God does love us, and often tries to tell us through our interactions with others. What Dreams May Come accomplishes as a film is to make us mindful of the transforming effectiveness of love; both the love that God has for us by offering opportunities for redemption from our mistakes, and also the love that others can share with us. In the viewing of the film, in preparation for this paper, I found it very cathartic as I recalled the suffering and loss of my father, and the memories of my own grief and how I worked through it, and continue to change as a result of my grief. The love that Chris and Annie shared in the film was truly intoxicating, and being able to share in their love, even via the fictional medium of film, was itself a form of devotion for me.

[1] Dorsky, Nathaniel . "Devotional Cinema." In The Religion and Film Readere, Jolyon Mitchell and S. Brent Plate, 407-415. New York: Routledge, 2007. Page 407.
[2] Deacy, Christopher, and Gaye W. Ortiz. Theology and Film: Challenging the Sacred/Secular Divide. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishing, 2008. Page 183.
[3] Bohler, Carolyn S. "Female-Friendly Pastoral Care." In Through the Eyes of Women: Insights for Pastoral Care, Jeanne S. Moessner, 27-49. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996. Page 28.
[4] Taylor, Charles W. The Skilled Pastor: Counseling as the Practice of Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991. Page 8.
[5] Ibid. Page 8.
[6] Liebert, Elizabeth. "Coming Home to Themselves: Women's Spiritual Care." In Through the Eyes of Women: Insights for Pastoral Care, Jeanne S. Moessner, 257-284. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996. Page 265.

One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest

A typical theological reflection on the film One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest might see the character R. P. McMurphy as a Christ figure with his stay at the mental hospital as having a redemptive quality. I will not be viewing the film in this manner; instead, I’ll be viewing the film with a Gnostic filter as opposed to a more normative Orthodox theological perspective. In this perspective the hospital becomes a metaphor for the human condition itself.

The character of R. P. McMurphy becomes not a Christ figure per se but simply a person cast into the mix with the rest of humanity, as represented by the other members of the hospital. The difference between McMurphy and the others is that he is more aware of the outside world – symbolic of the Gnostic desire to return to a pre-existent state within the pleroma. He desires to return to that state, but the bonds of the hospital bind him in such a way that he cannot. In contrast to McMurphy and the other patients in the hospital is the medical staff. The director of the hospital stands as the Demiurge, the god that watches over creation; whereas the hospital staff, and especially Nurse Ratched represents the archons who do the work of the Demiurge and who work to keep everyone enslaved to the material world (i.e., the hospital).

McMurphy tries to escape the hospital prison to achieve gnosis, but his ties there are too firm and he finds himself going back. The other patients in the hospital are also tied there, and most are tethered to the hospital willingly and don’t want to escape the shackles that bind them. Only one person in the hospital breaks free from the efforts of the Demiurge and his archons. That person being Chief Bromden, who through the efforts of McMurphy realizes he no longer needs the hospital and frees himself. After he frees McMurphy from his material prison, by smothering him with a pillow, he escapes his prison to find gnosis.

Looking at the film as a metaphor for the Gnostic human condition, to seek a world outside of the realm of the Demiurge and the archons, and to come to one’s own grips with reality is something this film can demonstrate. By looking at the film as strictly another Christ film, with McMurphy in the Christ role, seems to place all the emphasis of the film onto the character of McMurphy. While he is the lead character of the film, there is potentially more at stake than simply the greatness of McMurphy. It could be viewed, in a Gnostic sense, that McMurphy does have a Christ like quality, but it also shows the real responsibility within a Gnostic understanding of redemption rests within each person and not necessarily an historical action. The real hero in the movie is Chief Bromden, who goes from feigning deaf and dumbness to an awakening that allows him to hear, to speak, and to be free.

The Passion of the Christ

In the film The Passion of the Christ the viewer is taken into a realm of melancholy music, harsh brutality, and sadistic revelry. The obvious theological implication of the film is the views of the director, Mel Gibson (a conservative Roman Catholic), who clearly views the atonement as a bloody sacrifice of Jesus sacrificed on behalf of humanity -- independent of the workings of humanity. The view that humanity is enslaved by sin, and demonic influences, and can only be redeemed from this enslavement by this act of sacrifice, is placing Jesus in the role of a divine scapegoat. This role is reinforced with scenes of sadistic brutality inflicted upon Jesus throughout the film, a brutality that seems both forced and overly sadistic.

That The Passion of the Christ is a movie about Jesus is abundantly obvious; however, I would like to focus my attention on some underlying theological aspects of the film that function in a more subtle role. The first I will address is the role that Mary, the mother of Jesus, plays in the film. Throughout the story she is seen following her son through his scourging, walk with his cross, and ultimately his crucifixion. There are several scenes in which Mary has a flashback to a younger Jesus, a human Jesus who falls and needs his mother, and a Jesus who is hungry and needs food. This human Jesus is contrasted with the justified Jesus who tells the high Priest, “I AM…” which can be seen as Jesus alluding to his divine status,[1] as well as the quick flashback scene where Jesus states the words of John 14:6, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life.”[2] Later in the film Jesus is a bloody mess, and can barely carry his cross on his way to the crucifixion site. When his mother kneels down before his fallen body she tells her son that she is here, and her presence seems to give him the energy to continue his journey. She is clearly grieving for her son, but her presence in the film also seems like a coach motivating a player to stay in the game. This seems consistent with the role that Mary plays in the theological witness of both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. She is not simply the woman who gave birth, and raised Jesus but also the Theotokos, the Mother of God and to some a co-Redemptrix.

Towards the middle of the film Mary is seen with a white piece of cloth cleaning up the blood of her son after he had been scourged, and it seemed akin to a nun cleaning up a spilled consecrated chalice used in a Eucharistic rite. The image of the white cloth and Eucharistic elements exist throughout the film. In addition to the white cloth Mary used to soak up blood, a white cloth was used in the film to cover the bread used in the last supper, and finally a white cloth was used to dry the hands of the Roman procurator after he “washed his hands” of the Jesus affair. The symbolism here is important Eucharistically. In the older form of Catholic worship the priest would wash his hands after the offertory prayer in preparation for the sacrifice of the Mass itself, drying his hands on a white cloth. That the procurator is giving Jesus up to be a sacrifice seems evident, and reminiscent of the Catholic understanding of the Mass being God offered up to God in a non-bloody sacrifice as opposed to Jesus being offered up as the bloody sacrifice. The sacrifice of Jesus in relived in the Eucharist. A similar white cloth can be seen in his funeral shroud, although it is miraculously unstained, at the very end of the film when we see Jesus resurrected, completely healed save for the holes within his palms. This funeral shroud, without blood stains, seems to indicate the time for the bloodless sacrifice – The Eucharist – has come. The image of the white cloth plays an important role in linking these various scenes of the Eucharistic elements of the film.

Several other characters in the film are worth mentioning. The first is the Satan figure. This figure has an ambiguous gender and is clearly the real antagonist of the film following Jesus throughout the film, and taking delight in his punishment. The Satan figure also interacts with the Judas character and most strikingly in the scene where Judas interacts with some children who at first seem concerned about him, only to display a demonic countenance in which they endeavor to torment Judas and reveal to him his cursed nature. Judas then retreats to the wilderness where he finds a rotting donkey near a tree, and taking rope from the donkey corpse he hangs himself. The horrific images of the Judas suicide seem to help in displaying the Satan figure as a key player in the story, as a deterministic element manipulating and steering events. The irony is that at the end of the film the Satan figure seems defeated by that which he worked towards – the crucifixion of Jesus.

Some mention needs to be given to the roles played in the story by Herod and the Roman procurator. The procurator is seen in a sympathetic perspective, and he is almost seen as a man forced out of necessity to condemn Jesus. Herod, on the other hand, is seen as an effeminate letch devoted to pleasure and debauchery. The Roman procurator, on the other hand, is seen as a calm respectable figure trying to do the right thing. The Jewish priests are clearly seen in the film to be the instigators of the violence to Jesus, and this enmity towards Jesus seems to be shared by the Roman soldiers who seem to enjoy torturing Jesus. The scene with the priests processing to the crucifixion site seems in contrast to a flashback where Jesus is seen, with the camera angle seen through his eyes, processing into Jerusalem on a donkey. These two scenes contrast with the Judas suicide scene where he hangs himself from a rope around a decomposing donkey. Jesus rode in triumph, the priests rode to a slaughter, and Judas used the donkey’s possession to end his life. As the donkey carries its burden, Jesus is seen in the film to carry the burden of sin.

The film The Passion of the Christ utilizes material from all four gospels, and takes liberty where it suits the film maker. The film is not Jewish friendly film (from the effeminate Herod to the sadistic priests), and clearly reflects the theological agenda of the film’s maker. The popularity of the film cannot be ignored, and the rich symbolism of the film needs to be discussed. The film offers a good springboard for conversation on atonement, and place the crucifixion has within Christianity.

[1] This “I AM” statement can be seen in Exodus 3:14 with God referring to himself. The Gospel of Mark 14:62 has Jesus refer to himself as “I AM,” but the other gospels omit the “I AM.”
[2] New Revised Standard Version.

Crimes & Misdemeanors

In the Woody Allen film Crimes and Misdemeanors the viewer is taken into two separate, yet interconnected worlds. In these two worlds the viewer glimpses into a world of suffering and struggle. It is the suffering and struggle, and subsequent relief, which are the subject of this particular theological analysis of the film. There are multiple layers to this film with multiple characters, and each of the characters wrestles with tough questions, makes choices, suffers, and longs for an end to that suffering.

There are two main characters in the film; Clifford Stern and Judah Rosenthal. These two men represent a contrast, since Judah is a successful doctor and Clifford is a seemingly average documentary producer. Both of these men struggle through life looking for happiness, and while Judah seems to find happiness in a mistress (Delores) he has to deal with her later in the film by murdering her. Clifford on the other hand doesn’t have the career success as Judah and tries to do everything with a sense of moral rightness. By the end of the film we see Judah having arranged the murder of his mistress, guilty of financial improprieties, and guilty of adultery; however, in the end he seems blessed by a rejuvenated marriage and while not a clear conscious a conscious that will allow him a sense of peace. Likewise, by the end of the film we see Clifford having lost the woman he loved, still unsuccessful in his work and staring into his glass in apparent depression. What does this tell us about God? About redemption?

There are plenty of support characters in the film. Halley is the love interest of Clifford, but instead of Clifford “getting the girl” she falls for Lester, an arrogant producer that Clifford ridicules and tries to compete with. When we see Halley earlier in the film she is divorced, yet still wears her wedding ring and not fully over the divorce. She isn’t receptive to Clifford’s advances, but is a likable character and it seems like she and Clifford will become a couple by the end of the movie, but of course she ends up with Lester. Another supporting character is Wendy, the wife of Clifford and sister of Lester. She is clearly unhappy in her marriage with Clifford and she doesn’t seem to respect her husband; however, by the end of the film we see that Wendy and Clifford are separating and that Wendy has found someone who makes her smile. In contrast to Wendy is Delores, the mistress of Judah. She longs for him, but he doesn’t want to give up his wife and privileged position. Delores ends up dead, because she threatened to challenge Judah’s lifestyle and marriage with Miriam. Another important supporting character is the sister of Clifford. She is a likable character but plagued with unhappiness, and at the end of the story she doesn’t seem to have much to look forward to. What do these characters tell us about God? About redemption?

The contrasts in the film are striking. The arrogant producer (Lester) gets the girl (Halley). The adulterous embezzler now murderer (Judah) ends up happy. The do-good looser (Clifford) gets nothing. The woman longing for love (Delores) sees only suffering and death. The contrast in the film is that those characters that seem worthy of our sympathy get nothing; whereas, those characters who are not as likable find solace by the end of the film. What does this tell us about God? About redemption?

It would be haughty to assume that God only cares about those people with whom we care about, and wrong to assume that God doesn’t care about the wicked, or the arrogant. The film can clearly be seen as a metaphor for God’s love for humanity. Redemption, being hope and meaning, can be given by God to anyone and need not filter through the moral compass of humanity. A person’s relationship with God is their own relationship, and need not pass a consensus evaluation. The arrogant (Lestor) can find humility (Halley). The distraught (Delores) can find relief (death). The proud and conflicted (Judah) can find happiness (Miriam). The success of these less likable characters doesn’t mean that the other characters in the film will never experience redemption from their troubled lives, but it does show that redemption is there and that it is given to even those we feel are undeserving. The moral of the story is not to question the generosity of God. Not to place qualifiers or expectations on the generosity of God. God loves the righteous and the wicked, the sinner and the sinless.

Druid work and Update

I've been very busy since I've started seminary this fall semester. This summer was also a whirlwind of activity. This past spring (May 25th) I initiated Adam Robersmith as Druid Apprentice and Druid Companion in the Ancient Order of Druids in America. It was good doing AODA ritual again, something I've missed over the years.

My time here in seminary has been fine so far. I'm working to find my way here, as a religious minority. I have found several people in which I can relate and with whom I've had some very good conversations. The campus was hit by Hurricane Ike and it became an opportunity for students to band together to form community supporting one another.

Regarding my involvement in Unitarian Universalism I've met with the district executives of both the Heartland District and the Ohio-Meadville District; Nancy Combs-Morgan and Rev. Joan Van Becelaere. Both meetings went very well, and I'm working on the process of obtaining aspirant ministerial status. It seems to be taking longer than I would have hoped, but patience will suit me better than being too hasty.

I'm going to endeavor to blog more. It has been too long since I've posted last, and blogging is important to me so I'm going to try to find time.

Elaine Pagels

Chris Tessone in his blog Even the Devils Believe recently attacked scholar Elaine Pagels for her research on Gnosticism. I would like to briefly address some of the comments that Chris made in his blog:

"On the one hand, we have to meet the argument that gnosticism has value for Christians head on, dismantling what's false and disingenuous about its ideas."

Of course he is going to be critical of the views and perspectives of Gnosticism, his 'brand' of faith doesn't allow for deviance of doctrine. Therefore, everything that is not his own is false and disingenuous -- not just Gnosticism but everything else.

"In some sense, Elaine Pagels is a problem — her books make disingenuous arguments and distort the history of the early Church."

First off Pagels is an academic and her claims are based on years of research. I think it is disingenuous to argue against her in such an ad hominem fashion. Instead attack her thesis, and do so in an academic manner instead of an appeal to tradition or an appeal to emotion. There is much research being done now on the subject of Gnosticism and various early Christian sects. Not only by Pagels but many other scholars as well. I have found her books to be thoughtful and compelling. I don't know if I accept everything she writes, but I am open to her scholarship -- like I am open to any scholarship that is well argued. Holding onto a tradition simply because it is a tradition is, I believe, very disingenuous.

"The response must be positive, not negative, because Pagels and gnosticism are filling a void that can and should be filled with legitimate Christian spirituality tied to the life-giving words of the Gospel."

This is the heart of the matter! Christians need more legitimate Christian spirituality and not Gnostic heresy! Or so it would seem that is what Chris+ is arguing for. It is interesting where people draw the line at their orthodoxy. Some Catholics would say that being in communion with the Pope is absolutely essential to the faith, while independent Catholics cannot make this claim because their very independence cuts them off from communion with Rome. The word legitimate is a very loaded term. Can someone be a legitimate Catholic and not recognize the sovereignty of the Pope in matters of faith? A Roman Catholic would say no, an independent Catholic would say yes. Who is more orthodox? Which position is legitimate, and which is illegitimate? There is also the nature of the sacraments and the position on women's ordination. Most independent Catholics think women's ordination is acceptable, while the Roman Catholic position is that it is not. Whose orthodoxy is legitimate and who is illegitimate?

What I think is the real solution is to stop hiding behind the veil of orthodoxy. Christians, Gnostic or Orthodox, should learn to find common ground. To dwell together in peace to and learn from one another. Instead of building walls that foster enmity build bridges to allow for understanding. What matters most is faith, not acceptance of a creed. As Kierkegaard wrote faith is a paradox and cannot be gained through reason or rational thought. This being the case, and I believe it is, then it seems more human to embrace differences rather than scorn them. Elaine Pagels is not the problem. Ignorance is the problem. Gnosis renders the veil unnecessary.

Solstice Solitude

The end of October and the first of November is an interesting time for me, because I'm working diligently to finish Fall Quarter writing papers and studying for finals. Then suddenly its all over, and I have time off with Thanksgiving followed by Christmas. Because of this break I suffer from a depression of sorts. Something that I cannot fully explain, but I'm aware it exists. I focused much of my efforts on Nova Roma in the past several weeks finishing up the bi-annual census (I'm serving as censor last year and this year). There has been a lot of "political turmoil" in Nova Roma as of late that I have been dealing with, and it has been emotionally taxing to me as well. I'm looking forward to "getting back" to work with Winter Quarter starting on Monday. I have two quarters left as an undergraduate, and I have to make these two quarters count because I don't want there to be any sort of mix-up that will keep me at Wright State University any longer than absolutely necessary!

Recently I finished reading the book, "The Road," by Cormac McCarthy. It was a great book, but probably the most depressing story I've ever read. My take on the story is that the boy represents the ethics of Immanuel Kant, the father of David Hume, and most everyone else they encounter represent the ethics of Thomas Hobbes. The people at the very end of the novel might represent John Stuart Mill and the Utilitarians, but I'm still undecided on that. Yesterday I started reading the "His Dark Materials" trilogy by Philip Pullman, that inspired the movie "The Golden Compass." I've read that the story has Gnostic significance and I'm eager to pull back the layers to discover it.

As I come out of my solstice shell I look forward to Winter Quarter and Jewish Existentialism and Medical Ethics. I'm not looking forward to Communication Statistics and German 201.

This past Christmas time at the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of which I am a part was very pleasant! I conducted the program on December 23rd on UU Diversity and that went very well. I talked about the various spiritual pathways within Unitarian Universalism, and people seemed receptive to that. I also helped facilitate the Christmas Eve program and that too was a success. We did a sort of Christian-Pagan hybrid service and I think everyone appreciated the efforts made, and came out with a positive feeling. Now that I'm recharged, I'm ready for the new year!