Cinemorphosis

Tag: christianity

  • That One Last Reservation Before the World Ends

    That One Last Reservation Before the World Ends

    Last night I dreamed I lived in a buried Eden—an immense underground forest strung with posh restaurants and spa resorts like jewels on a necklace. Rumors crept through the crowd that thunder was coming, that the floodgates of heaven were warming up their rotator cuffs. No one cared. They feasted, drank, and posed for selfies beneath glowing lanterns as if the apocalypse were a pretentious wine critic whose opinion they could safely ignore.

    Their denial infected me. I booked a table at a celebrated outdoor tiki restaurant where fire torches hissed and thatched huts leaned like gossiping debutantes. The maître d’ was Ari Melber, no longer the news anchor who dissected politics but a hospitality messiah who now curated flaming cocktails. He remembered me with a kind, almost pastoral smile. We bantered as if I hadn’t abandoned his television show months ago, when the news began to feel like surgery performed by angry interns armed with steak knives.

    On my way back into the mob, I spotted Werner Herzog: prophet of bleakness, birder of human despair, now loitering like an omniscient owl. His gaze locked on the bright orange watch strapped to my wrist. He coveted it with a seriousness usually reserved for glacier panoramas. I handed it over without hesitation—it was cheap costume jewelry, a gift I had held onto only out of politeness. Now I’d at least have a noble story: “Herzog wanted it.” Who could argue with that?

    Then the heavens decided to audition for God’s wrath. Thunder cracked, lightning flared, and rain attacked with the ferocity of a SWAT raid. The revelers lost their composure and scattered. Higher ground. We needed higher ground. We sprinted into an all-girls parochial school. The hallways smelled like chalk, fear, and cafeteria cheese. Teenage girls sobbed as some faceless authority commanded them to abandon their duffel bags and place them in a nursery filled with empty cribs. They laid their bags into those cribs like mothers relinquishing newborns. The sound of their crying was medieval.

    Water kept hammering the roof. The underground city was a sinking ship without a captain. My pulse was quiet—too quiet. Some part of me had already accepted the ending. That’s when Herzog returned. I glanced at my wrist and discovered a new watch there—brown, joyless, like a UPS truck. I offered it to him the way a man gives tribute to an impatient god. He accepted, now wearing orange and brown on a single limb, comforted by trinkets in the face of annihilation.

    If doom was coming for us all, then let it. I’d shaken hands with Ari Melber. He’d greeted me with the authenticity of a priest who still believes the liturgy. If anyone deserved restaurant success in a drowned world, it was him. A flood could wash away our bodies, but the memory of an affable maître d’ was buoyant enough to float.

  • Sam Harris Has Tea with a Christian Nationalist

    Sam Harris Has Tea with a Christian Nationalist

    Sam Harris has always been a curious kind of mystic—one who believes in meditation, not miracles; consciousness, not creeds. He seeks transcendence without theology, a spiritual depth unburdened by institutional clutter. Religion, he concedes, sometimes gestures toward the same inner world he explores, but it arrives dragging a freight train of dogma, myth, and moral detritus.

    That distaste for organized faith didn’t stop Harris from sitting down with one of its most unyielding champions: Doug Wilson, a self-described “Christian nationalist” pastor out of Moscow, Idaho. Wilson is the sort of man who makes the Bible sound less like scripture and more like federal law. He calls himself a scriptural absolutist, affirms the Apostles’ Creed word for word, believes the earth is 6,000 years old, defends the Old Testament’s death penalties for Sabbath violators, and dreams of a Reformed Presbyterian theocracy—America governed by divine fiat and fossilized certainty.

    When Wilson argued that moral relativism was America’s undoing, Harris did not interrupt. The pastor warned that tolerance would rot the nation from within—imagining a slippery slope from pluralism to polygamy, from open borders to moral anarchy. Harris listened quietly, allowing Wilson to build his own cathedral of logic brick by brittle brick.

    Throughout the conversation, Harris stayed composed, probing only occasionally—asking about the justice of eternal damnation, or how exactly divine law handles marriage beyond the traditional mold. His restraint was surgical. He wasn’t there to score points; he was there to let the argument reveal itself.

    At one point, Wilson lamented that secular institutions had failed us. Oddly, Harris seemed to nod—at least internally. They shared a disappointment in modernity’s moral anemia, though their prescriptions could not be more opposed. Harris seeks meaning through reason and mindfulness; Wilson seeks it through submission and authority.

    By the end, no one converted anyone. Harris didn’t embrace theocracy, and Wilson didn’t abandon it. But something subtler occurred: civility. Wilson, almost startled, thanked Harris for his respect and good manners—an acknowledgment that such conversations usually end in shouting.

    So what did Harris accomplish? He held a mirror to theocratic ambition without breaking it. By letting Wilson speak freely, he illuminated the growing movement that longs for a Christianized state—a homegrown version of moral authoritarianism dressed as righteousness. Harris didn’t win an argument; he revealed the landscape of the battlefield.

  • The Trilemma, the Mythmaker, and the Mad Apostle

    The Trilemma, the Mythmaker, and the Mad Apostle

    C.S. Lewis is famous for the “trilemma” he poses to frame the true nature of Jesus. He argues you have three choices: Jesus is claiming to be God because he is insane. Jesus is claiming to be God but knows this claim to be untrue but says so with malevolent intent because he is devilishly dishonest. Or Jesus’ claim to be God is true. Lewis argues that the common fourth scenario is not permitted in this trilemma: You can’t say Jesus is a nice guy with wisdom that encourages all to be wise and to love each other. I call this the “Hippy Jesus” scenario. 

    While I see Lewis’ insight and honesty in not having a patronizing view of Jesus and the high-stakes claims he makes about salvation and living an abundant life, I’m not so sure the trilemma is that unique or groundbreaking. The trilemma applies to all competing religions, which make their claims to being different from their competition and the “best” of all of them. Either these religions and their advocates are crazy, cynical, or telling the truth. 

    The same goes for St. Paul. Either he was a madman, a lying cynic, or a truth-teller. 

    Reading Hyam Maccoby’s The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity, it’s clear that Maccoby sees Paul as both mad and cynical, a conniving narcissist with grand ambitions to head a religious movement regardless of how many people he has to step on. Much of Maccoby’s book is speculation and personal interpretation: Paul was not really a Pharisee. Paul remade Jesus from a champion for political liberation to an otherworldly figure. Jesus, a Pharisee himself, would have been offended by Paul’s notion of a divine Christ title when Jesus saw the Christ title to be a royal title, a “god-king,” that defined his Jewishness. Paul absolved the Romans from all blame for Jesus’ execution and placed it all on the Jews. The Pharisees had sympathy for Jesus and the Nazarenes in general and would not have persecuted them. This is an antisemitic myth in the New Testament designed to create a new religion based on misrepresentation. Paul’s rhetoric is so flawed that he is a hack whose epistles lack the trademark style of Pharisee training.

    The unity between Paul and the early Jerusalem church portrayed in Acts is a “sham.” The New Testament is made by authors who have given up on the Jews and are writing for a new audience–gentiles–therefore, the writings are aimed at “the anathematization of the Jews.” He argues that there is solid evidence of a competing Christianity in the first few centuries, that of the Ebionites, a theology free from the poison of Paul. 

    Maccoby’s critics have pointed out that much of the book is speculation and lacks conventional scholarly credibility. Additionally, they observe that Maccoby, ironically writing in a Pauline persona, has acrimony for Paul, builds a villain-like character, and then contorts and cherry-picks evidence and speculation to put flesh and bone on his character, who is more of a literary creation than a historical figure. In Maccoby’s view, Paul is not a truth-teller. In the context of the trilemma, Paul is a mix of a madman and conniving liar and mythmaker. 

    I have mixed feelings about Maccoby’s book. Part of me sees the speculation free of scholarly evidence and fictive elements in Maccoby’s writing, but one thing remains convincing: Christianity as a supercessionist religion. By replacing Judaism, Christianity must be looked at in terms of the trilemma: Either its writers are sincere albeit mad, they are fibbing and fabricating with a grand ambition in mind, or they are telling the truth. 

    To examine Paul in the context of the trilemma becomes most compelling in Maccoby’s final chapter, “The Mythmaker.” Maccoby writes that Paul is not so much a thinker whose writings give us definitive notions of free will, predestination, original sin, and the trinity; rather, Paul “had a religious imagination of the highest order” and is less a theologian and more of a “mythologist.” Consumed by his religious imagination, Paul was surely sincere in many of his writings. But of course the unconscious can play games on all of us. The unconscious has its own agenda to unfold wish fulfillment and satisfy deeply rooted needs for validation, love, and even power. 

    Whereas Maccoby sees Jesus as someone who wanted to fulfill his role in the Jewish religion, Paul saw Jesus differently: someone who conformed to the new religion that spun from Paul’s frenzied, often brilliant imagination. Just as Hamlet is a creation of Shakespeare, Jesus is a creation of Paul.  

    Paul has written a new story that the world has never seen in the form of a Pauline myth that is “the descent of the divine saviour.” Maccoby writes: “Everything in the so-called theology stems from this: for since salvation or rescue comes from above, no efficacy can be ascribed to the action or initiative of man.” We must abandon all other hope for the salvation of mankind and look only to the saviour who has descended to rescue us. 

    The Descending Saviour myth contains “narrative elements.” We live in a binary world of Above and Below, Light and Darkness. We live in a dark hellscape and must be rescued. The human condition is depraved. We are prisoners to sin and darkness and must be saved from the powers of Evil. We cannot, like Sam Harris, meditate and live a life of contemplation because such contemplation will cause us to surrender more to the evil inside of us. Harris’ solitary meditations may be a road to divinity for him, but for Paul, they pave a road to hell. 

    According to Maccoby, Paul’s myth causes the story about Adam and Eve’s expulsion from Paradise to be an extreme, binary view of sin that deviates from “its traditional Jewish exegesis.”  

    Paul’s extreme views cause him to see sex as a morbid affliction and he is incapable of celebrating sex as part of a fulfilling and healthy life and can only see sex through a prism of pinch-faced hostility and skepticism.  

    In Paul’s myth, Paul himself is a conduit for divine messages and visions and his writings are presented to us with the imprimatur of God. In contrast, the Old Testament is a downgrade: not written by God but curated by angels. In this comparison, Paul is superior to Judaism. In Maccoby’s view, Paul’s self-aggrandizement amounts “to wholesale usurpation of the Jewish religio-historical scheme.” 

    The Jewish way to salvation was for all of humanity to work on expunging “the evil inclination” discussed by the prophet Ezekiel. In the Pauline way, only a rescuer from above can remove this evil inclination. But Maccoby writes that the solution to sin and evil is more sophisticated and subtle than Paul can understand, perhaps because he is so absorbed by his own religious imagination. What Paul cannot understand is this: The rabbis say in the Mishnah: “Better is one hour of repentance and good works in this world than the whole life of the world to come; and better is one hour of repentance and good works in this world than the whole life of the world to come; and better is one hour of bliss in this world to come than the whole life of this world.” Such a view requires a balanced view of the human condition, but Paul, in Maccoby’s eyes, is too consumed by “adolescent despair and impatience for perfection” (Paul sounds an awful lot like me in this regard). Rabbis argue that the point of life is to struggle, and this struggle is more important than the reward. But Paul is not in this camp: “For Paul, the reward has become the indispensable substitute for the struggle, which he regards as hopeless and, therefore, pointless.”

    Maccoby rejects Paul’s salvation by faith model. You don’t just become a believer and enjoy instant salvation like Tang mixed with water. Maccoby writes: “People who are supposed to be ‘saved’ behave, unaccountably, just as badly as before they were saved, so that law has to be reintroduced to restrain them. Also, there are always logically minded people to say that if they are ‘saved,’ all behaviour that happens to appeal to them (such as sexual orgies or murder) in the confidence that nothing they do can be wrong. In other words, by being ‘saved,’ people may behave worse instead of better.” 

    According to Maccoby, Pauline’s mythmaking was born from “adolescent despair and impatience.” In his scramble to come up with a religion to satisfy his psychological needs, Paul combined Gnosticism, mystery religions of human sacrifice known as blood cults, and Judaism. These were the three major tools in Paul’s religious toolbox that he jerryrigged a new religion that would dominate the world. In borrowing from Judaism, Paul took the idea of the promises to a chosen people by making it so the Jews were no longer chosen but the gentiles. This brilliant maneuver made Christianity more appealing and marketable. 

    The most damning criticism Maccoby has of Paul’s new religion is the accusation that Paul is the chief author of antisemitism, “which eventually produced the medieval diabolization of the Jews, evinced in the stories of the ‘blood libel’ and the alleged desecration of the Host.” Paul referred to the Jews as the “sacred executioner.” He also writes that the Jews “are treated as enemies for your sake.” 

    Antisemitism is integral to the Paul’s greatest “fantasist” element of mythmaking: deifying Jesus and making his death “into a cosmic sacrifice in which the powers of evil sought to overwhelm the power of good, but, against their will, only succeeded in bringing about a salvific event. This also transforms the Jews, as Paul’s writings indicate, into the unwitting agents of salvation, whose malice in bringing about the death of Jesus is turned to good because this death is the very thing needed for the salvation of sinful mankind.” In Paul’s new religion, he showed that his mythmaking contained “an incentive to blacken the Jewish record in order to justify the Christian take-over of the Abrahamic ‘promises.’”

    Maccoby argues that Paul’s new religion has been a mixed bag: “The myth created by Paul was thus launched on its career in the world: a story that has brought mankind comfort in its despair, but has also produced plentiful evil.” 

    In this view, how do we assess the trilemma in evaluating Paul? Maccoby says Paul produced his religion out of “despair and agony,” which is to say from the torment of his inner being, a contrast to the Christian belief that Paul was animated by divine messages and visions. Paul’s “character was much more colourful than Christian piety portrays it; his real life was more like a picaresque novel than the conventional life of a saint. But out of the religious influences that jostled in his mind, he created an imaginative synthesis that, for good or ill, became the basis of Western culture.” Therefore, Paul is partly mad, a man consumed by his religious despair, and partly power-hungry, a man who seeks to create a new religion to assuage his torment and to universalize his sense of despair and salvation so the rest of the world can share in it. 

    Is Maccoby’s portrait of Paul convincing? Currently, my take is this: We have to take some of Maccoby’s judgments more seriously than others. Some narratives and psychological portrayals of Paul seem like mythmaking on Maccoby’s part. Perhaps Christianity is more complex and mysterious and less conspiratorial than Maccoby wants us to believe. But perhaps there are conflicting agendas in the making of Christianity and the Jews were unfairly portrayed. Perhaps in this regard, Maccoby is on to something and has contributed much in the way we see how religions are made and how antisemitism was born. 

  • Against Mythmaking 

    Against Mythmaking 

    In The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity, Hyam Maccoby doesn’t treat Paul as a saintly architect of faith. Instead, he brands him a slick opportunist — a theological con artist who sidelined Jesus’ Jewish disciples and reinvented the movement to glorify himself. In Maccoby’s telling, Paul isn’t the earnest apostle of Sunday school murals; he’s a résumé-padding religious entrepreneur with a flair for self-promotion.

    Luke, author of Acts, doesn’t escape scrutiny either. To Maccoby, Luke plays the role of breathless publicist, polishing Paul into a heroic Hollywood lead — all charisma, no contradictions, halo firmly secured with narrative glue.

    Yet as I reread Maccoby, I can’t ignore the irony: in exposing Paul’s myth-making, Maccoby may be engaged in his own. If Luke sculpted Paul into a glowing protagonist, Maccoby chisels him into a grand villain — less apostle, more Bond antagonist with holy stationery.

    My relationship with Paul is messier than either portrait. At times he reads like a puffed-up moralist enthralled by his own authority; at other moments, he achieves startling spiritual clarity — like his definition of God as self-emptying love in Philippians. Myth-making, whether heroic or malicious, flattens figures like Paul into cardboard cutouts, sanding down the contradictions that make real people aggravating, compelling, and occasionally profound.

    So while Maccoby offers a seductive, neatly packaged explanation for Christianity’s break from Judaism — Paul scheming his way to divine stardom — it feels too tidy. Real history rarely sticks to clean villain-hero binaries. 

    My life would be defined by resolution and an ability to move on if I could see Paul that way Maccoby does, but before I can toss Paul into the narcissist bin and slam the lid, I have to admit that Maccoby — like Luke — might be seduced by narrative neatness. Paul’s letters show someone less like a cartoon schemer and more like a man painfully aware of his own weakness, insecurity, and failure. If he were a megalomaniac mastermind, he was spectacularly bad at the role: beaten, jailed, mocked, shipwrecked, chronically ill, and constantly sparring with congregations who treated him not like a guru but like the world’s most irritating substitute teacher. His theology isn’t the product of a slick PR machine; it reads like a bruised mystic wrestling with power, ego, and surrender. 

    You can see it in Paul’s grudging boasts, his trembling confessions, and his moments of ecstatic humility — that strange mix of cosmic ambition and self-annihilation that marks someone grappling with God, not angling for a corner office. 

    It may be comforting to imagine Paul as either saint or sociopath, but the textual record points to something far more inconvenient: a brilliant, exasperating, self-contradicting human being who stumbled toward transcendence while dragging his flaws behind him like rattling tin cans tied to a wedding bumper.

    In any event, I shall continue rereading Maccoby. His strident reaction to Paul continues to fascinate me.

  • Thou Shalt Not Seek Meaning Where Only Rocks Dwell

    Thou Shalt Not Seek Meaning Where Only Rocks Dwell

    I was having dinner with my father—his post-divorce steak ritual on a patio that smelled faintly of smoke, charred meat, and newfound freedom. He’d bought a barbecue, a secondhand sofa, and the kind of wine that announces you’re single again but not destitute: red zinfandel in a tumbler. He cut into his steak with the swagger of a man who believed he’d successfully rerouted his son from the city dump to the university.

    “So,” he said, spearing a chunk of meat, “what are you thinking about majoring in?”

    My conversations with Master Po had me leaning toward philosophy and religion—the twin pillars of spiritual unemployment. “I think I’ll study philosophy or religion,” I said.

    He froze mid-chew. “Why in the hell would you want to do a thing like that?”

    “To study the search for meaning.”

    He swallowed, wiped his mouth, and took a long gulp of zinfandel. “Don’t waste your time.”

    “Meaning is a waste of time?”

    He smiled the way only a man twice-divorced and freshly cynical can smile. “Let me tell you a story.”

    He launched into a parable that sounded suspiciously homemade.

    A young man goes to the beach and asks God to reveal the meaning of life. God, ever the trickster, tells him the secret is written on one of the thousands of rocks scattered across the shore. The young man groans—it could take forever. God shrugs: “That’s not my problem.”

    So the man begins his search. Years pass. The tide rises and falls, civilizations collapse, and still he flips rocks like a man looking for lost keys in eternity’s junk drawer. When he’s old, leathery, and alone, he looks up at the sky and cries, “God, I’ve searched my whole life and found nothing! Every rock is blank. I’ve sacrificed joy, friendship, and everything good in the name of this search!”

    God looks down and says, “That’s right, you dumb shit. Now die.”

    When my father finished, he leaned back, self-satisfied, the smoke haloing his head like the ghost of a cigar.

    “Where did you hear that story?” I asked.

    He grinned. “I just made it up.”

    “Just now?”

    “Damn right. For your benefit.”

    “My benefit? What’s the moral?”

    “One, that God doesn’t give a shit. Two, that there is no meaning. And three, that you’d better not waste your college education searching for it.”

    Later that night, lying in bed, I consulted my spiritual mentor, Master Po, the philosopher of the leaky-roof dojo.

    “Master Po,” I said, “my father believes that searching for meaning is pointless.”

    “Your father is right, Grasshopper,” he said serenely. “The Way defies all grasping. Meaning is the mirage on the horizon—pursue it, and you will die of thirst. Better to drink from the river as it passes through your hands than try to hold it. For the river flows on… to the sea.”

    I thought about this while staring at the ceiling fan spinning in lazy circles. My father had God saying, “Now die.”
    Master Po preferred rivers and metaphors.
    Somewhere between them, I decided, was college.

  • Thou Shall Not Confuse Franco Columbu with Thyself

    Thou Shall Not Confuse Franco Columbu with Thyself

    One sluggish afternoon at Canyon High, as Mrs. Hanson’s freshman English class shuffled into their desks and prepared to feign interest in Romeo and Juliet, I had something far more compelling on my desk: Pumping Iron. It was my sacred text, my adolescent scripture, filled with black-and-white photos of demi-gods flexing under the Californian sun. My favorite shot was of Mr. Universe Franco Columbu, hanging upside down from a chin-up bar like a bat carved from granite.

    Next to me sat Jill Swanson—tall, sleek, with the effortless grace of a swimmer and the smile of someone who had never sweated through a protein fart. I decided this was my moment. I turned the page toward her.
    “Hey,” I said, “check out this bodybuilder at the beach.”
    She leaned in. “Holy smokes, he’s huge.”
    I nodded solemnly. “That’s me.”
    She blinked. “What?”
    “That’s me. Can’t you tell?”
    Jill squinted at the photograph, studying the Herculean Italian upside down in all his vascular glory.
    “Oh my God,” she said slowly. “That’s you?”
    “Yep.”
    And just like that, I was Franco Columbu. I spun a whole mythology—how I’d been visiting my grandparents in L.A., hanging out with my “bodybuilding friends” in Venice, when a photographer captured me mid-workout.

    For five glorious minutes, I was a god among freshmen. Then, as Jill flipped back to her notes and I basked in the afterglow of deceit, the truth curdled in my gut. The lie that had inflated me like a balloon was already leaking air. By the time I got home, I felt hollow and cheap. I stared into the bathroom mirror, splashed cold water on my face, and summoned my inner monk.

    “Master Po,” I said, “why am I such a compulsive liar?”
    “Because, Grasshopper,” he replied, “you wish to appear strong because you are weak. True strength is not forged in muscle but in mastering your inner demons.”
    “I have only one?”
    “No,” he said, “but let’s start with the demon of inadequacy—the one that makes you trade truth for applause.”
    “How do I kill it?”
    “You don’t,” he said. “You chip away at it. Great acts are made of small deeds. Each honest act is a strike against the demon.”
    “But where do I start?”
    “Stop gazing at your reflection as though it’s a sculpture to be admired,” he said. “When you cease to worship yourself, you’ll stop fearing imperfection. The sage who puts himself last finds nourishment. You, Grasshopper, are still starving.”

    I looked at my reflection—small, soft, and decidedly un-Franco-like—and realized Master Po was right. The hardest muscle to build is the one that keeps you honest.

  • Honor Your Inner Light, But Don’t Forget to Open a Window

    Honor Your Inner Light, But Don’t Forget to Open a Window

    In the early seventies, when Kung Fu flickered across American televisions, my family and our Berkeley friends spent two weeks each summer at Berkeley Tuolumne Camp—a “rustic getaway” that was really just Yosemite-adjacent squalor with better lighting. We slept in glorified tents, shared public latrines, and dined communally on food that could have been mistaken for field rations. I liked to think of myself as a young Caine, the barefoot monk of Kung Fu, wandering the wilderness in contemplative solitude. Sadly, my Zen aspirations were constantly interrupted by counselors who mistook joy for a group activity.

    Every hour they corralled us for something: forced sing-alongs, talent shows, and “athletic contests” such as tug-of-war, which was neither athletic nor a contest so much as an exercise in rope burn. One counselor resembled Bernadette Peters in both hair and chaos. Another, a sun-bleached folk singer in patched jeans and a tunic, looked unsettlingly like a California Jesus. He roamed the camp with his guitar and a homemade theology he called the Divine Point System. Every act earned or lost “Jesus Points”: ten off for littering, fifteen on for picking up trash, thirty off for talking during the talent show. He doled out morality like a camp accountant for God.

    I privately dubbed him Berkeley Camp Jesus, and his system wormed its way into my psyche like a pious parasite. Soon I was mentally awarding and deducting points from myself all day long. Back home, I picked a plum from our tree, ate it, and flicked the pit into the neighbor’s yard. Immediately, I heard the voice: “Ten points deducted, you littered.” Then came my rebuttal: “No, you planted future nourishment for your neighbors—plus twenty.” Thus began my lifelong facility for creative moral bookkeeping—a skill that would serve me well in future ethical entanglements.

    That same summer, my real education came not from campfire sing-alongs but from a contraband paperback: Herman Raucher’s Summer of ’42. While my peers hiked and swam, I stayed inside my tent reading about Hermie’s torrid affair with a married woman. I’d already seen the movie with Jennifer O’Neill, so my imagination was well supplied. Nature, with all its pines and chirping insects, couldn’t compete with adolescent desire and literary scandal.

    When I finished the novel, I didn’t rejoin the living; I began my private religion: Dice Baseball. Armed with two dice, stat sheets, and a Panasonic tape recorder, I simulated entire baseball seasons—162 games of pure obsession. I played both teams, announced every pitch in my best Monte Moore voice, conducted post-game interviews as Reggie Jackson, Catfish Hunter, and myself, and recorded it all. My church was a canvas tent, my congregation a stack of baseball cards.

    One morning, my father—having eaten steak and eggs in the communal mess hall—entered the tent, surveyed my sanctuary, and decided I was going feral. “I didn’t bring you to the wilderness to sit inside all day,” he said. Then, in a gesture that still burns in my soul, he used my Bert ‘Campy’ Campaneris baseball card to floss steak gristle from his teeth. “Get out and play,” he ordered, leaving me spiritually shattered and morally cleansed.

    I trudged to the lake in silent protest and asked Master Po, my ever-patient inner guru, why I preferred solitude.

    “Solitude, Grasshopper,” he said, “is the forge of your Inner Light.”

    “So my father was wrong to kick me out?”

    “I did not say that. The Inner Light must be balanced by the Outer Radiance of the world. You cannot discover one without glimpsing the other. Your father was right to deliver what you call a ‘kick in the pants.’ Balance, Grasshopper. Always balance.”

    And so I learned the paradox of enlightenment: seek inner peace, but occasionally go outside before your father uses your baseball cards as dental tools.

  • The Double-Minded Man on His Exercise Bike

    The Double-Minded Man on His Exercise Bike

    Thoughtful theists often find themselves backpedaling from the most odious doctrines of their faith until what remains is no longer recognizably orthodox. Some manage this theological detour while keeping their faith intact. Others slide further down the slope until their religion becomes something more universal, even Unitarian—a faith stripped of dogma and distilled to moral simplicity: love thy neighbor, serve the poor, practice charity, and call it good.

    Within Christianity, the spectrum is wide. On one end stand the infernalists of the Augustinian school, firm in their vision of eternal punishment. On the other are the universalists who, following Origen, imagine purgatory as a place of cleansing rather than damnation, with the possibility of post-mortem salvation. Some, like Martin Gardner and H. G. Wells, found orthodoxy itself to be a spiritual illness in William James’s sense—a sickness of the soul that required liberation. Others, like Dale Allison, hold to faith but jettison the Augustinian vision of perdition. And then there is philosopher Elizabeth Anderson, who takes orthodoxy at its word and concludes that if God authored it, He cannot be moral.

    As one nears death, it would be comforting to have these matters settled—to face eternity with the theological equivalent of a neatly tied bow. But such closure eludes those of us who remain agnostic, chastising ourselves as James’s “double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.”

    I do, however, possess a few fragments of certainty. I reject Rousseau’s sentimental fantasy that human nature is innately good and can serve as our moral compass. I’ve seen enough of humanity to know we are corrupt, self-deceiving creatures who must wrestle with our yetzer hara—our bad inclination, as Jewish tradition calls it. Yet I’m not entirely convinced, as Paul was, that we are hopelessly depraved. Perhaps Paul and I are lost causes, but that doesn’t make the condition universal. The Jewish notion of meeting God halfway—using the strength He gave us—differs sharply from Paul’s portrayal of helpless man collapsing before the mercy seat. One path is desperate; the other is disciplined.

    Whether I write these reflections out of genuine spiritual torment or simple procrastination before an hour on the exercise bike is unclear. Either way, I’ll mount the Schwinn Airdyne, pedal furiously, and try not to think too much about eternal damnation.

  • My Lifelong Marriage to Convenience

    My Lifelong Marriage to Convenience

    There is much to admire about centering our lives on convenience. We save time and resources, avoid wasted effort, and maximize efficiency in the name of what is too often called “optimization.” A life built around convenience often becomes a quest for “life hacks.” But if our behavior is less inventive, we don’t call it a hack at all—just a preference.

    For example, I refuse to go to the gym. It’s inconvenient, time-consuming, costly, and exposes me to airborne illnesses. I prefer to work out in the garage. That’s not a life hack—it’s just easier. The same goes for meals: having a bowl of oatmeal with protein powder and soy milk instead of lunch or dinner isn’t clever or innovative. It’s simply what I do when my family is out and I’m eating alone. Spending more than five minutes on a meal under those circumstances feels unnecessary. Calling a bowl of steel-cut oats or buckwheat groats a “life hack” would be grandiose.

    During the pandemic, three-fourths of my classes moved online through Canvas, a Learning Management System (LMS). Hard copies disappeared. Graded documents were uploaded to the platform, which was remarkably efficient. I didn’t have to drive to campus. The college saved on electricity. That was five years ago, and my classes remain online. I now drive less than 3,000 miles a year. Online classes have made me very efficient. Once you taste efficiency, it’s nearly impossible to go back to inefficiency.

    I admit I’m a less than admirable parent. I don’t like driving my teen daughters to their social functions—birthday parties, football games, dance practices, amusement parks. I find it all inconvenient. That’s my choice. If I were truly devoted to convenience, I wouldn’t have become a parent at all. And certainly not a cat owner. Kitty litter, flea control, vet visits, and travel arrangements are an affront to any serious commitment to convenience.

    As desirable as convenience is, some personalities—mine included—turn it into a pathology. We center our lives around it, and any violation of our convenience policies breeds resentment. Many of these resentments are unreasonable. I resent old age and death, primarily because they are inconvenient. Doctor appointments and funerals interfere with my routine.

    Convenience culture also makes us adore routine. I suspect routine is the groom to the bride of convenience.

    Even my worldview is infected by this impulse. I am an agnostic, which I despise, because it is inconvenient. Agnosticism demands reading and constant reflection. I’ve consumed books by agnostics, atheists, universalists, infernalists, and the post-mortem-salvation curious. While Elizabeth Anderson’s critique of scripture has many compelling points, her notion of morality as nothing more than evolution feels inadequate. Paul’s vision of humanity as fallen and divided is more persuasive and mirrors my own psychology. I wish I could settle happily into Anderson’s worldview. It would be so convenient.

    Speaking of religion, Jesus preached a gospel of inconvenience. His willingness to sacrifice his life in such a manner stands as the very opposite of convenience. For devotees of the gospel of ease, following Jesus is nearly unthinkable—a path that demands nothing less than a Damascus-level upheaval like Paul’s.

    When I think of convenience, I’m reminded of Chris Grossman, a wine salesman I worked with in the 1980s. He was brilliant and affable but had no close relationships. He admitted he didn’t care much for life. He had tried having a girlfriend once and said it was awful—not because of her, but because it was too inconvenient. By his late thirties, he was a bachelor. He ate the same foods every day for simplicity’s sake and once a year drove his Triumph to a car show in Carmel. I loved him for it, because I knew we were both soulmates in convenience culture.

    Some of us are more diseased by this devotion to convenience than others, and it often lowers our standards. I am appalled by factory farming and would like to be vegan. Perhaps if I lived alone, I could do it. But in a family of omnivores, that move would not go over well. I could prepare plant-based meals for myself, but I don’t—partly because of the inconvenience. Vegans I’ve spoken to say the hardest part isn’t the food but the social ostracism.

    I’m already the black sheep in my family—the anti-social shut-in whose quirks are laughed at on good days and resented on bad ones. If I imposed a vegan diet, I fear it would alienate me further, and I’d have to grovel my way back into some semblance of connection.

    As a lifelong neurotic who already alienates people more than I’d like, I know that repairing frayed relationships is an excruciating, arduous task. And it’s so inconvenient.

  • The Truth vs. Alex Jones Points to Larger Battles We Face

    The Truth vs. Alex Jones Points to Larger Battles We Face

    Yesterday I watched The Truth vs. Alex Jones and came away unsettled and discouraged. The film lays out, with testimony and footage, how a powerful falsehood about the Sandy Hook massacre metastasized into a lived reality for many—how ordinary people came to believe grieving parents were actors in some sinister plot. The human cost is plain: families harassed, reputations shredded, lives made worse by a rumor that would not die. The documentary also cites polling that suggests this belief is far from fringe, which is precisely what made me sit up and take notice.

    Alan Jacobs, in How to Think: A Survival Guide for a World at Odds, gave me a frame for that discomfort. Jacobs argues that critical thinking is not merely a set of intellectual tools; it is a moral posture. It requires humility—the readiness to admit you might be wrong—intellectual rigor, and a willingness to engage, civilly, with rival views. In a public sphere where grievance entrepreneurs monetize confusion and cruelty, Jacobs’s point feels less like scholastic nicety and more like civic equipment. To believe in the conspiracy about Sandy Hook is less of an intellectual deficiency and more of a moral one. Willful ignorance is born of belligerence.

    There are historical moments when falsehoods gain unusual traction and the public square warps into a theater of lies. Watching the documentary, I thought about those moments not as distant epochs but as warnings: when social media rewards certainty over care, and when spectacle drowns out verification, civic habits fray. On the evening he announced his retirement, anchor Brian Williams put it bluntly when he spoke of “evil winds” in our national weather—less a prophecy than an observation that the job of keeping the truth in view has grown harder.

    That’s where I am: uneasy, but oddly steadied by the thought that civic muscles can be strengthened with small, repeated acts. Viktor Frankl reminded us that life’s circumstances often determine the work we must do; perhaps one task for this hour is to preserve the habits that let a shared reality exist in the first place.