Mayhaps a Point of Departure

I just finished watching "Zeitgeist: Moving Forward". My mind is abuzz, not just because it is filled with criticisms and theses just waiting to be explicated, but significantly because I think I have found a point of departure for my critique of the city. I've been languishing in the doldrums with this issue for a while now, not able to work through it, but not able to dissolve it either. It isn't a problem that will just go away, but neither is it a problem which can properly be spoken of in just any context. The context must be appropriate, and I think I've just found such a one.

You see, to criticize the city as a concept, you must operate from an eschatological perspective. The question occurs only after the fruit has been tasted, after the fall, after exile. The question only looks forward to the ought-ness of the future, when all will be made right. The question of the city is not a question of today or tomorrow, but a question of the 7th generation. The city exists. What ought we do about it?

I thought perhaps I would use Tim Keller's theology of the city as a sparring partner to explicate what can and cannot be said biblically about the purpose of human economics. He is certainly a star in the constellation. His work, although not systematically presented, is basically the only option for American Evangelicalism. Rick Warren comes close as well, but his measured and cryptic propaganda is not my first preference, to commit slight understatement. Also, Keller has a biblical theological kernel from which to criticize his position internally, where I would just be contradicting Warren at many points.

Then, I thought I would just blog a read-through of Augustine's City of God. This was my plan, to begin shortly, until I watched Zeitgeist. Augustine's position is perhaps yet beyond my power to critique, not that I don't have thoughts on it. I am still digesting his view of economics and sex, and I don't feel that I can really criticize his view of the city until that is finished. It is just a lot of work, basically, and I'm taking 4 grad classes this semester....I can come up with more excuses if you'd like. I hope to get to this level eventually.

So, the (3rd) Zeitgeist is perfect because it is in many ways diametrically opposed to my own position. It provides excellent contrast, as well as showing from an opposite perspective many of the same criticisms I would offer for the status quo. The only lacuna in the film is that it never mentions transhumanism, which seems odd to me. Perhaps this was a move to make the proposed future seem less frightening.

So far, I have three topics for discussion with regard to the film. Human nature, economics, technology. Afterward, we will have to return to the question of human nature. It should be noted that although science/scientism will not be isolated, the position of Peter Joseph in the film is extremely scientistic. Using computers to do our thinking and working for us is basically THE solution in his eschatology. This all leads to the Wendell Berry-esque question, "What (then) are people for?"

If you want to make me happy, watch the film and interact with the posts. But mostly, think for yourself. I think these topics are the most important points of discussion for our generation.

_______