Category Archives: Issue 2

The Eucharist

Seraphim Hamilton

What is the historic doctrine of the Eucharist? The answer to this question is of great importance. We shall begin at the first document we have speaking of the Eucharist, Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, written in approximately 56ad. St. Paul of Tarsus says,

For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Here we see that Paul equates the bread and wine with the body and blood, for he says, “Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.” It is fairly clear, then, that St. Paul affirms the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Another key element of patristic Eucharistic doctrine is that the Eucharist is a true sacrifice. It is not a re-sacrifice, however, but a return to the one sacrifice. The Didache, an early Christian catechism many scholars date to the Apostolic Age, mentions this when it states, “And on the Lord’s own day gather yourselves together and break bread and give thanks, first confessing your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. And let no man, having his dispute with his fellow, join your assembly until they have been reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be defiled; for this sacrifice it is that was spoken of by the Lord.”

We see several themes in here. First, the Eucharist is a sacrifice, and it is proper to call it such. Second, the Eucharist is to be performed every Lord’s Day. Third, people must do confession before they receive the Eucharist, so that they may be purified. St. Clement of Rome also refers to the Eucharist as a sacrifice, saying in his Letter to the Corinthians, “Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its Sacrifices.”

St. Ignatius of Antioch, a student of the apostle John and second Patriarch of Antioch after the apostle Peter, writes in response to those who believed that Jesus did not have a physical body but was only divine, “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God…. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.”

St. Justin Martyr, writing in 151ad, states regarding the Eucharist, “We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus.”

We thus see that the second century Church clearly taught that at the words of consecration said by the presbyter, the bread and wine were transformed into the body and blood of the Lord Jesus, and only baptized Orthodox Christians could receive it. St. Clement of Alexandria, commenting on John 6 in 191ad, states, “‘Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children.”

Origen of Alexandria, commenting on John 3 and John 6, applies them to baptism and the Eucharist, respectively, saying, “Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way … now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: “My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.”

Aphrahat the Persian Sage, commenting on the Last Supper in 340ad, states, “After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink.”

Serapion, writing in 350ad, records the Eucharistic prayer said at the Divine Liturgy, “Accept therewith our hallowing too, as we say, ‘Holy, holy, holy Lord Sabaoth, heaven and earth is full of your glory.’ Heaven is full, and full is the earth, with your magnificent glory, Lord of virtues. Full also is this sacrifice, with your strength and your communion; for to you we offer this living sacrifice, this unbloody oblation.”

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, writing in the same year, states regarding the Eucharist, “Then, having sanctified ourselves by these spiritual hymns, we beseech the merciful God to send forth his Holy Spirit upon the gifts lying before him, that he may make the bread the Body of Christ and the wine the Blood of Christ, for whatsoever the Holy Spirit has touched is surely sanctified and changed. Then, upon the completion of the spiritual sacrifice, the bloodless worship, over that propitiatory victim we call upon God for the common peace of the churches, for the welfare of the world, for kings, for soldiers and allies, for the sick, for the afflicted; and in summary, we all pray and offer this sacrifice for all who are in need.” We thus see that by the time the Eucharistic words of consecration were recorded, they had taken essentially the same form as used today in the Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy.

St. Gregory Nanzianzen comments on the Eucharist as well, saying in 383ad, “Cease not to pray and plead for me when you draw down the Word by your word, when in an unbloody cutting you cut the Body and Blood of the Lord, using your voice for a sword.” St. John Chrysostom writes regarding the Eucharist in 387ad, “When you see the Lord immolated and lying upon the altar, and the priest bent over that sacrifice praying, and all the people empurpled by that precious blood, can you think that you are still among men and on earth? Or are you not lifted up to heaven?”

St. Ambrose of Milan, commenting on the Davidic Psalms, says, “We saw the prince of priests coming to us, we saw and heard him offering his blood for us. We follow, inasmuch as we are able, being priests, and we offer the sacrifice on behalf of the people. Even if we are of but little merit, still, in the sacrifice, we are honorable. Even if Christ is not now seen as the one who offers the sacrifice, nevertheless it is he himself that is offered in sacrifice here on Earth when the body of Christ is offered. Indeed, to offer himself he is made visible in us, he whose word makes holy the sacrifice that is offered.”

Theodore of Mopsuestia says in 405ad, “When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought … not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit.”

St. Augustine of Hippo, writing in 411ad, states in a sermon to newly baptized Christians, “I promised you who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table.… That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ.”

Fulgetius of Ruspe, writing in 524ad, states, “the time of the Old Testament animals were sacrificed by the patriarchs and prophets and priests; and to whom now, I mean in the time of the New Testament … the holy Catholic Church does not cease in faith and love to offer throughout all the lands of the world a sacrifice of bread and wine. In those former sacrifices what would be given us in the future was signified figuratively, but in this sacrifice which has now been given us is shown plainly. In those former sacrifices it was fore-announced that the Son of God would be killed for the impious, but in the present sacrifice it is announced that he has been killed for the impious.”

Thus, we see that during the patristic era, the dominant, if not the only viewpoint on the Eucharist was that it was truly the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ.

Mind Games

1 Reply

Alice Minium

If you’re a kid in America and you’ve been to any kind of school, you definitely know what DARE stands for. You participated in red ribbon week in elementary school, and your mom bought you the t-shirt emblazoned with the bold reminder to Just Say No. You saw that Above the Influence commercial when the grungy kids smoking cigarettes pressured the anxious-looking girl to take one of their mysterious pills. While most people you’ve encountered probably aren’t really like those kids, we’ve all known somebody. Everybody’s told us different things.

Don’t ever believe what somebody says just because you heard somebody say it. You’ll end up dead, or worse, ignorant.

Many of us have friends who’ve done drugs, and we know what the effects look like firsthand. Some of us have already experimented with drugs ourselves. We know what it looks like to be high, and some of us know how it feels. But how many of us know why drugs make us feel the way they do? Why do they impair some of our abilities but improve other ones? Why do we feel different without them? Why do some drugs excite you with energy and others get you mellow and low? What is it that makes them dangerous? What is this really doing to my brain?

Throughout our entire young adulthoods, we have been assaulted left and right with violently clashing messages on what we should do about drugs. Nobody can make that decision for you, although there will be many people who will try. Whatever your decision may be, be aware of the changes you’re making and the effects you will experience. Be the master of your own mind. Understand what you’re doing to your brain.

Since most of us don’t spend too much time experimenting with LSD, here is a very brief overview of how some basic drugs are working in your brain. Some of these drugs are considered socially acceptable, but they are drugs nonetheless. It’s funny how rarely we think about the fact that we’re constantly drugging our brains, and it’s funnier still how little we seem to care. Maybe the time has come for that to change.

Marijuana (THC)

Fact: According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, as of 2008, 43% of American high school seniors had smoked marijuana in their lifetime.

Fact: According to Paul Hager, Chair of the ICLU Drug Task Force, the ratio of the amount of cannabinoids necessary to get a person intoxicated (or high) relative to the amount necessary to kill them is 1 to 40,000.

Fact: According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, in 1995, 165,000 people entering drug treatment programs reported themselves to be addicted to marijuana.

What it feels like: Once in your bloodstream, thc typically reaches the brain within seconds and begins to go to work. Marijuana users often describe the experience of smoking marijuana as initially relaxing and mellowing, creating a feeling of haziness and light-headedness. The user’s eyes may dilate, causing colors to appear more intense, and other senses may be enhanced. Sometimes, feelings of paranoia and panic may follow.

How it works: To understand how marijuana affects the brain, you need to know about the parts of the brain that are affected by thc. Here are the basics: neurons are the cells that process information in the brain. Chemicals called neurotransmitters allow neurons to communicate with each other. Neurotransmitters fill the gap, or synapse, between two neurons and bind to protein receptors, which enable various functions and allow the brain and body to be turned on and off. Some neurons have thousands of receptors that are specific to particular neurotransmitters. Foreign chemicals, like thc, can mimic or block actions of neurotransmitters and interfere with normal functions. In your brain, there are groups of cannabinoid receptors concentrated in several different places. These cannabinoid receptors have an effect on several mental and physical activities, including: short-term memory, coordination, learning, and problem solving. Cannabinoid receptors are activated by a neurotransmitter called anandamide. Anandamide belongs to a group of chemicals called cannabinoids. thc is also a cannabinoid chemical. thc mimics the actions of anandamide, meaning that thc binds with cannabinoid receptors and activates neurons, which causes adverse effects on the mind and body. High concentrations of cannabinoid receptors exist in the hippocampus, cerebellum, and basal ganglia. The hippocampus is located within the temporal lobe and is important for short-term memory. When the thc binds with the cannabinoid receptors inside the hippocampus, it interferes with the recollection of recent events. thc also affects coordination, which is controlled by the cerebellum. The basal ganglia controls unconscious muscle movements, which is another reason why motor coordination is impaired when under the influence of marijuana.

Nicotine

Fact: According to a 2002 report by the World Health Organization, about one in five young teenagers (ages 13 to 15) worldwide are smokers, and evidence shows that about 50% of adolescent smokers will go on to smoke for 15 or 20 more years.

Fact: According to a 2002 report by the World Health Organization, every eight seconds someone dies from a smoking-related death, and for every person who dies from smoking, twenty more will suffer a smoking-related illness.

Fact: According to a 2001 report by the Centers for Disease Control, seventy percent of addicted smokers want to quit. Less than seven percent ever actually do.

What it feels like: Nicotine has a calming effect by changing the activeness of brain areas, which slow down the manifestation of negative emotions. Smokers often experience an increase in energy, concentration, and satisfaction because of the endorphins being released.

How it works: Nicotine affects the brain by mimicking neurotransmitters. Each neurotransmitter is specifically designed to fit with a receptor on another nerve cell. Once the neurotransmitter locks into the receptor site, it activates the nerve cell and continues the message to the next cell. Nicotine mainly mimics two neurotransmitters called acetylcholine and dopamine. Acetylcholine is a neurotransmitter responsible for a variety of bodily operations including breathing, heart rate, muscle movement, and cognition. Nicotine increases the activity of these receptor sites, which is why many smokers feel an increase of energy or an increase in ability to concentrate directly after smoking a cigarette. Nicotine can also lock into dopamine receptor sites. Dopamine is the neurotransmitter most known for feeling pleasure. It is commonly referred to as the “reward pathway” of the brain. Dopamine is designed to release a good feeling every time you do something that benefits the body such as eating or exercising. This reinforces the mind to want to repeat the action at a later time. The nicotine in tobacco products creates this same pleasurable feeling, reinforcing the need to continue smoking or using other tobacco products. Nicotine can also trigger the brain to release endorphins, proteins that act as natural pain medicine for the body. The more nicotine that enters the blood stream, the greater potential for endorphins to be released.

Alcohol

Fact: According to MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving), by the time students are in high school, 80% have used alcohol and 62% have been drunk.

Fact: According to the Marin Institute, 95% of alcoholics die from their disease and die approximately 26 years earlier than their normal life expectancy.

Fact: According to the Shaffer Library of Drug Policy, 10% of casual drinkers become alcoholics.

What it feels like: Depending on one’s BAC (Blood Alcohol Content), intoxication can cause feelings of euphoria, increased self-confidence, inhibited judgment, increased sociability, sedation, delayed reactions, impaired memory, blurred vision, and impaired fine muscle coordination.

How it works: Alcohol affects the brain’s neurons in several ways. It alters their membranes, as well as their ion channels, enzymes, and receptors. Alcohol also binds directly to the receptors for acetylcholine, serotonin, GABA (an amino acid in the brain that suppresses the action of nerve cells, relaxing the muscles in the body and calming emotions), and the NMDA receptors for glutamate (a receptor usually involved in learning and memory). GABA’s effect is to reduce neural activity by allowing chloride ions to enter the post-synaptic neuron. These ions have a negative electrical charge, which helps to make the neuron less excitable. This physiological effect is amplified when alcohol binds to the GABA receptor, thus explaining the sedative effect. Alcohol also helps to increase the release of dopamine by a process that is still poorly understood but seems to involve curtailing the activity of the enzyme that breaks dopamine down.

Caffeine (1,3,7-trimethylxanthine)

Fact: According to the Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center, 90% of Americans consume caffeine every day. It is the world’s most used psychoactive drug.

Fact: The American Association of Poison Control Centers’ National Poison Data System reported more than 4,000 instances of caffeine toxicity in 2007.

Fact: The World Health Organization considers caffeine addiction a substance dependency and psychologically-impairing condition. It is very weak in its addictive properties.

What it feels like: Initially you become more alert, and your brain may work better and faster. But by the time you start that second cup, you may be anxious and irritable, which is not conducive to clear thinking.

How it works: Caffeine is a stimulant, meaning it accelerates physiological activity — in this case, speeding up the action of your brain and making you more alert. It does this by binding to adenosine receptors in the brain. Normally the chemical adenosine (a neurotransmitter involved in sleep initiation) binds to these, causing drowsiness by slowing down nerve cell activity. The caffeine doesn’t have this effect but does get in the way of the adenosine. Because the caffeine is blocking the adenosine receptors, your neurons become more active than they otherwise would be. That is why it seems to be good for the brain. Then your pituitary gland responds to all the activity as though it were an emergency by releasing hormones that tell the adrenal glands to produce adrenaline. This is what is sometimes known as the “fight or flight” hormone (and is also called epinephrine), giving you the energy that you associate with caffeine.

Works Referenced

Bonson, Kevin. “How Marijuana Affects the Brain.” Discovery Health “Health Guides.” Web. Accessed 02 Dec. 2010. <http://health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/drugs-alcohol/marijuana3.htm.>

Griffiths, R.R., Juliano, L.M., and Chausmer, A.L. “Information About Caffeine Dependence.” Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. Web. <http://www.caffeinedependence.org/caffeine_dependence.html>.

“Psychology: The Science of the Brain.” Pearson Higher Education. Web. <http://www.pearsonhighered.com/assets/hip/us/hip_us_pearsonhighered/samplechapter/0205472893.pdf>.

Sherman, Chris. “How Does Nicotine Affect the Brain?” EHow. Web. <http://www.ehow.com/how-does_5117286_nicotine-affect-brain.html>.

Where the Sour Turns to Sweet — From Genesis to Revelation: Gabriel’s Genesis Retrospective, pt. 1

Leave a reply

Christopher Rush

Series Introduction

You don’t listen to enough Genesis. In part to celebrate the band’s induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame (sixteen years late), we present an analytical tribute. This series of analyses is predicated on the assumption that if you know anything about Genesis, it’s probably that you have heard “Invisible Touch” on the radio and thought it was just Phil Collins. While that’s a fine start and most likely not really your fault, you are missing out on an amazing musical world of a unique band. Ideally, this series of analyses will entice you to get your own copies of Genesis’s oeuvre and enjoy them forever. As much as I might want to just dive in to my favorite albums (Foxtrot, Selling England by the Pound, A Trick of the Tail), it is important to take this systematically from the beginning … sort of. The point of this series is not to give you a biographical context of the band, its members, or its critical reception (though a bit of that will be done). Neither are we going to avail ourselves of the too-small library of literature available on the band and their music (biographies, dvd bonus interviews, and the like) — this is primarily a formalist critical approach, one listener to another. Nor are we endeavoring to analyze Genesis’s place in propinquity with The Moody Blues, King Crimson, or Yes. Instead, the focus is the music itself, and, so as not to get entirely unwieldy, the focus will primarily limit itself to the main studio album releases themselves. I envision that time this year will only permit us, at best, to make it though the Peter Gabriel era and, hopefully, just preview the Phil Collins era with A Trick of the Tail. Essentially, that means we will not get to any of the “radio hits” of the late ’70s and early ’80s incarnation this season — but that is okay. Our main purpose, then, is to explore the creativity and unsurpassed brilliance of the Peter Gabriel era of Genesis.

In the Beginning

In 1967, four friends at Charterhouse School, Peter Gabriel, Tony Banks, Mike Rutherford, and Anthony Phillips, gathered together and formed the band Genesis, under the direction (after a fashion) of Jonathan King. Chis Stewart joined the band on drums and soon came the single “The Silent Sun,” an intentional pastiche of the Bee Gees’ sound (from the ’60s, remember, before their now-trademark ’70s Disco style) and nothing like the soon unmistakable Genesis sound. Another single, “A Winter’s Tale,” followed three months later and so did Chris Stewart’s replacement, John Silver. As the title of their first album indicates, From Genesis to Revelation is loosely based on the Bible. Unsurprisingly, many record shops placed the album in their “religious” sections, which might account, in part, for its poor, almost non-existent, reception. Additionally, the bandmates were 16-18 years old in 1968 when the album was made, without any prior recording experience — From Genesis to Revelation is an inaugural album in every sense of the word, but like most bands’ inaugural albums, it has a certain (perhaps sentimental) aura.

Without the members’ knowledge, producer Jonathan King overdubbed strings and horns and sequenced the songs to cement the “concept”-like nature of the album. Shortly after its release, Genesis and Jonathan King parted ways. King wanted to continue the radio-friendly short song format, but Genesis wanted to expand into longer, radio-unfriendly territory. Fortunately for us all, the young lads of Genesis stuck to their creative daemons (the positive ones). John Silver was replaced by John Mayhew, the band started working on what would become Trespass, and they signed to Charisma Records.

Though it was released on Decca Records (home of The Moody Blues), From Genesis to Revelation has been licensed to several other recording labels, which thus explains its absence from the recent Genesis 1970-1975 box set. Its best availability now is on either a one-cd version (that contains some of the non-album singles) or a two-cd version (with even more of the non-album singles and some interview material).

“And it’s all gone wrong”

Though we stated above our primary purpose is to discuss the major studio albums of the Peter Gabriel era, some words on the initial single releases are in order first — even though they aren’t much like the Gabriel Genesis sound as we know it today. It began with “The Silent Sun,” with “That’s Me” on the B-side. Released, as we’ve said, as a copy of a sort of the Bee Gees’ ’60s sound, this first single was made, in part, to regain King’s interest in the band, since he was a Bee Gees fan. As with much of From Genesis to Revelation, music fans of the era might recognize more of The Moody Blues than the Bee Gees. Listening through these early songs, unless one knew it was Genesis (or could recognize Gabriel’s young voice), one might suspect it was The Moody Blues or The Turtles or possibly even some generic British Invasion assembly line band. Their early demo work is proof of this: “Image Blown Out,” only recently made available to the public, is pure ’60s British pop music: you think it’s possibly Chad and Jeremy, maybe Herman’s Hermits, and then suddenly The Association shows up to provide the chorus. “She’s So Beautiful” is better and becomes a template for “The Serpent” on From Genesis to Revelation. “Patricia” becomes “In Hiding” on the album with lyrics added. “Try a Little Sadness” is quintessential demo material, though its message on the importance of sadness in a maturing relationship is mildly impressive. The completists out there (of whom I am trying to be one) will need to get the Genesis Archive 1967-75 and the Genesis 1970-1975 box sets for the rest of the demo material.

The Days of Future Passed influence is palpable in the lyrics of “The Silent Sun” (you do know, right, that Days of Future Passed is the second Moody Blues album, one of the best albums of all time? If not, get it, listen to it, and begin your lifetime of Moody Blues listening with your lifetime of Genesis listening ). Lyrically, the song covers a range of natural images: the sun, a tiny stone, a mountain stream chilling the sea, a star-filled night sky, snowflakes healing an otherwise ugly ground. The variety, as you can imagine, instead of creating a unified whole leads to several discrete thoughts and images about as rambling as every band’s first song usually is. The chorus is also about as bland as any typical love song can get: “Baby you feel so close / I wish you could see my love, / Baby you’ve changed my life / I’m trying to show you.” Musically, the song is nice but unremarkable. The ambiguity of some of the lyrics is the highlight of the song, in that we can see early signs of Gabriel’s lyrical ingenuity, though still in its embryonic stage.

“That’s Me” could easily be mistaken for a musical theater number from the 1960s. Strangely enough, there’s more connected “sun” language and imagery throughout “That’s Me” than “The Silent Sun.” As a song, the lyrics are more unified and developed, though the development is slight at best. We see again the developing lyricism of Peter Gabriel: the narrator, at odds with society and, to a degree, the natural world, is uncertain for most of the song who he is, who he has been, and what his place is in an untrustworthy world. By the end of the song, the narrator has realized some unsettling things about himself and ends with a plaintive cry for assistance.

The follow-up single release of “A Winter’s Tale”/“One-eyed Hound” is likewise nondescript. “A Winter’s Tale” is a much more gentle song, lyrically and musically. The natural world is not as hostile this time. The chorus is very much Moody Blues-influenced, but it is still nice on its own, though some might find it a bit grating, which would be a sound engineering mixing issue — nothing under the control of the band at that time in their career. “One-eyed Hound” is an oddity. It would be easy to see it as a not-so-subtle sexual metaphor: “Night is the time for chasing the one-eyed hound” is repeated throughout — but that is too easy and, in context, erroneous. The “one-eyed hound” is a person: verse two says “Have you seen the one-eyed hound? / Tell me where he’s going.” Verse one seems to indicate the one-eyed hound has himself been “[c]hasing dogs in the moonlight,” but for some reason that is “a sin” for which “he never can win.” The ambiguity of this song is not as impressive, lyrically, as “The Silent Sun” or “That’s Me.” The other repeated line, “And it’s all gone wrong,” may be a much better summation of Genesis’ career at this point: at odds with their management, unsure of their own musical and lyrical abilities, unknown by the public, and mis-categorized by record stores.

Turning the Sour into Sweet

Though the band doesn’t seem to care much about these early days, and this initial album is only tenuously connected to their main oeuvre, From Genesis to Revelation did provide what all bourgeoning bands need: practice. With this album, Gabriel got experience writing lyrics, Banks and Rutherford got experience playing and recording in the studio, and the band got experience playing together. Not everything else was a total loss, though: some of the musical ideas can be heard in more mature forms in later albums, and many of them are turned into fuller instrumental versions during live performances.

The album begins with another musical-theatre-like opening: it sounds at first like the Sharks and the Jets are back. Instead, Peter Gabriel is inviting the audience to join them on a musical tour of the Bible (after a fashion). The biblical veracity of Gabriel’s invitation is tenuous at best, but for a pop song, it’s unusually substantial. By filling our minds with love and searching for the world of future glory full of sunshine gliding in, the darkness inside us will creep out. At this world of future glory, “where the sour turns to sweet,” we can leave our “ugly selfish shell / To melt in the glowing flames.” It is certainly a much more Biblical idea that we are naturally selfish than the Rousseauean/Romantic idea we are naturally good. With this invitation to join the band on a journey to transform from sour into sweet, Genesis’s real musical career begins.

From Genesis to Revelation is a remarkably disjointed album, musically, furthering the kinship to Days of Future Passed. After the di-melodic “Where the Sour Turns to Sweet,” the album changes melodic directions with “In the Beginning.” The album we have (in its many variations) is, whether Genesis wanted it as such or not, a concept album, and “In the Beginning” clearly initiates that. The initial musical aspect of the song is a fine representation of the creation of the material cosmos: it is a very believable “sound of a new born world.” Lyrically, “In the Beginning” is more reminiscent of Ovid’s Metamorphoses than the Bible. Instead of immediate design and order, the world fashions itself through flux and a dialectical clash. Instead of the purpose of a Divine Person, “You’re in the hands of destiny.” One might wonder at this point why this album is being recommended, if it distorts the actual book of Genesis: the final stanza of the song brings back the lyrical splay into a more Biblical conception, at least the second half of it. The first half continues the diverse creation myths: “Is that a chariot with stallions gold? / Is that a prince of heaven on the ground? / Is that the roar of a thunderflash?” The chariot with gold stallions is reminiscent of Helios, and “roar of a thunderflash” has all the appearance of Zeus’s mighty thunderbolts. The “prince of heaven on the ground” could be Satan, though it seems more likely to be either an angel or even a theophany. The remainder of this stanza is especially relevant: “This is my world and it’s waiting to be crowned / Father, son, looks down with happiness / Life is on its way.” Assuming the Father and Son mentioned here are the two-thirds of the Biblical Trinity, God certainly did look down with happiness, especially considering the Biblical language of humanity acting as a crown to God’s creation: life was, indeed, on its way. Listening to this album is more beneficial than eschewing it, naïvely.

“Fireside Song” is a good foreshadowing of the musical skill that Genesis was to develop in so many of their memorable and mature albums, especially Foxtrot, Selling England By the Pound, and A Trick of the Tail. The song continues the creation of the material world, filled with personification and evocative imagery that is sometimes undercut by the rough studio mixing. As has been mentioned above (and will no doubt be repeated ad nauseam during The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway), sometimes Genesis can be … tricky with their lyrics. It is difficult to tell if “Fireside Song” skips to the fall of mankind or ahead to Revelation’s culmination of the world or what. Time seems to be passing, as indicated by all the movement words: drifting, slips, creep, pass; as well as the juxtaposition of what the world was like: full of confusion, disappointment, fear, and disillusion, but “[n]ow there’s hope reborn with every morning / See the future clearly at its dawning” — a very optimistic line repeated over a soothing, Tony Banks-driven piano melody (sometimes subordinated under the mysteriously-added strings track).

Following another “concept album musical interlude/transition,” “The Serpent” is perhaps the most obvious Bible-themed song on the album. It, too, is the forerunner of a common trope Genesis uses in most of their other Gabriel-era albums: different narrators in the same song, not always identified. “The Serpent” is a bit easier to follow, though, in that the pronoun shift helps distinguish when Satan is talking (the “you”s and “you’re”s) and when man/Adam is talking (“I’m,” “my”). The melodic line (adapted from the demo “She’s So Beautiful”) conveys the sneakiness of Satan and his serpent guile. The imago dei incarnation theme is present throughout the song, highlighting in a very short song (and quite reminiscent of Milton) Satan’s estimation of this new world, the incarnation of man as a kind of imaging of God Himself (to a degree), Satan’s conception of the power and danger man will bring to him, Adam’s pristine created nature, and (and this is very Miltonian) mankind’s trepidation concerning the approach of the serpent. The song ends with confusion for mankind and, unfortunately, confusion for the audience, as the connection to the Bible becomes extremely tenuous for a vast majority of the remainder of the album.

“Am I Very Wrong?” has an almost wedding-like beginning, though connecting that to the creation and marriage of Adam and Eve would be precarious at best. The plaintive questions of the verses could be reminiscent, again, of Milton’s Satan or Adam, but the ambiguity is too powerful for this listener. The chorus suddenly marks the return of The Association in a bizarre candy-coated threatening chorus that desires that they “hope your life will never end” — perhaps the “your” is the audience, perhaps it is the individual asking the questions about the mysterious “happiness machine” he/she wants to abjure along with these mindless, hive-like friends that are celebrating this birthday with about as much filial devotion as a horde of cannibalistic zombies. I’m not even sure Peter Gabriel sings this song, not that that matters too much here.

The unmistakable sound of Peter Gabriel’s voice clearly returns with “In the Wilderness,” which may be referring, albeit highly loosely, to the Israelite years in the Wilderness. “In the Wilderness” is another forerunner of another well-used Genesis trope: near-paradoxical disjunction between musical texture and lyrical content. The chorus is an especially cheery rah-rah that has all the appearance of celebrating life and the vitality that music brings, until the thought descends quickly from rain falling lovely onto rooftops then sliding down the drains into the gutters of life as people run aimlessly and self-delusionally like rain through a gutter, splashing out meaninglessly, compartmentalized by time that actually controls their lives, not the other way around. The days that pass by “[tear] pieces from our lives to feed the dawn,” which is not a pleasant thought, though it may be somewhat (metaphorically) accurate. The connection to the Israelites potentially comes in a touch with the second verse: “Fighting enemies with weapons made to kill / Death is easy as a substitute for pride / Victors join together, happy in their bed / Leaving cold outside the children of the dead.” The great ambiguity of the song comes in the otherwise lovely end: Tony Banks (much maligned keyboardist of Genesis for almost all its existence) plays through the chorus in a somber, slightly minor key transposition, bringing the song about death, destruction, and the futility of life to a peaceful, melodic close.

“The Conqueror” begins with a modulated version of the “In the Wilderness” chorus sound on a different instrument, no doubt an effect to continue the “concept album” feel as the classic ’60s, pre-Genesis sound is furthered by “The Conqueror.” It’s hard to tell who this conqueror is: Satan? Genghis Khan? Robespierre? Napoleon? Antiochus Epiphanes? (I just threw that last one in for fun.) The song doesn’t tell us. The diverse cultural occurrences (a castle on a hill, rolling heads) could indicate the conqueror is a general description of evil in every time and generation, and the destruction that dictators, conquerors, despots and others of that ilk bring wherever they go, as long as they are unopposed, even by feckless heroes who squirm “on an empty floor.” Justice does come eventually, though, as “words of love” seem to be the real solution to ending the conqueror in its/his many forms — words of love replace the position of the conqueror and, ironically, even the feckless hero who could not overcome the conqueror by might. Though, the a cappella declaration that “the words of love” are lying on the floor could indicate a pyrrhic victory.

“In Hiding” is possibly the most awkwardly disconnected song on the album — even if the album weren’t a semi-concept album, the song is as unwieldy any you’ll hear. The closest analogy I can think of is this would be the song Richard Cory would sing if he were visiting Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory (Gene Wilder’s Willy Wonka). We have moved from happiness machines to factories of truth. The song is very much a Romantic lament: away from society, away from the city, safely on a mountain or upon a river, the narrator is “lost in the beauty” of the natural world while “[i]n hiding.” The chorus indicates the proud self-assurance of the narrator, in that no matter what society does to him, he “[has] a mind of [his] own,” and thus enjoys the solitude, which makes the choice of “hiding” appropriately incongruous with the song.

Following another lovely instrumental transition/introduction, the album moves on to “One Day,” but the song has no apparent connection to the general plan of moving from Genesis to Revelation. Lyrically, the song is another precursor to later Genesis songs. Though other songs on the album deal with interactions with the natural world, as we have seen, “One Day” features personal interactions with animals, foreshadowing, perhaps, Gabriel’s on-stage characters of the fox and Batwings from Foxtrot (which led to Gabriel’s other on-stage personas during his tenure with Genesis), as well as so many songs that will be discussed later.

“Window” continues the lack of connection to the Bible, but it does further presage the frequent classical allusions replete in later Gabriel-era albums. This time, the lyrics are a combination of Pilgrim’s Progress (mountains of truth, slough of despond, pastures of dream day), classical myth (dancing nymphs, beckoning trees), to literature and folklore (an albatross reminiscent of Coleridge plus Jack Frost himself). After a honky-tonk intro/segue that has nothing to do with either “One Day” or “Window,” this song features one of the album’s prettiest choruses musically. The entire song is another prime example of Genesis’s pop beginnings, but “Window” is possibly the best of the era. The Moody Blues parallel may be strongest with this song, but it is still a great example of the potential in young Genesis.

And then suddenly Chicago Transit Authority shows up and starts accompanying The Association on “In Limbo.” Considering Limbo is not a Biblical concept, this song’s connection to the theme of the album is likewise tenuous at best. The narrator pleas toward the end to God for clarification on where, exactly, his soul is now, after requesting that he be taken away from the “world of fear” and “the power of [his] ambition.” Again we see the preference for the natural world: requesting supernatural transportation from the world of fear and ambition and to “the furthest star in the sky” and “the deepest cave of the night,” the narrator is initially pleased to believe that he has “conquered time” but soon realizes that he may no longer be in control of his own destiny and person and finds himself in Limbo. This is pleasant enough at first, but the absence of motion, direction, purpose, and activity soon becomes too much for the narrator to handle, leading to another plaintive request for the end of his existence. What this has to do with the Bible is beyond me. Perhaps only the first side of the album (back in the day when cds were larger, had two playable sides, and were called “records”) was intended to be pertinent to the theme of the album, since side one ended with “In the Wilderness” and side two began with “The Conqueror.”

The general disjunction of the second side or half of the album with its own concept is abetted by the appearance of two minutes and thirteen seconds of “The Silent Sun.” The disconnected natural imagery is still there, just as it was on the song’s single release months before, but now on the studio album that is supposed to be a concept album of songs based on the Bible, it is even more out of place. The off-the-rack ’60s pop chorus is as bubble-gummy as a stick of Juicy Fruit™.

The album ends with “A Place to Call my Own,” a song as representative of this uncertain and disjointed album as it is of the musical and lyrical fecundity that Genesis was about to exhibit in its future albums. In one minute and six lines, Genesis essentially bids adieu to its imposed Biblical structure and theme and embraces the panoply of mythical, textual, and even sub-textual opportunities that awaited it once it sloughed off the confines of being a pop rock band and became a (if not the) progressive rock band (and this coming from the best Jethro Tull, Moody Blues, Pink Floyd, and Rush fan you’ll ever meet — give me time on Yes, King Crimson, and ELP). The final minute of the song is another musical display of the band’s early talent and potential, ending with a quiet chorus of “ah”s and “la”s. Genesis’s journey had begun — and so has yours.

Twilight

Leave a reply

Emily Grant Privett

People obsess over the little things. One of which is Stephenie Meyer’s Twilight, later to be followed by New Moon, Eclipse, and Breaking Dawn. Since the past few years, one cannot walk the street without hearing about this new vampire and werewolf phenomenon. It is everywhere surrounded by mobs of teen girls and moms, with the occasional male thrown in here and there. Why did a book of this genre find so much success? What is its secret? Why is there such a following?

When this book first came out, I knew practically nothing about it until I was forced to read it by a friend. I eventually found myself sucked into the event, soon to be considered a wave of enthusiasm about this series. Little did I know then what this seemingly simple story was about to become.

This is not to say demeaning things about the readers of these books as I too have been sucked into this pop culture phenomenon they call literature, but this is to stand as an argument to convince those from wasting their precious time with such frivolous activities. This series may be addicting but is not worthy of your time.

Many young girls find comfort in this series because they find the main character relatable. Yes, young Bella Swan is your seemingly average high school girl, crushing on the not-so-average high school teen or not teen. She may be clumsy and quiet. Bella moves to a new town where she feels to be an outcast. She is a member of a broken family with her father living in Forks, Washington, and her mother and step-father residing in Jacksonville, Florida. But if you think that you are a clumsy, clueless, helpless girl, living in a small, wet town surrounded by dangerous creatures and an oblivious police force, you have a sad life, my friend.

The world that our protagonist lives in is a complete and utter fairly tale, not in the sense of the world itself, but by the people, or should I say monsters that reside in it. From nomadic vampires to werewolves and shape-shifters, this universe is entirely surreal. The innocent townspeople survive “animal attacks” that really happened to be attacks from hungry vampires. It is strange that these “hungry vampires” only exist in a few places in the world. Never do we read about vampires attacking the people of other states, such as Wyoming or Maine, but they all reside in places like Washington, Alaska, and Europe.

It is also strange that when Bella is told that half of her friends are beasts, she finds it so easy to believe. After accidentally brushing her hand on Edward, and she feels his icy skin, she automatically starts to think that he is non-human. If I went up to a friend and was like, “Hey, I don’t eat normal food, and my skin is always cold, and my eyes are weird,” the first thing that pops into her head is not going to be the fact that I’m a vampire. It’s not even that he told her what he was. She decided to Google his features and easily “discovered” what he was. She had to believe what the Internet told her, because everyone always knows that the Internet NEVER lies.

Why are people so obsessed over Edward Cullen? I’m not going to lie, I had a little obsession over him myself, but the more I think about it, I really can’t give a practical explanation why. The first time we meet this Edward character he looks as if he is about to explode. Of course she has to sit with him, and of course she thinks he’s a bit strange. After missing for the next few days, he appears acting completely differently with different-colored eyes. Upon further investigation, we discover that he is a complete creep. He stares at her through her window at night by climbing up a tree outside of her room. He can’t sit in the same room with her without staring at her. He is completely obsessive over her existence, and this is all before she discovers what he truly is. After she finds out he is a vampire, she is completely fine with his actions because she loves him. I’m not sure about you, but someone who shows up everywhere, stares at me while I’m sleeping, and randomly disappears and reappears, doesn’t sound like a romantic to me. She is willing to believe anything he tells her. And like a child, she follows his every action.

Time after time, Edward willingly hurts Bella, knowing what kind of effect it will have on her. He pulls himself away from her after previously forcing himself on her just a few chapters before. Who would want to live in the footsteps of someone who would continuously hurt her time after time? She spends all of her time thinking about this creature that is creepy and cold, no pun intended. Other than his physical attractiveness, what is really attractive about the character of this being? The reasons for liking him are few.

She spends the majority of her time around Edward and his vegetarian vampire “family”: Edward, a mind reader; Alice, one who can more or less see the future; Jasper, one who can tamper with emotions; Emmet, the strong one; Rosalie; Esme, the mother figure; and the father figure Carlisle, the doctor. Stephanie Meyer has a sense of humor when she created this family. She transcends all stereotypical vampire assumptions. The vampires never sleep, as assumed about most vampires, but unlike fake vampires, these “real” ones have a crucifix in their home, and their father is a doctor, dealing with blood every day. It no longer affects him and eventually hardly affects any of the other members of the family. This family is a group of vegetarians. Instead of living off of human blood, they survive solely on animal blood, as not to kill off the people.

Bella also finds herself living in the midst of werewolves. When she’s not spending all of her times around bloodsuckers, she is living among the dogs. The only beings she associates herself around willingly are non-human. And of course, what kind of story is it without your classic species conflict? Vampire against werewolf, and both against man. Not only is this conflict between the two different beasts, but it also evolves into a love triangle. Edward and Jacob are enemies fighting over the love of their lives, Bella. Not only has this character found herself stuck in a relationship with a vampire but also with a werewolf. Needless to say, the situation got hairy. One attractive fact about this story is that Bella has two “kind of people” fighting for her with their unconditional love. The fact that Edward and Jacob are willing to do anything to gain her favor is what interests many.

Alongside these two feuding groups of people, there are vampires that are only concerned about themselves and are human killers. These are the “weird” vampires. They aren’t “normal” in comparison to the Cullen family. They go after Bella, and in order to keep them away, Edward kills James. James is Victoria’s mate, and obviously when James is killed, Victoria has to come back with a vengeance — how else would there be a sequel?

It is strange that the somewhat stereotypical vampire is the one that we classify as strange or evil in these books. When a vampire is willing to drink animal blood, work in a hospital, or not mind the smell of garlic, we are completely accepting. But the instant a vampire appears, one that does what vampires are generally thought to do, we find them utterly revolting and unworthy of life. Now, this is not to say that their actions are pardoned because of their lifestyle, but this is to say that it is interesting to think that these characters are naturally rejected because they are your usual sort of vampire.

Stephenie Meyer’s pop culture sensation has affected the lives of many and not necessarily in a good way. A countless number of people have thriving obsessions over the characters, and in some cases, these obsessions have impacted their lives. There is no real reason why this series has become popular, or at least should be popular. The story is rather predictable and the characters are weak. It is sad to see what modern “literature” has become, though not worthy of being called literature. There is no good, logical reason why this series is so popular, other than its ability for others to somewhat relate to it but only in minor ways. It is full of love triangles and the main character just floats aimlessly through. So, having said all of this, there is no real point in wasting time reading this pop culture sensation. There is no real reason for its popularity and success.

The Best First-Person Shooter Game

Leave a reply

Tanner Rotering

All right folks, the question of the day is, “What is the best First-Person Shooter Game?” What do you all have to say? Is it Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2? No, of course not! How about the newest Medal of Honor game? Not a chance. Call of Duty Black Ops? Nope, wrong again. Perhaps much to your surprise, none of these are correct. The best first-person shooter game out there is … Battlefield Bad Company 2! All right, all right, now I understand that many of you gamers in the “audience” are audibly guffawing right now, avidly defending your favorite game with passionate, if not reasonable protests, but this really is a great game. Admittedly there is no completely objective standard for determining the “best first-person shooter game,” but I would strongly advise you to consider the following arguments for why Bad Company 2 is one of the best, if not the best, first-person shooter games that you could possibly own.

So what makes Battlefield Bad Company 2 such a great first-person shooter game? Essentially it all boils down to these 7 components of game-play: graphics, realism, weapons and vehicles, customizability, maps, role diversity, and variety in game mode. These 7 components of Battlefield Bad Company 2 are so skillfully executed that they create a truly one-of-a-kind gaming experience. Obviously there are other games which may surpass Battlefield Bad Company 2 in one or more of these areas, but I believe that none of these games blends all of these components together as successfully as Bad Company 2.

Let us begin with graphics. Again, there is really no objective standard for judging these sorts of things, so you will just have to see for yourself … but here are a few key traits of Battlefield Bad Company 2’s graphics. First of all, the graphics are realistic without being too gory. You don’t see people’s heads or legs getting blown off like you do in other more “graphic” games. Instead you simply see a small amount of red when someone is shot (though you will see the occasional soldier flying through the air after a huge explosion). Another bonus is that the game doesn’t try to be so realistic that it just looks bizarre. I’m sure that we’ve all seen a game like that before. You know, the games which don’t have quite enough money to purchase quality software, the ones that make people look just realistic enough that you recognize how much of a failure the graphics really are, the ones that make everyone look like Frankenstein’s monster.

So now that we’ve established what the graphics are not (gory and mediocre) we can delve into what they are. One exceptionally realistic aspect to the game’s graphics is the landscape. Foliage is extremely realistic, and the shading is phenomenal. In fact, you can hide in the shade in sunny maps in the same way that you would be able to in real life. This is exceptionally helpful for the dedicated sniper who relies heavily upon stealth. The water is exceptional also. Buildings, vehicles, and weapons are also extremely realistic when it comes to graphics.

Next is realism. This is perhaps one of the most impressive aspects to Battlefield Bad Company 2’s game play. For starters (and this alone sets Bad Company 2 apart from the other contenders) is the fact that the game utilizes a completely destructible environment. Not only can you knock down trees with your tanks, but you can shoot out holes in cement walls to give yourself a nice protected firing position. What’s really impressive is that you will even be able to see the gridirons within the cement wall once you blow some of it away, but even this isn’t the best part. Not only are the foliage and obstacles completely destructible, but so are the buildings themselves. A player can do anything from knocking down the door, to blowing out a wall, to collapsing the entire building on all of the opponents inside. Though you can destroy the environment, you can also just shoot through most walls too. All of these features drastically enhance the strategy and the grandeur of the game.

There are a few more features to the game that enhance the realism of the battlefield experience. The audio quality is one of these features. Being able to hear what is going on around you in the combat-zone can be just as important as being able to see what is going on around you. Whether it is the groan of a collapsing building, the rumble of an approaching tank, the clink of a grenade on the floor next to you, the approach of an enemy soldier, or the sound of your enemy’s knife impacting the wall just inches from your head, if you listen to the surroundings, you can be more adequately prepared for the approaching situation. The key to the greatness of Battlefield Bad Company 2’s audio is two-fold. First, the volume of a particular noise is dependent upon how close the source of that noise is to the player, and second, even the smallest actions from reloading your gun to walking through a bush emits an audible noise.

Another component to Battlefield Bad Company 2’s superb realism is the physics behind the trajectory of fired rounds. In many games, a bullet will continue to fly at the same velocity and altitude across the entire map or until the bullet is stopped. In Battlefield Bad Company 2, just like in real life, the rounds of tanks, hand-held weapons, etc. actually drop with time. Thus if you are a sniper, you will have to aim slightly above your target in order to get a head-shot (depending, of course, on how far away the target is). Also, when you fire a shotgun in real life, you don’t expect the rounds to suddenly stop and fall to the ground after 20 feet, but that’s what happens in many games like Call of Duty Black Ops. In Battlefield Bad Company 2, however, the shotgun rounds will continue beyond a mere 20 feet even if the rounds aren’t as powerful as they were during the first 20 feet. As my brother Thomas puts it, “Battlefield did shotguns right.”

The third aspect of Battlefield Bad Company 2 that makes it great are the vehicles and weapons. Many first-person shooter games do not have any vehicles at all, but Bad Company 2 not only has small vehicles like Quad Bikes (a type of ATV) but also larger vehicles like HUMVs, M3A3-Bradley APCs, M1A2 Abrahm Tanks, T-90 Tanks, two types of boats, and even BMD3-AA Mobile Anti-Aircraft vehicles (a special type of tank that, according to anandtech.com, is equipped with “dual 23mm AA cannons” and a “30mm Grenade Machinegun”¹ in addition to two machine guns). What really sets Battlefield Bad Company 2 apart from many other first-person shooter games, however, is the use of aerial vehicles. One can fly everything from UAV1 RC Scout choppers (equipped with a machine gun and a target designator capable of summoning an aerial strike), to AH64-Apache Attack Helicopters. Many of these vehicles have the ability to transport several soldiers who can utilize additional mounted weapons or their own individual arsenals to support the driver/pilot. These vehicles add an extremely critical component to game play. Not only do they provide the opportunity to wreak havoc on the enemy through the use of superior firepower, but they also contribute to the formation of a unique class of soldier, the engineer. The ability to attack from land, sea, or air drastically increases the number of ways to play the game.

The weapons are also extremely well designed. Each weapon’s unique balance of damage, accuracy, and rate of fire gives it a unique edge in the battlefield. Other more subtle characteristics of each individual weapon (such as clip size, recoil, and type of iron sights) also make each weapon unique. In fact, the performance of each gun in general (as well as the way that each gun is maneuvered in the 1^st-person view) is arguably better than that of any other 1^st-person video game.

The huge number and type of weapons themselves also improve Battlefield Bad Company 2. The fire-arms include the AEK 97, the AN94, the 9A91, the UZI, the PKM, the XM8LMG, the M24, the GOL, the M9, the 870 MCS, the USAS12, the NS 2000, the S2OK, the M93R, the M1911, the VSS, the QBY88, the MG36, the M249, the PP 2000, the SCAR, the M416, the XM8, the F2000, the M 16, the XM8C, the UMP 45, the QJY88, the MG3, the SV98, the M95, the MP443, the M1A1, the SPAS12, the SPAS 15, the T194, the MP412, the SVU, the M60, the AKS74u, and the AUG. If you could actually recognize every one of these guns, I am truly impressed, but even if you know anything at all about guns, you probably recognized names like the M 16, the SCAR, the M1911, the AUG, the UZI, the UMP 45, and some of the AK-47 variants. The list includes various sniper rifles, automatic assault rifles, shotguns, machine-guns, hand-guns, automatic pistols, and a few other types of weapons.

While the guns are great, one can also use more specialized weapons like RPG7s, various types of rocket launchers including the M136 (which features an optical guidance feature), grenades, Anti-Tank Mines, a power tool (used for repairing friendly vehicles or dismantling enemy vehicles), ammo kits, motion sensors, defibrillators, health packs, mortar strikes, explosives (with a remote detonator), a knife, 40mm grenade launcher attachments … you get the idea. Many of these special pieces of equipment, like the defibrillator (which enables you to revive fallen comrades), add entirely new potential strategies and entirely new opportunities for destroying the enemy forces.²

This brings us to the fourth key factor which makes Battlefield Bad Company 2 so awesome: customizability. As was mentioned above, each soldier has a large variety of weapons to choose from. Most of these weapons can be customized with various attachments and upgrades, while you can also customize your abilities and vehicles with upgrades as well. Such attachments/upgrades include sights, silencers, precision barrels, lighter equipment, precision ammo, and the like. Not only do these options provide variety and give one the opportunity to adapt one’s weapon to the situation at hand, but they also serve as rewards for skill and experience. As one gain’s points from various online accomplishments, one unlocks different weapons, upgrades, and attachments. The opportunity to “unlock” these options provides for a rewarding gaming experience as well as a competitive hierarchy that distinguishes the rank 50 veteran who has played every day of every week for the past year from the “n00b” who just got the game. While it is true that other games like Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 have arguably superior unlock systems with more options, at least in Battlefield you don’t have to exit the match to make your “custom class.” The vast number of ways to get points also makes the unlock system more exciting. One can gain points for getting kills and kill-assists; for saving a team-mate; for avenging your teammate; for destroying vehicles; for getting double or triple kills; for healing, reviving, or resupplying your teammates; for receiving various pins such as M-COM defender pins, submachine gun efficiency pins, savior pins, nemesis pins, combat efficiency pins, and squad retaliation pins; for setting a charge on an M-COM station; for disarming a charge on an M-COM station; for destroying an M-COM station; and the list goes on and on. You can also collect the dog tags of the players that you knife. While it may not have the best customizability feature of all the first-person shooter games out there, it does have one of the best and this instantly sets it apart from many of the lesser quality first-person shooters.

Fifth is “maps.” The maps in the Battlefield Bad Company series are some of the best videogame maps out there. Perhaps the key to their greatness is their size. Each map is extremely large compared to those of games like Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2. This size allows for many more potential strategies for achieving the desired objective (which varies depending on the game mode) and produces a much larger range of potential engagement situations per map. For example, in an extremely small map that consists of one building, there is a very limited number of possible ways that you might engage your enemy, i.e. they might come through that door, shoot through that window, come around that corner, or jump off the roof. In a map like this, game play becomes far too predictable and it becomes too much of a simple test of reaction time. In larger maps, the number of possible “engagement situations” increases exponentially. Now you must be prepared to engage the enemy in thousands of different battlefield situations depending on your position, the enemy’s position, your teammates’ positions, etc. Thus the size of the maps is a key bonus for Battlefield Bad Company 2, but size isn’t the only thing that makes Battlefield Bad Company 2’s maps great.

The balance between urban and rural combat is also superb. This balance provides opportunities for various different types of combat. Urban environments produce more fast-paced, close-quarters combat while rural environments are often more prone to involve engagements at longer range. The tactics involved in these different environments are also different, especially when buildings can be completely demolished.

The diversity of map types also helps to make Battlefield Bad Company 2 much more enjoyable. The battlefield environments range from deserts to jungles, from islands to mountains, and from submarine bases to refineries. Lighting also varies from map to map. It is sunny in some maps and cloudy in others. It is even night-time at one map, producing a whole new set of challenges. There are also unique advantages for each team depending on the map (and the game mode).

Role diversity is also an integral aspect to warfare in Battlefield Bad Company 2. Players can choose from a variety of “classes” between lives, each of which has a different set of weapons. The four classes are assault, medic, engineer, and recon. Each class performs a specialized task for the team, and when these classes work together, they can greatly enhance the teamwork capabilities within the match, simulating real warfare. Each player has the ability to choose to “spawn” at the location of one of his squad-members. Depending on which class each member of the squad chooses, the cooperative dynamic of that squad can shift dramatically. If the squad includes a medic, that player can heal his fellow squad members (or anyone on his team for that matter) while another player, who is playing as an assault class soldier, can resupply the engineer in the squad with ammo so that the engineer can protect the squad from enemy vehicles. All the while, the recon (or sniper) player can provide cover fire as well as the occasional mortar strike. This is only one possible way to utilize the classes available in Battlefield Bad Company 2, and the possibilities are endless. Because each player’s class is denoted by a unique symbol, teammates can easily spot imbalances in various areas of the battlefield and act accordingly.

And, last but not least, is the variety in game mode options. While many first-person shooter games have a plethora of game mode options, Battlefield Bad Company 2 has some of the best. One of the most unique game modes is “Rush.” This game mode designates one team as attackers and the other team as defenders. The defenders are tasked with defending the M-COM stations, while the attackers must destroy the M-COM stations. The attackers are given a certain number of reinforcements to destroy each pair of M-COM stations and as soon as one pair is destroyed, a new segment of the map is made available until either the attacking team has destroyed all of the M-COM stations or the defending team has depleted all of the attacking team’s reinforcements. Each side has its own set of challenges and advantages, and this type of game play keeps each game fresh with different opportunities for winning based on the unique strategies of each player. “Rush,” along with the other game modes, provides the player with many variations of the online multiplayer experience such that it is virtually impossible to have the same battle twice. Perhaps this strategic element is what makes Battlefield Bad Company 2 great. The vast number of ways to approach the game, concerning each individual’s use of class, customization, vehicles, teamwork, strategy, etc. all provide countless ways to play the game.

There are so many good things that I could say about Battlefield Bad Company 2, but I simply do not have the time or the patience to tell you all of them. In fact, just writing this paper is driving me mad, because every second that I spend telling you about how great a game it is, is another second that I wish that I could be playing it myself, right now. So, instead of listening to me ramble on about my favorite video game, you should get out there and try it for yourself.

End Notes

¹The AT Battlefield Bad Company 2 F.A.Q. http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2020118. Accessed November 17, 2010.

²YouTube: Battlefield Bad Company 2 Weapons, Gadgets, and Specializations Overlook. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LR3yNYLIN-0. Accessed November 17, 2010.

Biblical Mariology

Leave a reply

Seraphim Hamilton

Since the rise of Protestantism, there has been a debate on the veneration of the Virgin Mary. Orthodox Christians argue that since Mary is the Mother of the Lord Jesus Christ, she is to be accorded proper veneration. As Orthodox Christians, we call her the Mother of God, the Ark of the New Covenant, the Queen of Heaven, chief intercessor before Christ, the New Eve, and ever-virgin. It is my intention to prove that every single one of these roles is attributed to Mary in the Bible.

Mary’s most important role is her role as Theotokos, roughly translated “Mother of God,” but more precisely translated “God-bearer.” Is it proper to call the Virgin Mary the “Mother of God”? Yes! All Protestants acknowledge the biblical teaching of the deity of Christ, but, for the sake of completeness, let us review a key biblical passage.

For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily. (Colossians 2:9)

Within the body of the Lord Jesus Christ, the fullness of God dwells. Thus, if Mary gives birth to the body of Jesus Christ, as all Protestants admit, what comes out of her womb is also God, because God indwells the body of Christ. Thus, it is proper to refer to her as the “God-bearer” or Theotokos, and, as a corollary, “Mother of God.” In fact, St. Elizabeth says to Mary:

And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? (Luke 1:43)

The question before us is whether the “my Lord” here necessarily refers to the divine nature of Jesus Christ. Could it simply refer to the human nature? This leads directly into the discussion of Mary as the “Ark of the New Covenant.” When Elizabeth asks how it is that the mother of the Lord should come to her, she is directly alluding to these words spoken by the Prophet King David.

And David was afraid of the Lord that day, and he said, “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” (2 Samuel 6:9)

Ancient Jews memorized the Hebrew Bible. Similarities in wording would jump out at them. It is clear: when St. Elizabeth asks how the mother of the Lord should come to her, she is intentionally alluding to the Prophet’s words. It is important to note that in the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible, YHWH would be replaced by “the Lord.”

Thus, when Elizabeth calls Mary the “mother of my Lord,” in reference to David’s words, she is calling Mary the “Mother of YHWH.” Thus, it is absolutely proper to call Mary the Mother of God!

Furthermore, Elizabeth equates the Ark of the Covenant with the Blessed Virgin Mary. As the Old Ark was the dwelling place of God in the days of the Old Covenant, so the New Ark, the Virgin Mary, is the dwelling place of God the Word in our days, the days of the New Covenant. Let us look at some additional biblical passages which demonstrate her status as Ark of the New Covenant.

Then the cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. (Exodus 40:34)

The power of the Lord comes over the Ark of the Covenant. Similarly, it is written in St. Luke’s Gospel:

And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy — the Son of God.” (Luke 1:35)

The power of the Most High God overshadows the Blessed Virgin, just as it overshadowed the Ark of the Covenant. Listen to what happens when the Ark of the Covenant is brought before David:

And David danced before the Lord with all his might. And David was wearing a linen ephod. (2 Samuel 6:14)

This linen ephod is a priestly vestment. Likewise, John the Baptist is part of the priestly line of Aaron, and just as David danced when he saw the Ark of the Covenant, so does John the Baptist:

And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit… (Luke 1:41)

The child John the Baptist leaps in her womb at hearing the Ark of the Covenant. After David dances before the Ark of the Covenant, it remains three months:

And the ark of the Lord remained in the house of Obed-edom the Gittite three months, and the Lord blessed Obed-edom and all his household. (2 Samuel 6:11)

And after John the Baptist dances at hearing Mary, she remains three months:

And Mary remained with her about three months and returned to her home. (Luke 1:56)

Is it possible that all of this is a coincidence? As passage after passage is piled up, it becomes nearly impossible that it is. The evidence is clear that Luke is presenting Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant.

In addition, we hear of Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant in the Revelation of John:

Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. (Revelation 11:19)

We see the Heavenly Temple, and we see the Ark of the Covenant. Would the Ark of the Old Covenant be of any significance? No. The Old Covenant is done away with, and the glory of God has left it. But the New Covenant of Grace is in effect, and its Ark is something glorious. What is this Ark? St. John tells us in the very next passage:

And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. (Revelation 12:1)

Who is this woman?

She gave birth to a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne… (Revelation 12:5)

And who rules the nations with a rod of iron? God the Word, Jesus Christ.

He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. (Revelation 19:13-15)

Hence, the woman of Revelation 12 is the mother of Jesus Christ. Who is Christ’s mother? It is, of course, the Blessed Virgin Mary. We see, therefore, that the Ark of the New Covenant is identified clearly as the Virgin Mary in the Apocalypse of John. Some Protestants, however, like to argue that the Woman is not Mary, but Israel, basing their exegesis here:

Then he dreamed another dream and told it to his brothers and said, “Behold, I have dreamed another dream. Behold, the sun, the moon, and eleven stars were bowing down to me.” (Genesis 37:9)

This refers to Israel. So, is Israel a referent in John’s prophecy? Yes! In biblical prophecy it is not uncommon for a prophecy to have multiple referents. Let me give you an example from the famous prophecy of Isaiah:

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14)

All Christians know that this is ultimately fulfilled in Jesus Christ. However, there is a temporary fulfillment, where an almah who is not a virgin gives birth to a child who is named Immanuel as a sign that God is with them.

“…and it will sweep on into Judah, it will overflow and pass on, reaching even to the neck, and its outspread wings will fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel.” (Isaiah 8:8)

There are some parts where Isaiah refers to both referents, and some parts where he refers to only one. Consider this passage:

For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted. (Isaiah 7:16)

Was there ever a time when the Lord Jesus Christ did not know good and evil? Never. Thus, verse sixteen refers only to the first referent, and not the messianic referent. Likewise, in Revelation 12, there are portions where John refers to Mary, portions where he refers to Eve, portions where he refers to the Church, and portions where he refers to Israel. Mostly, however, he refers to all four. So, with that said, let us look at the further implications of Revelation 12.

And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. (Revelation 12:1)

Mary here is wearing a Crown of Twelve Stars. As we saw in Joseph’s dream, the stars are a symbol of Israel. Mary is wearing the Crown of Israel. However, the New Israel is the people of the Church, the Kingdom of Heaven. Christ says:

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” (John 18:36)

The kingdom of New Israel is the kingdom of Heaven. Thus, Mary is here presented as wearing the Crown of New Israel — she is the Queen of Heaven.

Another important fact is that Jesus is a king after the order of David — he is a Davidic king. Who were the queens of Davidic kings? Interestingly, it was not their wives. It was their mothers. Consider this passage:

Say to the king and the queen mother: “Take a lowly seat, for your beautiful crown has come down from your head.” (Jeremiah 13:18)

So, Jesus, being the Davidic King of Heaven, has His Davidic queen, His Mother, Mary. What were the functions of the Queen Mother? Intercession before the King.

So Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him on behalf of Adonijah. And the king rose to meet her and bowed down to her. Then he sat on his throne and had a seat brought for the king’s mother, and she sat on his right. Then she said, “I have one small request to make of you; do not refuse me.” And the king said to her, “Make your request, my mother, for I will not refuse you.” (1 Kings 2:19-20)

The Davidic queen, Bathsheba, intercedes on behalf of Adonijah at his request, before the Davidic king, her son Solomon, and Solomon listens with special attention to the request of the queen. This is exactly parallel to the situation today with Orthodox Christians. Orthodox Christians ask for the intercession of our Queen, Mary. She intercedes before her son, Jesus Christ, the King, at our request and He listens with special attention. Let us now demonstrate Mary’s status as New Eve, that is, the antitype of Eve.

St. John writes:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:1-3)

He opens by discussing the beginning of the world, opening with “in the beginning.” Remember that ancient Jews knew the Hebrew Bible from memory. They would immediately think of:

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1:1)

Further parallels are drawn:

In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. (John 1:4-5)

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. (Genesis 1:3-4)

Thus, John is writing to parallel the opening chapters of Genesis. He counts the days. Start with one in John’s opening.

The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29)

Two.

The next day again John was standing with two of his disciples… (John 1:35)

Three.

The next day Jesus decided to go to Galilee. He found Philip and said to him, “Follow me.” (John 1:43)

Four.

On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. (John 2:1)

The wedding at Cana occurs on the seventh day. On the seventh day, Mary asks Him to do something:

When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” (John 2:3)

Jesus does a miracle:

When the master of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom… (John 2:9)

We know from the Scripture that Jesus is the New Adam:

Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. (1 Corinthians 15:45)

What does Eve do to Adam on the seventh day?

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. (Genesis 3:6)

On the seventh day after the opening of Genesis, Eve entices Adam to commit his first sin. On the seventh day after the opening of John, who is drawing our minds back to Genesis, Mary entices the New Adam to perform His first miracle. The conclusion is clear: Mary is the New Eve. One can consider also Mary’s obedience to Gabriel vs. Eve’s obedience to Satan:

But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Genesis 3:4-5)

Thus, Eve obeys the evil angel Satan, who entices her to bring death into the world.

And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.” (Luke 1:30-31)

Who is Jesus?

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6)

Jesus is the Life. Mary consents to the message of the good angel, Gabriel, in bringing Life into the world. Eve consents to the message of the evil angel, Satan, in bringing death into the world. It is clear what the Bible is doing. Mary is clearly the New Eve.

Finally, Orthodox Christians believe that Mary remained a virgin all of her life. The traditional Orthodox position is that the “brothers of Jesus” were actually step-brothers from Joseph’s earlier marriage (he was a widower). Does this position find any support in Scripture? Yes! Let us first address the two indications put forward by Protestants that Mary did not remain a virgin. First:

When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus. (Matthew 1:24-25)

The key word put forward by Protestants is “until.” The Greek is heōs. Where else do we find this Greek word? Matthew 28:20:

“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until (heōs) the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:19-20)

If heōs implies an eventual change in action, it means that Jesus will eventually leave us. Next, Protestants propose that the record of Christ’s siblings demonstrates that Mary consummated her marriage with St. Joseph after giving birth to Christ.

“Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. (Mark 6:3)

Does it ever say that these other children are the children of Mary? No, it says that they are the “brothers of Jesus.” Could this mean stepbrothers? Yes, it could, unless you want to argue that Joseph was actually Jesus’ blood father.

And his father and his mother marveled at what was said about [Jesus]. (Luke 2:33)

What does Mark 6 actually teach? Why was Jesus called the son of Mary rather than the son of Joseph? As we have seen, it was perfectly acceptable to call Jesus the son of Joseph, so it’s not referring to the virginal conception. Why then? Protestant scholar Richard Bauckham answers: “…in Nazareth Jesus would have been known as ‘the son of Mary’ because this distinguished him from the children of Joseph by his first wife.”

Mark 6:3, therefore, far from being evidence against the traditional doctrine, actually is evidence for it! Finally, consider the words of Jesus to the Apostle John:

When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” (John 19:26)

Jesus commits the care of the Virgin Mary to the Apostle John. This would have been absolutely unacceptable if she had other children. If the oldest child dies, the care of the mother falls to the next oldest child. If the oldest child is the only child, it is his responsibility to appoint someone to care for his mother in the case that he dies. We can see that Jesus acts as if He is the only child of Mary.

As we can see, there is no indication from the Bible that Mary had other children than Jesus, and there are at least two strong indicators against it. From the Bible alone, we can conclude fairly safely that she is a perpetual virgin.

Mary needs to be given her due. Christ’s Church, that is, the Orthodox Church, has done that for two-thousand years. It has remained faithful to the biblical, apostolic, and patristic teaching concerning the position and status of the Virgin. Protestants, through a careless reading of the Bible and a hatred for the tradition of the Church, have degraded her. It’s time for them to reject the traditions of men and get in line with the Bible.

Redeeming Pandora

A Journal of Scholarship and Opinion

Category Archives: Issue 2

The Eucharist

Seraphim Hamilton

Mind Games

Alice Minium

Where the Sour Turns to Sweet — From Genesis to Revelation: Gabriel’s Genesis Retrospective, pt. 1

Christopher Rush

Twilight

Emily Grant Privett

The Best First-Person Shooter Game

Tanner Rotering

Biblical Mariology

Seraphim Hamilton