Friday, November 05, 2004
A Theological Reflection on What the #$BLEEP*! Do We Know? ? Hope Beyond Quantum Physics?
What follows before is my attempt to exegete this movie, and in the end to draw some helpful and I believe true elements from this presentation. I personally loved the film?but then I have strange tastes in movies. I have seen in four times, and have laughed at the narrative shown to us to support the films theories and thesis. Having said that?
The challenge of the movie ?What the #$BLEEP*! Do We Know?? is that it is not easily categorized. Is it a documentary? Is it a fictional film? Is it modernist? Is it postmodernist? Well?yes, no, and wrong question.
First let me say that this movie is the strangest concoction I have experienced. It is one part Quantum Physics, one part Pluralistic and New Age theology, and one part physiology and importance of intention. It is not, as some have billed, a ?real world Matrix.? Far from it (though The Matrix trilogy itself allows for a lot of connections to this and many other movies and narratives)! Instead, it the story of a worldview that the makers of the film are inviting you to believe in ? in fact, they would say, it is the only true narrative out there (point one on why this is not really postmodern, but more modern or hypermodern).
The Physics of Possibility
The first third of the film is a discussion of Quantum Physics, or as Amit Goswami (the Indian physicists) says throughout the film, ?The physics of possibility.? This is the part of the movie most like The Matrix, with its emphasis on the breakdown of existing rules by which we operate in this world.
The scientists here discussing their views want to challenge our very notions of what is real, what is possible, and what makes sense. The problem, as they see it, is we are stuck in a paradigm ? locked into preconceptions ? which we believe are true but, as Quantum Physics demonstrates, are not true. Now, from here on I want to stress that I am not a scientist, but a theologian. I know enough about Quantum Physics to be dangerous, and that is about all.
Quantum physics, at least the brand of it being presented in this film, is about the movement of what we believe to be solid matter in ways that do not necessarily adhere to traditional and classical laws of physics and motion. It is true that at the atomic level all those pictures of the atom we were shown in high school (looking a lot like the planet Saturn) are not true. For one thing, electrons do go in and out of existence. The scientist on the film also state that the mass of the nucleus is almost negligible ? something that I have heard other scientist refute. Be that as it may, part of the theory being pushed by this particular group of scientists is that Quantum Physics tells us that mass and reality are not ?real,? or at least not ?substantial.? There is no pre-existing stuff there, but rather it is our interacting with stuff that moves, again to quote Goswami, waves of possibilities into points of probabilities. In other words, once we interact we ?choose? the one actual experience out of the multitude of possible options.
Now, if you are like me, you probably are already wondering how it is that all of us know that the waves of possibility outside my window is the mountain Pikes Peak, elevation 14,110 feet? That is a great question. Part of the reason why I reject the notion that this is truly a postmodern movie is its emphasis on the power and privilege of the individual in creating reality. Am I to believe that there is some great collusion going on to where we are all, over 300,000 of us living in El Paso county Colorado, choosing the same possibility at the same time to create Pikes Peak? But, as another scientist in the film states, if matter isn?t actually stuff but more like information, then that is the outcome. Thus the first main thesis of the film ? nothing exists until you choose it. Therefore reality is completely open to us. Clearly, this is an issue for someone, like myself, who claims to be a follower of the One Triune God ? creator, sustainer and completer of creation.
Here you can see why people make the connection to The Matrix, but again that is misunderstanding the points of both films. The Matrix made the point there is a ?real? world ? but that most humans are not living in it. One of the things I appreciated about The Matrix was its honesty about the physical world ? it is not always beautiful, fun, and exciting. Instead it was dark, cold, gray?and filled with hope. The makers of Bleep on the other hand are stating that there is no ?there? there. There is no one reality. It is all what you create. If this sounds like both the arrogance of modernity with its false hope of creating a perfect reality and the new age notion of the power of mind, you are right.
It has come to my attention that one of the experts on the film, Columbia University physics professor David Albert, is uncomfortable with the way his comments were edited to give the appearance of agreeing the film?s thesis, and is in the process of writing a response to it. I am interested to see his problem with the film. Again, treading where my expertise does not lie, I will throw out several problems with the theories proposed:
1) Quantum Physics proves time is not linear
I choose this one to start with because it is the area I feel most comfortable talking about. Einstein of course theorized the notion of time travel, something that scientists have continued to theorize and make equations to demonstrate since. At this point it is a theory?one I agree with, but one that is as of yet unproven. Does time exist in the same way that say a stream exists, and can it be both ascended and descended by humans? That appears to the point of Bleep, to the extent that one of their panel posits the question, ?Why is it that we can epistemic access to the past but not the future?? Great question! Their point is the limitation of our mind. My point: we cannot access it because the future is not ?there? yet. If no one has ever been able to tap into future knowledge (except in the 1990s television series Early Edition, which I loved), then perhaps, maybe, it cannot be done.
To some extent as Christians we believe that time is not linear to God. Classic positions have put God either at the front of time (planning out the course of the universe in his sovereign plan) or outside of time (looking down on it like a picture and interacting with the events). This gives ground even for praying for past events and even for the lives and souls of those who have already died (intercession to a God outside of time is not impacted by our point in time). I tend to follow the concept put down by Wolfhart Pannenberg and others that God is at the end of time, drawing all things to their conclusion, reacting in his sovereign power to human decisions to bring things to a meaningful and hopeful conclusion. But, this is the Triune God at the end of history ? not me. Clearly, one of the beliefs of this little film is that we are part of (if not singly by ourselves) that deity.
2) Quantum physics is a proven science.
Again, I am not going to get into a shouting match with Harvard PhDs and people with proven credentials. But, Quantum Physics is, at this point, a completely theoretical science, high jacked here by a group from Northwest cult because it provides a nice naturalistic worldview for the beliefs of some. It is not proven in the macro-physical world. It is also, relatively speaking (ha), a new science. If Quantum physics is true, we are still in the early stages. Think the level of Copernican astro-physics compared to our knowledge level today (which is still very incomplete). I love how the movie presents the theories about Quantum Physics as obvious reality instead of questionable early stage conjecture.
3) Quantum physics as the science of hyper-individualism.
I have already mentioned this, but I think it is important to note that the movie is suggesting that over six billion people are being deluded by the same notion that matter is not real, but that it is all our individual experiences of the possibilities presented by QP. My wife, who has her Master?s in Theology and an undergrad in Math, posited that there may be some notion of collective reality that could salvage this viewpoint. As a collective community of humans have we decided to accept the notion that we need land, sea, air, etc.? Perhaps, but even that throws a wrench into the main thesis of this first section ? that I am essentially the divine being of my world that I create everyday (a point that one of the films experts make).
The first part of the film ends with another piece that is Matrix-like in its concepts. This is the brain scan theories that our minds cannot tell the difference between visual reality and imagined thought. This is of course the point of ?going down the rabbit hole? in Morpheus speech to Neo in the early stages of The Matrix. But the movie presents certain things as solid fact that are simply not so. First, while with do use a similar point in the brain to recall a visual image that we use in first visualizing it, that leaves out the actual experience of the visual unit of our bodies. Second, the brain scans that the expert refers to are still a very nascent technology. We still know almost nothing about how the brain really works. What is memory, what is thought, etc? I would put the brain scans/visual understanding theories proposed here as on the level of last 19th century fascination with phrenology (the study of bumps on the skull). There may be great knowledge to be gained from this area of study?but to conclude that our minds create visual reality is certainly not credible at this point.
This is reinforced in the film by one of the most annoying frauds in the entire 106 minutes ? Columbus? clipper ships and the natives in the Caribbean. First off, clipper ships did not exist in 1492. So, they are right, the natives did not see them (or for that matter, neither did Columbus). Beyond that, this story has no basis in fact anywhere. The native peoples in the Caribbean did know what ships were. And even if they didn?t know what sails were (sorry I am not an expert on 15th century native shipping in the Caribbean), they saw matter on top of the sea. I am not sure if this is just an urban legend that someone bit too hard on or a deliberate attempt to use a story that, although false, should be true.
Having said what I just said, I do want to affirm something in the concept of visualization and reality. Throughout the Gospels we have Jesus telling us that ?to think lustily of another person is to commit adultery in the heart. The rather humorous scene with the owner of the photography outfit lusting after the body of one of his employees brings this home. Our minds do have the ability to fantasize a full sexual experience out of even the least thought. There may be no ?tactile? sin involved, but clearly the mind is creating the next best thing. Jesus? point is to focus our minds on that which is good and life-giving, not on that which destroys, demeans, and dehumanizes. Since the human mind is a great instrument for running amuck, I think there is a good parallel between the ?theory? being put forth in this portion of the movie and the call to Christians to ?renew the mind.? The mind can create the entire sin of, in this case adultery, even when the body is not involved.
Rethink that Whole God Thing
To their credit the producers did not make the whole film about their theology (although all of the film supports their theology). The middle section of the film, with its discussion on the nature of God and the nature of good and evil, is easily the worst section of the film. For one, they stop presenting ?facts? and instead give their opinion. Great?everyone gets opinions. If their earlier thesis is correct that there is no ultimate reality, then their opinion is as valid as any other. Since I disagree with that first thesis, I have serious issues with their second thesis ? that God has been abused by religious leaders and that conception of God (like our conception of the nature of matter and reality) must be overthrown. The theologians being put forward is a highly questionable source. I have read a couple of articles by him (unbeknownst to me at the time), and lets just say that is opinions are as far out of the mainstream of Christian thought as you can get (it is my understanding he is no longer considered a Catholic theologian, which was true before anyone took the formal steps to state it). Let?s take a few moments to dissect their core theology.
1) We create reality?therefore we are God.
This falls under the category of the oldest sin on record. Regardless of how you read Genesis 1-3 (myth, true myth, story, factual occurrences), we are given an account of humanity asserting its desire to be like God. While human beings bear the image of God, there is still an ontological difference between them and the divine being. Bleep blurs that line, showing that the bigger issue is our inability to accept the true reality ? of our divine nature. This is classic New Age theology, but also, as the story spins on screen, has touches of the Hindu notions that we are unified together in one divine ?stuff.? One of the major differences between the three traditional monotheistic religions and Buddhism, Hinduism and its variants is that the ultimate destiny in monotheism does not remove identity from the individual, but rather points to the individual?s true identity which has been hidden by sin and fear. In Eastern faiths the individual is subsumed, ceasing to exist as a distinct entity.
Because Bleep?s theology is so individualistic, the grand connection of the community is only accomplished by the destruction of human identity in the end. I have already mentioned this earlier, but throughout the whole discussion in this movie you have a growing sense that a person has no need for any other person, only for the ?waves of information and possibilities.? Clearly, this thesis will do nothing for that state of our society, and, as a Christian who believes in the relational nature of the Triune God, is an incorrect view of who we are as image bearers of that God.
In fact Christianity does have a doctrine of oneness that is part of its long history (but has only become renewed in the West). The ancient notions of perichoresis and theosis are aspects of Christian theology that are slowly resurfacing. Perichoresis refers to the divine interactions and interconnections within the Triune God between Father, Son and Spirit. The notion is interpenetration, so that one is fully known and is fully known and so that one is dependent on the other and likewise. Theosis is the ancient concept of becoming god. Now, before you raise the issue of heresy, theosis is not talking about an ontological change to either us or God. Rather, like perichoresis, it is a relational concept. We do not become god, but we participate in the intimate inner fellowship of the Trinity, a participation that brings us to a new relationship and knowledge ? both within self and with the Trinity. God?s inner being is protected because there is always a deep ontological gulf between us and God. But by God?s grace we are brought into the mysteries of the inner life of the divine being, and in so doing experience that which is beyond comprehension. But at no time do we ever cease to be who we are, and at no time does God ever cease being the distinct persons of the Triune God.
2) There is no judgment ? only that which progresses us and that which does not.
One of the fun things that many Christians love to point out about postmodernism is the statement that ?there are no absolutes? (it is interesting that meaning cannot exist outside of some absolutes). In Bleep the version of this thinking is repeated by both Dr. Miceal Ledwith (the ?theologian?) and JZ Knight (whose entire qualifications for being in this movie, aside from her funding it, is that she is allegedly channeling the 35,000 year old Spirit of Ramtha). For both of them they stress that there is no judgment, no right and no wrong, no good and no bad. Ledwith makes the point that the only categories that can even be discussed are ?that which evolves me and that which doesn?t.? If you are like me, the first question this raises is ? ?why is evolving better than staying static?? Knight?s view of this is we are none of those dialectics, but simply gods. For them, as well as others in the film including physicist Dr. William Tiller, see the whole focus of our being to ?create reality.? As long as we are creating, there is no judgment, no condemnation, no reason for anything but love of ourselves and others. The question one must raise then is, ?if there is no judgment in our creating, why would creating war be incorrect??
The New Testament makes the point that ?there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.? So there is fundamental agreement on the substance of what is really true. The problem comes that in Bleep theology the whole process of this is simply accepting the fact that we are gods, and transforming our way of thinking. There is no reason why no condemnation should be true other than I believe it to be true. Having studied the mindset of serial killers a number of years ago, this is precisely the mental state of those homicidal fiends. They truly do not believe that their actions are wrong ? in fact they often create a context in their own minds that make their actions just, right, and good. Now, I am not trying to link Bleep to mass murderers, but I think it is instructive that a human determination that there is no condemnation is not rooted in any ontological reality ? only in mind.
In the scriptures we see that the reality of non condemnation is rooted in our relationship (intimate connection with) God through Christ Jesus. This does bring with it a change in state (new creation) and a change in mind and will (renewing of your mind), but all of this is accomplished not by our struggling, but in our resisting to take control and manufacturer a world where it will be true for us. Additionally, this reality of no condemnation is lived out in communal life, where all are encouraged and shown to strive forward to living out the reality of being in Christ, instead of being simply ourselves.
3) Religion causes oppression, violence, and wickedness
This is not a new theme. It has been repeated by secularists since the rise of the Catholic/Protestant wars in Europe in the 16th century. Secularist are increasingly unwilling to make this case after the 20th century, which saw the rise of secular ideologies (nationalism, ethnocentrism, fascism and communism) which produced killing fields across the globe which resulted in over 100 million death. But New Agers and those of the pluralistic post-modernist mindset continue to argue that belief does not create violence but only obedience to bad deities (something that has been claimed increasingly be even Christians about Islam). Ledwith makes this point, and that seeking to serve and obey a deity because we fear punishment is a blasphemy. To an extent I agree with him. Much violence has been committed, by all organized religionists (including Eastern religionists), largely because of incorrect knowledge and belief about who God is and what God asks of us. The problem is not too much religiosity, but it is too little right thinking to create right action.
The fact is that should we all become followers of Bleep?s theology, we would likely still see violence arise, attempts to coerce arise, and oppression arise. Because human nature (which Christian see and have experienced as fallen) is incapable of being purely good. Our motives are almost always positive, but when those who stand in the way of the ?Peaceable Perfect Kingdom? of our theology ? whatever theology that is ? becoming reality, then tolerance is bypassed by zealousness.
4) ?There is nothing that I as a simple carbon unit can do to damage god.? ? JZ Knight.
This statement is echoed in his own words by Ledwith, creating the obvious fact that there is no sin. Now, again, I do agree with an aspect of what Knight is saying here. God is ontological perfect, so therefore I cannot destroy God. But her notion of God is as ?stuff? not as character or personality. There is no relational component to her understanding of God. Because of this the holiness and purity of God is a non-issue. So, slaughtering 6 million Jews and 3 million Gypsies, cannot damage God? Wrong, if God?s holy character is one of life, of love, of forgiveness. If there is no character to ?god,? then the no condemnation mentioned in #1 above makes a lot of sense. But we cannot agree to that.
It also makes the ?laws? of organized religion utterly meaningless. As a Christian I do not see the commands of God as the arbitrary pronouncement of a god who I might damage. Instead I see them as actions and callings to help me choose life and not death. The ever-living God of Christianity is hurt, morally and personally, by those who reject life and choose death ? a concept that God never designed to be part of the universe. Knight?s god is one that can offer no council for life.
5) ?Have you ever seen yourself through the eyes of the ultimate observer?? ? JZ Knight
If you are getting the feeling that I believe this film would have been much better if Knight had not appeared even once, you are right. But, she funded it, so I guess she gets to be in it. Again, this statement is one that, as a Trinitarian Christian I can also utter. The difference is in the identity of the ultimate observer. For Knight, that observer is us ? do we really see ourselves as we really are ? beautiful, amazing, and creative? If we could just put down the false notion of ourselves we have willingly adopted we could be happier, healthier, and on the way to living out our divine reality. Again, the role of ultimate arbiter resides in myself, not in something outside me ? be in God, community, or some standards developed by the RAND Corporation. It is interesting that a film that is supposed to be offering hope to a world that has become so isolated in individualism focuses so much of its energy and hope on the individual.
As a Trinitarian Christian, I understand that my true identity is not the one I see, the one you see, the one anyone or thing sees. Instead my true identity is found in God. From the eyes and mind of the Triune God we gain our identity, our worth, our value, and our hope. I am truly who God says I am. While we cannot see with those eyes and that mind, we are given pronouncements throughout the scriptures that we are the beloved, the precious creation, the intimate covenantal friend of the maker, sustainer, and completer of the universe. Now that is worth. To see myself through the eyes of the ultimate observer is to believe and live from the reality of my identity as revealed in Scripture, enacted in the work of the Incarnated Son, and reinforced by the quiet voice of the Holy Spirit.
You are What You Think
The final third of the movie is the one I most connected to and the one that I think has the most implications for Christianity and society. There is a lot of complex molecular science, endocrinology, and other biological facts going on. I will summarize here. Our thoughts, both positive and negative, affect our body chemistry. It influences what we feel, what we experience, and how our body reacts. A negative person really is a toxic person. The scenes in this portion of the movie are the funniest and the most poignant. We see Amanda (the deaf photographer who is the focus of the story) living a life stuck in the past and coping with the present only through anxiety drugs. But slowly her toxicity is changed into self-acceptance and health. The process includes the famous ?wedding reception? scenes. The movie is worth seeing for this reason alone.
The point that is made is that so much of what we experience as ?just the way things are? is actually our body responding to a set of experiences in ways, through our body chemistry, that create our living experiences of life. Neural pathways created connections that bring about certain memories. Those memories and the expectations raised by them cause our body chemistry to produce certain proteins that generate love, lust, excitement, fear, disappointment, and the rest of the gamete of human emotional experiences. The experts in this part of the film focus on the concept of addiction. What we are addicted to is the chemical response our body produces to certain situations. Addiction here is less about heroin or alcohol, and more about creating the same situations over and over so we can the ?chemical? hit our bodies crave ? even if those situations are bad ? disappointment, failure, ?sin,? etc. The reason people keep doing what they have always done, even though it is not working for their life and success, is because their bodies are addicted to the chemical response that is created in each of those instances.
Further, the longer the body produces those proteins, especially the proteins associated with toxic emotions ? anger, hate, and the like ? the individual cells in the body increasingly are unable to absorb the nutrients needed to make the physical body strong and healthy. What is created is the cycle of death.
Of course in Christianity, especially during the mid-20th century, we saw the rise of the positive thinking movement (think XXX). Secular thought also has its positive thinking advocates. But Bleep makes the point that most of the time all we are doing is putting a thin veneer of less negative thinking on top of essentialy negative thoughts. Therefore our ?positive approach fails, and we fall even deeper into negativity. What is needed is a much more radical approach, to undo those neural synapse connections that keep us locked into a cycle of negativity.
One of the key illustrations in the film to bring this point home is the water experiments of the artist Dr. Masaru Emoto. There he spoke blessings to water, tap messages (both good and bad) to bottle of water, and then photographed the water?s response. The effect, at least as we are shown it, is that positive messages bring about beautiful, wonderful crystalline formation. Negative ones bring about water that looks like the foulest sludge found in the world?s worst water supplies. At this point there are two questions I had to ask. First, how does water receive either verbal messages (in any language) or emotional messages? Second, how do we know that the ?messages? received from the water are correct? Maybe the crystalline structures are water?s anger, and the ?sludge? is water?s way of saying, ?Thanks.? After spending a good portion of the movie telling us we need to stop interpreting the world by the same rules we have always used, they use the standard interpretive system to make their point in regards to water?s obvious appreciation at positive emotions and words.
Having said that, a few key observations about this third of the film:
1) Transformation is really a microscopic activity, not a macroscopic one
I think this is the essentially point that Christians need to see in this film. The greatest offense against the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is that Christians are the same as everyone else. For me that ?Christians are perfect, just forgiven? is taking a truth and turning it into a lie. It is true that we are not perfect, and most likely will never be (with all pardon to those in the Nazarene stream of Christianity that do see Christian perfection as attainable). But the complete lack of transformation in those touched by the Gospel makes a lie out of Paul?s statement that, ?If anyone is in Christ (they are) new creation.? We should be radically different then we were before we entered into relationship with the Triune God. But that is not even expected. All that is usually asked for is to go to church, read your Bible, and stop swearing. But even these things become difficult because the basic structure of the body and mind are untouched by the reality of Christ.
We are literally feeding good nutrients into a body whose cells are incapable of absorbing them. Even our cells are addicted to chemical responses associated with sin, hopeless, and other actions and emotions that are not signs of ?new creation.? Instead, we have to call people to a radial readjustment of their thinking and living. Not just ? ?go and sin no more? but to live life from the reality of the Kingdom of God. This is Paul?s admonition in Romans 12:2 (to renew our minds). This is Paul?s point of saying that we should be ?joyful always (1 Thessalonians 5). And most importantly this is what is behind the admonition by Jesus to ?seek first the Kingdom of God.? Only by the combined change of both inner and outer reality, both the microscopic as well as macroscopic areas of life can we really see a profound change in our lives.
2) We are addicted to feelings not things
This is a basic truth, but one I want to affirm. I don?t know how many discussions I have had with people after they have just made the same ?mistake? for the hundred and twelfth time, and seen their frustration with themselves. The problems is that they are more committed to the emotional response they get, even though it makes them feel horrible, than they are to making good decisions.
Breaking this cycle of addiction really does take detoxification. We have to help people to completely readjust their thought process if we are going to see them adjust their behavioral process. I do not believe that any person can do this on their own. Again, the film?s focus on the individual belies the truths they actually put forth. It is only in community, where we encourage and hold accountable those who are seeking genuine change in their lives. On our own we will quickly fall back into the addiction trap ? not because we ?want to? but because we feel the need to. Transformation is a community activity, and without community it is doubtful that any of us will do other than slow down our cycle of repeated activity that brings us pain and suffering.
3) Some things are more than addiction
JZ Knight makes a statement towards the end of the film that slides by but must be challenged. She says that since our being in love is just our enjoyment of the chemical response that we can fall ?out of love? the next week. Clearly there is a stage in any relationship when we are hormonally drawn to someone in a powerful way. But that is not what love is. Again, the science of the film outstrips known reality. We cannot find the center of love in the human mind, though some are still trying to find it. Our choices are not just rooted in chemically induced responses. There are other aspects involved ? first and foremost among them is choice and commitment. These are two more ?rational? elements, but they do provide a deep and abiding part of what makes up ?true love.? We see this in the Triune God?s continued desire to be in relationship with corporate humanity. It is not emotional ? if anything the ?emotions? we see in God are often negative ? but rather something deeper and more rooted, what the Hebrew Scriptures call chesed. We must never assume that any one answer explains the human response to life and its experiences. We are much more complex than that, and perhaps nothing is as complex as ?true love.?
Final Thoughts
I have read many many responses to this movie on the web. Most are negative, especially those from physicist and Christians. Clearly the science in this movie is ?pop-science,? but I think there are some possible truths hidden in that section of the movie to wake us up to the fact that our explanations of the world are far from complete.
Christians often point to the rather vapid theology that makes up the middle section. Clearly there are some deep and abiding issues with Bleep?s theology (not least of which it is rooted in someone?s channeling a 35,000 year old spirit). But even there some of the objections to traditional religious responses to the questions of God should at least draw our attention. As I heard the experts in that section of the movie speak about God I was reminded of N.T. Wright?s story about visiting new 1st year students at Oxford when he served as a chaplain. They would tell him they were atheists, and when Wright asked them to tell him what god it was they didn?t believe in, he would respond at the end, ?I don?t believe in that god either,? and then proceed to give them a brief picture of the God he knew. I have the same response to this section of the film.
The final section of the film, again a ?pop-science? presentation of body chemistry, provides some important glimpses into our nature. It provides some physiological evidence to the answer of why people don?t change, and it does so in ways that I believe tie directly with what we see in the scriptures. If we do not wake up to the reality that as creations, even new ones, that we are organic wholes, not just mind or will or emotions, we will never be able to preach the whole Gospel to the whole person and have it make a difference in the whole world.
On the whole, I loved the film. It was entertaining, thought provoking, goofy, and presents a wonderful case story to back up the assertions of the experts presented in the film. What I would love to do is use the same case story and see if the Gospel of the Kingdom, rather than the good news of Bleep can offer a better outcome.
