The "West Wing" watcher series--Volume 2.
In Season 2, Episode 7, entitled "The Portland Trip", President Bartlett is on a trip to, yes, Portland. There are several big political issues on which the White House must make a decision. One of those, a marriage protection bill, has passed both houses and is now on the President's desk. Josh speaks with a Republican Congressman, who happens to be gay, about the issue. He is trying to determine whether or not the President should veto the bill. President Bartlett states at one point that the bill is "gay-bashing." Josh says to the Congressman that the government is trying to tell him who he can love. These are two examples of the misdirection often used in the gay-marriage debate, and any type of "gay-rights" debate for that matter. There are many issues involved in the homosexual debate, and there are many issues not involved in the homosexual debate. Both sides need to be honest enough to distinguish between the two.
The first issue not related to the homosexual debate is the issue of love. In our modern culture, it is almost impossible to talk of love without talking of sex. The two have almost become synonymous. A sexual relationship is going to be part of a loving relationship, but a sexual relationship does not indicate a loving relationship. Most people understand that sex and love don't always walk together. When a persons says that he believes a homosexual relationship is wrong, others incorrectly infer that to mean that love between two homosexual people is wrong. That is unfair and untrue. The Bible clearly says that we should love all men. The Bible also clearly says that sexual relations between two men or two women is wrong. The latter can and should exist without the former.
A related issue is the confusion between the act and the actor. Condemning a homosexual act is far different from condemning a homosexual person. The well-worn phrase, "Hate the sin; love the sinner," is very applicable here. Any person who demonizes any other person for their actions is a hypocrite. We must realize that all sin is wrong. The sin of homosexuality is as wrong in God's eyes as the sin of lying. How many more liars than homosexuals are there? Is condemning a person's lies the same as condemning the liar? There are certain acts that are morally wrong. People condemn these acts all the time. Yet, the people who commit these acts are still people. They are people like every other person. Our worth as a human does not stem from our actions. Whatever worth we have stems from our humanity. Everyone is a sinner, therefore everyone sins. We are not our sins. If God sees us as our sin, then we are hopeless, for sin cannot enter heaven. God sees us a people who sin. The cross separates us from our sin, so that one day we might enter into heaven sinless. A non-Christian mindset is the least philanthropic, for it does not distinguish a man from his actions. There are cruel Christians, but Christianity is not cruel. It treats people with more respect and more dignity than any other religion.
In the episode is another issue not related to the debate. A bill that recognizes heterosexual marriage as the only legal marriage does not automatically "outlaw" homosexual relationships. A marriage is, among other things, a legal entity. One of the responsibilities of government is to define various legal entities. There needs to be specific definitions for a business. A bum with Windex and a squeegee is not considered a business. A lady with a cart full of light bulbs cannot apply for a business license and sincerely expect to receive one. She may have a bright idea. She may have extensive ability. She may have every intention of starting a successful business. None of these are valid enough reasons for giving her a business license. Does that men she cannot sell her light bulbs? Does that mean she is less of a citizen because she cannot get a license? God forbid. There must be guidelines, and government must determine those guidelines, though they must have valid reasons for their decision. The decision regarding a marriage protection amendment is a policy decision, not necessary a moral one. Morals will of course play an enormous role in it, but the end result isn't an attempt to implement a specific morality. A homosexual couple can enter into a communion that, for all practical purposes, is a marriage. However, they will not be able to get the legal privileges of marriage. Some consider that discrimination. It is, in the same sense that it is discrimination to refuse a business license to the light bulb lady.
The homosexual debate contains many complicated issues, non of which can be easily resolved. Neither side is doing any one any good by compounding the complexity with non-related jetsam. The only way to honestly deal with the issue is to take the issues as they are, without distorting or expanding them.
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Better than I
Several weeks ago, I wrote a post on capital punishment. I recently read this old essay by C.S. Lewis that says all I wanted to say, only much better than I could have said it. There are many ways to win an argument. One way is to be right, and to effectively deliver your argument. C.S. Lewis does this as well as anyone. Another way is to frame the debate around an unessential and unrelated point. If you can do this, then you don't have to be right about the main point. You can distract from this and confound the issue. The only way opponents of capital punishment, and many other issues for that matter, can argue is by framing the debate around some ancillary point.
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Where is choice to be found?
One of my favorite films is a science fiction film called Gattaca. It takes place in the future when mankind has the ability to determine certain traits from a person's genes. Parents can look at a sampling of their eggs/sperm, and determine which ones are most likely to produce a child with specific characteristics. Elias Koteas plays Antonio, a man chosen by such a method. Ethan Hawke plays Vincent, who was conceived "the old fashioned way." Vincent's dream is to go to space with the Gattaca program. He cannot since he is "genetically inferior." He contrives a way in which he can use the genetic material of Jerome, played by Jude Law. Jerome was injured and unable to continue in the Gattaca program. This is a fascinating study of free will, determinism, and the human spirit. It was one of the best sci-fi films of the past decade.
Recently, it seems that this film may not be all that sci-fi. Al Mohler has a blog post discussing studies that seem to show animals, and possibly humans, are biologically predisposed toward a specific sexual orientation. Scientists are actively, intently looking for the alleged H-gene, that gene which predisposes someone toward homosexuality. Mohler has some great insights into this issue. Among other things, he insists that we "stop confusing the issues of moral responsibility and moral choice.
Justin Taylor at Between Two Worlds introduces an extended quote from David Powlison's book, Psychology and Christianity: Four Views. Powlison notes that these findings can strengthen Christianity's teachings.
This topic brings to my mind two questions for which I have not the answer.
1. Is homosexuality a matter of love or lust? Is it the search for commitment and intimacy, or is it merely a search for sexual satisfaction? Many people in our society confuse the two. The fact that two people lust for each other does not mean that they truly love each other (I don't know if unredeemed people are capable of true love). If homosexuality is simply a matter of lust, what makes it different than the sexual lust that all people posses? If person cares only for sexual gratification (and nearly all people want sexual gratification) then they might not care where that gratification comes from. We were not made to have sex without a relationship. Do people that have these homosexual cravings create feelings of love to complete the sexual picture? Powlison rightly points out that for many men, homosexuality is a search for satisfaction; for many women, however, lesbianism is a search for intimacy. This is no different than in heterosexual people. Man want sex, and women want security. What is it that makes homosexuals different from heterosexuals?
2. How do can we know that the biology causes the feelings, instead of the feelings causing the biology? We can safely assume that biology and emotions are intricately linked together. Studies have shown that biology can effect emotions, and vice versa. How are we to know which it is? Can we look at a homosexual person and know that his biology is causing his behavior instead of his behavior affecting his biology? Happiness is the best medicine. Laughing is good for you. Depression can cause ulcers. There are many examples of emotions affecting your physiology. Is it possible that those who choose homosexual behavior will see a change in their biology?
Whatever these findings reveal, they cannot reveal anything the Bible has not already taught us. All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. There is none righteous, no not one. We are sinners. We are born with a sin nature. It would be reasonable to discover that this sin nature has a biological equivalent. We are hopelessly sinful. We can do nothing good without God's grace. Glory be to God for His mercy on such a sinner as I.
Recently, it seems that this film may not be all that sci-fi. Al Mohler has a blog post discussing studies that seem to show animals, and possibly humans, are biologically predisposed toward a specific sexual orientation. Scientists are actively, intently looking for the alleged H-gene, that gene which predisposes someone toward homosexuality. Mohler has some great insights into this issue. Among other things, he insists that we "stop confusing the issues of moral responsibility and moral choice.
We are all responsible for our sexual orientation, but that does not mean that we freely and consciously choose that orientation. We sin against homosexuals by insisting that sexual temptation and attraction are predominately chosen. We do not always (or even generally) choose our temptations. Nevertheless, we are absolutely responsible for what we do with sinful temptations, whatever our so-called sexual orientation."He also notes that homosexuality, in Biblical terms, is no worse than any other sin. All humans are "predisposed" to sin. Should it then be surprising that we find a biological connection?
Justin Taylor at Between Two Worlds introduces an extended quote from David Powlison's book, Psychology and Christianity: Four Views. Powlison notes that these findings can strengthen Christianity's teachings.
The facts that “prove” the legitimacy of homosexual orientation – chiefly the experience of ongoing struggle and cases of recidivism among those who attempt to change – equally “prove” the legitimacy of the historic Christian view that homosexuality is a typical sin from which God progressively redeems his children.Christians need to be careful not to decry these studies too quickly. Seeing that our inclination to sin is more biologically "necessary" than we once thought can only strengthen in our minds the necessity of Grace. This re-emphasizes the fact that we truly cannot save ourselves.
But sin is an unsearchable morass of disposition, drift, willful choice, unwitting impulse, obsession, compulsion, seeming happenstance, the devil’s appetite for souls, the world’s shaping influence, and God’s hardening of hard hearts. Of course biological factors are at work: we are embodied sinners and saints. That some people may be more prone to homosexuality is no more significant that that some may be more prone to worry.
This topic brings to my mind two questions for which I have not the answer.
1. Is homosexuality a matter of love or lust? Is it the search for commitment and intimacy, or is it merely a search for sexual satisfaction? Many people in our society confuse the two. The fact that two people lust for each other does not mean that they truly love each other (I don't know if unredeemed people are capable of true love). If homosexuality is simply a matter of lust, what makes it different than the sexual lust that all people posses? If person cares only for sexual gratification (and nearly all people want sexual gratification) then they might not care where that gratification comes from. We were not made to have sex without a relationship. Do people that have these homosexual cravings create feelings of love to complete the sexual picture? Powlison rightly points out that for many men, homosexuality is a search for satisfaction; for many women, however, lesbianism is a search for intimacy. This is no different than in heterosexual people. Man want sex, and women want security. What is it that makes homosexuals different from heterosexuals?
2. How do can we know that the biology causes the feelings, instead of the feelings causing the biology? We can safely assume that biology and emotions are intricately linked together. Studies have shown that biology can effect emotions, and vice versa. How are we to know which it is? Can we look at a homosexual person and know that his biology is causing his behavior instead of his behavior affecting his biology? Happiness is the best medicine. Laughing is good for you. Depression can cause ulcers. There are many examples of emotions affecting your physiology. Is it possible that those who choose homosexual behavior will see a change in their biology?
Whatever these findings reveal, they cannot reveal anything the Bible has not already taught us. All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. There is none righteous, no not one. We are sinners. We are born with a sin nature. It would be reasonable to discover that this sin nature has a biological equivalent. We are hopelessly sinful. We can do nothing good without God's grace. Glory be to God for His mercy on such a sinner as I.
Living a moral life
Living the Christian life is not a matter of following a specific list of rules. Living the Christian life is not taking the specific path that all Christians must take. Living the Christian life is about making moral choices. It is an individual path. All paths follow the cross and biblical teaching, but my path will not look exactly like yours. Within our path we should develop individual convictions and follow those convictions. No one can make those choices and develop those convictions for anyone else. We will all stand before God based on what we as an individual have done. We all need to make these choices for ourselves.
There are, however, several spheres of influence at our disposal for determining right from wrong. These can help us develop our Biblical convictions. The wise man will take advantage of these influences. The foolish man builds his life upon the sand of his arrogant conceits.
The innermost sphere is that of Biblical authority. Anything that violates clear Biblical teaching is clearly wrong. This is were all morality, all convictions must start.
The next sphere is that of authority. For the child, it is parental authority. Whether or not a child feels the rule is justified, and most often they will not, it is their duty to obey their parents. When a child leaves home, he still is responsible to honor his parents, but their convictions are no longer his convictions. He should seek advice from his parents, but his parents no longer have authority over him. For the grown person, the authority is their political authority. Once again, it is not a matter of our agreement with the laws. There are many laws we do not like. Our appreciation of a law is not the prerequisite for our obedience to the law. We must do what our authority tells us to do.
Please note that these spheres are concentric spheres. We should always look to the innermost sphere first. If an outer sphere conflicts with an inner sphere, we should follow in the inner one. We do what God commands no matter what our parents or the government says. If what government requires is not in conflict with what the Bible says, then we follow the law.
The third sphere is that of expediency. We should do only those things that will benefit us spiritually. Some things may not be wrong in the Biblical sense, but they may not be beneficial to us. I cannot find a clear command in Scripture for avoiding wine in all situations. In most situations, though, it is probably not beneficial to our Christian walk to engage in "social drinking."
The absolute last and widest sphere is that of personal preference. When we have gone beyond every other sphere, we look to that which suits our tastes. We may not find any objection to a type of music in any of the other spheres, but we may find it objectionable to our taste. This sphere is not solely about right and wrong. Just because I don't like something doesn't mean it is wrong. It may just mean it is wrong for me. The other spheres are very dogmatic. We can be sure that is wrong to violate Scripture, to dishonor your parents, and to break the law of the land. My tastes, however, are not divinely inspired. If I have no basis in the other spheres, I shouldn't be condemning someone for their tastes.
Thursday, March 1, 2007
Where is morality to be found?
Many of the kids in society today have very little sense of right and wrong, at least, a proper sense of right and wrong. Few of these kids know any effective method of determining right from wrong. A great example of this deficiency is the proliferation of pirated music amongst teenagers. Tim Challies notes that this type of theft is prominent even with Christian teenagers. I myself have noted that many teenagers at Christian high schools will not think twice about pirating music and software. Many of those that do have no clue that it is illegal. Even the ones that know it is illegal don't seem to care. Most of the perpetrators I have spoken with try to justify it in someway. The main reason, though, why they do it is that it is easy. The technology is available to them, so they use it. They like their friend's music , so they copy it. Few of them stop to think about the morality of their actions. Much of their morality is based on self-satisfaction. This is a decidedly un-Christian worldview. This is very disconcerting to me.
Tim states:
My eldest son is only 4 right now, so I don't have many serious problems with him, unless you consider throwing a fit when he isn't allowed to play with a certain toy a serious problem (it would be a problem if he did this when he is 15, like some of the kids at my school). I know that problems will come, and that handling them will not be easy. I also know that, as a parent, my responsibility is to be the discernment my child lacks. I am to give him knowledge about what is right and wrong. Furthermore, I am to help him determine for himself what is right and wrong. Many parents, I fear, do not themselves know how to determine this, much less teach their kids to do this. We are living in an era of a serious morality crisis. Parents need to take careful stock of the worldview they are inculcating in their children, for every parent, whether intentionally or not, passes to their progeny a moral blueprint.
Tim states:
People who commit music piracy are, at some place in their lives, forsaking a Christian view of the world, a Christian way of seeing life. They are thinking like the world rather than thinking like Christ. Most of them know this, but continually violate their consciences and continually thumb their noses at what they know to be right.Even in Evangelical circles children are not being taught the proper worldview, and the proper way to implement that worldview into their lives. In most of the cases I have seen, the fault lies squarely on the parents. Either they do not know what their kids are doing, or they know but they do nothing. Whichever the case, the parents are failing in their responsibility. Until the child leaves the nest, their morality must come from the parents. A lack of proper morality in the child is due in great measure to some delinquency of the parents.
My eldest son is only 4 right now, so I don't have many serious problems with him, unless you consider throwing a fit when he isn't allowed to play with a certain toy a serious problem (it would be a problem if he did this when he is 15, like some of the kids at my school). I know that problems will come, and that handling them will not be easy. I also know that, as a parent, my responsibility is to be the discernment my child lacks. I am to give him knowledge about what is right and wrong. Furthermore, I am to help him determine for himself what is right and wrong. Many parents, I fear, do not themselves know how to determine this, much less teach their kids to do this. We are living in an era of a serious morality crisis. Parents need to take careful stock of the worldview they are inculcating in their children, for every parent, whether intentionally or not, passes to their progeny a moral blueprint.
With what blessing?
As I woke up the other morning, I looked at myself in the mirror and thought, "God has truly blessed me. Just look at that luscious, full head of hair. God has been so good to me. What astounding, rippling biceps He has given me. Every beautiful square inch of golden tan skin on my finely chiseled physique is a testament to God's goodness to me."
What does hair, and muscles, and tanned skin have to do with God's blessing? No more than any fiduciary fitness we may experience. God's blessings cannot be contained in material goods. God's blessings go far beyond the worldly. Most evangelicals know this. No evangelical that I know of would deny this. Yet many evangelicals, even pastors, see to place a high premium on material goods. Tim Challies notes that tax time is a good time to see in numerical form how God has blessed him. What difference does it make if we have any financial goods? Is the person who sees on his 1040 that he made only $5000 in the year any less blessed than the person who made $500,000? How is any material estimate an indication of Christ's blessings? A friend of mine recently pointed me to a quote by C.S. Lewis. He says, "The man who has Christ and everything has no more than the man who has Christ and nothing." Evangelicals know this, but do they talk like this? I hear many pastors speaking frequently on blessings in terms of finances. What good do finances do us? How are they a blessing? A full bank account can be as much as blessing as a burden. God's blessings are not measurable, they are not quantifiable. God's blessings simply are. He that is in Christ has everything. God has given us in Christ everything necessary for life and godliness. Why need we speak of blessing in any other form?
Fred Sanders has an excellent post on Ephesians 1. No other book of the Bible more effectively enumerates the blessing God has given us. Not once in that entire passage does one see a material qualification. Would anyone claim that a nice house or car exceeds the inheritance we have in Christ? Why are we so earthly minded, that our perspective stays chained to the things of this orb?
Most certainly God gives us everything we have. Most certainly God takes from us everything we loose. Where we are is where God placed us, be it Malibu or Morgantown. We ought to thank God for the dirt and as well as the dough. More importantly, we ought to realize that the blessings God has given to all His children are transcendent, immaterial blessings. Anything else would be far less.
What does hair, and muscles, and tanned skin have to do with God's blessing? No more than any fiduciary fitness we may experience. God's blessings cannot be contained in material goods. God's blessings go far beyond the worldly. Most evangelicals know this. No evangelical that I know of would deny this. Yet many evangelicals, even pastors, see to place a high premium on material goods. Tim Challies notes that tax time is a good time to see in numerical form how God has blessed him. What difference does it make if we have any financial goods? Is the person who sees on his 1040 that he made only $5000 in the year any less blessed than the person who made $500,000? How is any material estimate an indication of Christ's blessings? A friend of mine recently pointed me to a quote by C.S. Lewis. He says, "The man who has Christ and everything has no more than the man who has Christ and nothing." Evangelicals know this, but do they talk like this? I hear many pastors speaking frequently on blessings in terms of finances. What good do finances do us? How are they a blessing? A full bank account can be as much as blessing as a burden. God's blessings are not measurable, they are not quantifiable. God's blessings simply are. He that is in Christ has everything. God has given us in Christ everything necessary for life and godliness. Why need we speak of blessing in any other form?
Fred Sanders has an excellent post on Ephesians 1. No other book of the Bible more effectively enumerates the blessing God has given us. Not once in that entire passage does one see a material qualification. Would anyone claim that a nice house or car exceeds the inheritance we have in Christ? Why are we so earthly minded, that our perspective stays chained to the things of this orb?
Most certainly God gives us everything we have. Most certainly God takes from us everything we loose. Where we are is where God placed us, be it Malibu or Morgantown. We ought to thank God for the dirt and as well as the dough. More importantly, we ought to realize that the blessings God has given to all His children are transcendent, immaterial blessings. Anything else would be far less.
On teaching
It took me several years to teaching to realize what Paul Spears discusses in this post. Even now this idea is not predominate in my daily routine. Teaching, especially on the grade school and high school level, is not about expounding details, but about encouraging desire. The art of teaching lies not in producing the learned, but in developing the learner. If all I do as a teacher is to produce students that know many facts, I have fallen short. As I teacher, I should seek to produce students who desire to know God and His world more each day. As we often hear, learning is a lifetime activity. People are always learning new ideas, but they are not always learning worthy ideas. A true learner seeks not just knowledge, but good knowledge. He seeks this knowledge so that he may better serve His Savior. He seeks this knowledge so that he may better fulfill his commission. Education is merely a starting point. If we as teachers cannot see beyond the quizzes and tests, then we cannot really see.
May God help us educators to see the lives these kids will one day live, not just the lives they live in our classrooms.
May God help us educators to see the lives these kids will one day live, not just the lives they live in our classrooms.
Family-first
Joe Carter at the Evangelical Outpost has a tremendous post on "Family-First Conservatism." His manifesto very accurately details the significance of the family and its essential role in society. For centuries people-groups have placed the family as the center of society. People groups that have moved the center of society to another source have experienced trouble. Many modern Oprahfied liberals seem to want to replace the family with something else. They will acknowledge that community is important to society. Yet, they do not recognize this community begins with the family. Instead of the family, the begin with the individual. They place the individual at the center of society. This seems to be backwards. The strength of the family is what gives the individual his worth. Having intrinsic worth means that you as a person play an important role in something. It means that you are a valuable part of a whole. Though we might say it, and attempt to convince ourselves of it, no one is autonomous. No one can survive without a connection to someone and something else. We all greatly desire to be a part of something outside of ourselves. The family satisfies this desire. The family provides the connections we so desperately desire. Nothing can make as feel as valuable as a solid family structure. Nearly all types of social organizations at some level resemble the family. This can be seen explicitly in street gangs. Many of the kids that join street gangs are looking for the belonging and support that they don't receive from their families. Much of the community that Oprahites crave is patterned after the familial structure that is often absent in their lives. In attempting to replace that which is missing, they are destroying that which is missing. People flock to things to replace the family because their family doesn't provide the support they desire. Yet, by running to these other groups, they are forsaking the one thing which they really need. No one can give us the support and unconditional love our families can. That is one of the main themes of last-year's film Little Miss Sunshine--no matter how dysfunctional a family is, and no matter how many troubles cross their paths, they can survive if they support each other. Family is what makes this life livable. Seeking the familial structure in places other than the family is like drinking soda when you are dehydrated--it may temporarily quench your thirst, but it will not solve the problem.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Christianity in the theater
This past weekend the movie Amazing Grace premiered in theaters. I have not seen it yet. Many Christ-bloggers I read are very excited about it. The movie is about the life of William Wilberforce, a prominent Christian statesman who helped bring about the abolition of slavery. He was a tremendous individual. Many people are unaware of his contribution to society. He is as important a person in the history of abolition as Abraham Lincoln, probably even more important. The Christ-bloggers who have seen the film say it is really good. Its rating on IMDB is 7.8s/10 stars (with only 159 votes). Secular critics are mostly impressed by it (RottenTomatoes.com has its Tomatometer at 70%, meaning 7 out of 10 critics liked it). I hope to see it eventually. I think many people hope that this film, and others of its ilk, will hope to spread the message of Christianity. Thinking about this film lead me to think of Christian films in general.
There are two kinds of Christians films--films aimed at Christians, and films with Christian themes aimed at the world. From the few that I have seen (and there are not many), neither type is very good. We are far from the days of The Ten Commandments and The Greatest Story Ever Told. Both Hollywood and America are far different than they were in the 1950s. I think that Christians are doing a poor job representing themselves in film. Many of the Christian films out there are cheesy and ineffective.
Before we talk about Christians effectively expressing themselves in film, we need to discuss whether or not films can effectively express anything. I wrote a post a while back in response to a series of articles discussing Christians and the theater. The author of the articles espouses the idea that theater, particularly film, is inherently unable to carry the Christian message. I disagree with many aspects of the articles, and I now disagree with many things I wrote in my post. I am not sure that film is able to convey any message, that is, convey it to the point where it effects the way people think. I cannot think of any film that made any significant impact on the world. Most films, like most art, reflect the culture in which they are born All that films have ever done is express the sentiments alive already in the culture. Films exist in a self-contained sphere. Their primary impact is on other films, and the way in which people see film. It is rare that films reach out of their sphere to effect the lives of people and society. While all films have a world view, and while all films express a particular philosophy, I do not know if the language of film is strong enough to make a significant imprint on society. Films are above all else entertainment. They may entertain intellectually, emotionally, or even physically, but they all merely entertain. People in Hollywood especially have a bloated opinion on the role of film in society. I am amused when people talk of an "important film." I suppose they mean that the film is making an important comment on society. I suppose that they hope this statement with result in tangible societal change. I do not think this has ever happened. Film is film. I think it has a small role to play in society, but it has a role nonetheless.
All that being said, and at the risk of contradicting myself and obliterating my own thesis, films can still express ideas, whatever impact it has. The problem that I have with many Christian films is that they so ineffectually carry their message. They are many times either very simple morality tales, that blatantly and prosaically expound their message, or they are biblical tales, that try their darnedest to be germane to modern culture. Most of the time their cinematic value is very low. I enjoy watching films. I watch about one or two each week. I have seen many films that carry post-modern themes. These films are very effective. They have high cinematic value that effects you deeply, and they have a deep thematic value that force you to think about what they are about. I do not see any reason why Christians cannot make such films.
Two of my favorite authors are Dostoevsky and Graham Greene. Each of these were Christians. Each of these where able to very profoundly deliver their religious themes in a highly skilled manner. They wrote interesting stories that dealt with all kinds of horrid themes--parricide, prostitution, murder, lying, stealing, drunkeness, and other types of debauchery. They didn't exploit these themes. They used these themes to convey their message. They wrote very powerful pieces of literature. If you have never read Crime and Punishment, by Dostoevsky or The Power and the Glory by Greene, you should. They are wonderful Christian novels. Is it possible for us to make films with such artistic values? Is it possible for Christians to use the language of cinema as effectively as such post-modernists as Bergman, Fellini, and Kurosawa? I think we can. Granted, their is probably always going to be a prejudice against Christians in Hollywood. Yet, with the grassroots, Independent cinema that is so popular, and so inexpensive, their is no reason why Christians cannot make good films.
We need to change our mindset. We need to understand that we don't always need to be explicitly Christian. While we don't need to be explicit in portraying sex and violence, we should not shy away from stories that contain sex and violence. Graham's novel contains sex and violence. As I said before, he does not exploit it. It is not bawdy or inappropriate. It is appropriate to the story he is telling, and that story effectively carries the message he wants to convey. I am not calling for barroom evangelism here. I am calling for a more artistic, realistic approach to cinema. I am calling for films that establish some artistic credibility. Christains had this credibility in the past, but we have lost it. Some Christians think you either have to be "Christian," or you have to crossover and become secular. I don't think these are our only options. We can have artistic credibility without sacrificing our Christian principles. Films like Facing the Giants may entertain Christians. That is great. I think that we can do better.
Addendum: I came across this article that discusses Christianity in the movies. It has provoked by thoughts.
There are two kinds of Christians films--films aimed at Christians, and films with Christian themes aimed at the world. From the few that I have seen (and there are not many), neither type is very good. We are far from the days of The Ten Commandments and The Greatest Story Ever Told. Both Hollywood and America are far different than they were in the 1950s. I think that Christians are doing a poor job representing themselves in film. Many of the Christian films out there are cheesy and ineffective.
Before we talk about Christians effectively expressing themselves in film, we need to discuss whether or not films can effectively express anything. I wrote a post a while back in response to a series of articles discussing Christians and the theater. The author of the articles espouses the idea that theater, particularly film, is inherently unable to carry the Christian message. I disagree with many aspects of the articles, and I now disagree with many things I wrote in my post. I am not sure that film is able to convey any message, that is, convey it to the point where it effects the way people think. I cannot think of any film that made any significant impact on the world. Most films, like most art, reflect the culture in which they are born All that films have ever done is express the sentiments alive already in the culture. Films exist in a self-contained sphere. Their primary impact is on other films, and the way in which people see film. It is rare that films reach out of their sphere to effect the lives of people and society. While all films have a world view, and while all films express a particular philosophy, I do not know if the language of film is strong enough to make a significant imprint on society. Films are above all else entertainment. They may entertain intellectually, emotionally, or even physically, but they all merely entertain. People in Hollywood especially have a bloated opinion on the role of film in society. I am amused when people talk of an "important film." I suppose they mean that the film is making an important comment on society. I suppose that they hope this statement with result in tangible societal change. I do not think this has ever happened. Film is film. I think it has a small role to play in society, but it has a role nonetheless.
All that being said, and at the risk of contradicting myself and obliterating my own thesis, films can still express ideas, whatever impact it has. The problem that I have with many Christian films is that they so ineffectually carry their message. They are many times either very simple morality tales, that blatantly and prosaically expound their message, or they are biblical tales, that try their darnedest to be germane to modern culture. Most of the time their cinematic value is very low. I enjoy watching films. I watch about one or two each week. I have seen many films that carry post-modern themes. These films are very effective. They have high cinematic value that effects you deeply, and they have a deep thematic value that force you to think about what they are about. I do not see any reason why Christians cannot make such films.
Two of my favorite authors are Dostoevsky and Graham Greene. Each of these were Christians. Each of these where able to very profoundly deliver their religious themes in a highly skilled manner. They wrote interesting stories that dealt with all kinds of horrid themes--parricide, prostitution, murder, lying, stealing, drunkeness, and other types of debauchery. They didn't exploit these themes. They used these themes to convey their message. They wrote very powerful pieces of literature. If you have never read Crime and Punishment, by Dostoevsky or The Power and the Glory by Greene, you should. They are wonderful Christian novels. Is it possible for us to make films with such artistic values? Is it possible for Christians to use the language of cinema as effectively as such post-modernists as Bergman, Fellini, and Kurosawa? I think we can. Granted, their is probably always going to be a prejudice against Christians in Hollywood. Yet, with the grassroots, Independent cinema that is so popular, and so inexpensive, their is no reason why Christians cannot make good films.
We need to change our mindset. We need to understand that we don't always need to be explicitly Christian. While we don't need to be explicit in portraying sex and violence, we should not shy away from stories that contain sex and violence. Graham's novel contains sex and violence. As I said before, he does not exploit it. It is not bawdy or inappropriate. It is appropriate to the story he is telling, and that story effectively carries the message he wants to convey. I am not calling for barroom evangelism here. I am calling for a more artistic, realistic approach to cinema. I am calling for films that establish some artistic credibility. Christains had this credibility in the past, but we have lost it. Some Christians think you either have to be "Christian," or you have to crossover and become secular. I don't think these are our only options. We can have artistic credibility without sacrificing our Christian principles. Films like Facing the Giants may entertain Christians. That is great. I think that we can do better.
Addendum: I came across this article that discusses Christianity in the movies. It has provoked by thoughts.
Monday, February 19, 2007
On capital punishment
The "West Wing" Watcher Series--Volume 1.
In Season 1, Episode 14, entitled, "Take This Sabbath Day," President Bartlett is presented with his first opportunity as president to pardon someone who is about to get executed. All of his staff members think he should pardon the man. They feel that the death penatly is immoral. President Bartlett does not know what to do. He, a strong Catholic man, feels as well that capital punishment is never acceptable. He gets counsel from his old parish priest (played very well by Karl Malden) and from the Pope. We also get opinions from a Rabbi and a Quaker, all saying he should commute his sentence. The President does nothing, and the guy gets whacked, causing much consternation for POTUS.
Capital punishment seems to be one of the favorite issues of liberal minded people. At least, many of them love to hate it. I, an very un-liberal minded person, believe capital punishment is right and necessary. The show posits some of the common arguments against capital punishment to promote its stand. Thomas R. Eddlem, in an older article found here, debunks some of the common myths that formulate the basis for the argument against the death penalty. I would add only a few ideas to the points he makes.
Abolitionists argue that the death penalty is racist, stating that it is used more often against minorities. Eddlem provides some statistics that show this is simply not the case. Even if more minorities were executed than non-minorities, this would not automatically point to racism. Racism is a matter of intent, not outcome. If statistics showed that far more white people than black drink Coca-Cola, would that make Coke a racist company? Is our prison system racist because a majority of people in prison are minorities? Or would these statistics simply reveal that fact that there happens to be more white people drinking Coke, and more minorities in jail? In order to prove racism you have to demonstrate intent. There would have to be evidence that the judges or juries in these cases were motivated by race. Though outcome is connected to intent, it is not solely a result of intent. Statistics can show whatever people want them to show. A cursory and biased reading of statistics regarding executions can be very deceptive. It is not racist to say more murders are committed by black people than any other ethnicity if it is a fact. A fact is a fact, and sometimes it is nothing more than a fact.
Abolitionists state that sometimes innocent people are executed. According the Eddlem, as of 2002, this had never happened. Some people have been sentenced unjustly, but that sentence has never been carried out. It amazes me that abolitionists seem more upset by the possibility of an innocent person executed than by a guilty person set free. I would never want to see an innocent person condemned. Yet, I would much more dislike seeing a guilty person set free. In life we are not always given a perfect choice. Sometimes the less detestable choice is the best choice. The existence of innocent people on death row does not negate the existence of guilty people on death row. A system that fails one time out of a hundred (or in this case, zero times out of 100) is not a worthless system. We can refine the system without scraping it.
Abolitionists state that capital punishment does not deter crime. They might say, "People, like drug dealers, gang members, and serial killers--the ones who commit most of this country's murders--are not going to be swayed by the existence of a death penalty." I have no doubt that our current system does not deter crime. Another abolitionist argument is that the death penalty is administered inconsistently. Is there a chance these are related? I also have no doubt that a system with much more consistency than out system would deter crime. If we executed nearly everyone that committed a murder (outside of the mentally retarded, which is another issue), whether premeditated or not, we would see far less murders. Most people that commit murder are not executed. In their mind they get away with it. Human nature is to do as much as you can without getting caught. If the consequences do not matter to you, then you will keep doing it. Our current system might even embolden murders, as it is so easy to get off with a relatively light sentence. Yet, as Eddlem points out, deterrence is not the primary reason for capital punishment, though it might provide an attractive side benefit. He quotes C.S. Lewis here, and I think it is worth re-quoting:
Judicial sentences should be to punish the criminal, and nothing more. Anything else would truly be cruel and unusual.
Abolitionists find the death penalty cruel and unusual. I find rape and child molestation to be cruel and unusual. I think that a father who knocks his two year old daughter unconscious, and then leaves her outside to die in the cold, to be cruel and unusual. I think gang member that kill innocent bystanders during a drive by shooting are cruel and unusual. Executing people who have mercilessly taken the life of another human being is the only option a sane society has. We must value human so much that we punish those who callously abuse it. What kind of people are we if we place more worth on the life of a convicted murderer than on the life of an innocent victim?
Abolitionists say that the death penalty encourages vengeance and violates the Christian principle of mercy. I too believe that executing a murderer out of vengeance is wrong. As Eddlem points out, this is why the state must be responsible for it. The movie In the Bedroom is a perfect example of this. If government is not willing or able to execute justice, then it will be left to the hands of the vengeful. To not execute guilty ones will perpetuate the cycle of violence more than anything else. What can a society do when their government will not mercifully administer justice? The Bible does say that, "Vengeance is mine. I will repay, saith the Lord."--Romans 12:19. The Bible also says that government is the minister of God, and that they hold not the sword in vain--Romans 13. This does not mean that government is exonerated in everything they do as ministers of God, nor does this mean that government is mandated to administer justice. It means simply that governmental officials have Biblical authority behind their justice. Incidentally (or not), many people in our country find acceptable to "punish" chemical and insurance companies with multi-million dollar lawsuits. I am sure, though, that vengeance plays no role in this.
I wish I had the faith of a Jed Bartlett. I wish I had the insight into the mind of God he and others like him have. I wish I could know, as he does, when to follow what the Bible clearly teaches me, and when to follow what I feel in my heart. I wish I had his faith, so that I could remove the mountains of Scriptural teachings to do what makes me feel better, and what helps me sleep at night. There is so little I know of right and wrong. My tiny mind cannot grasp it. All I can do is be the blind sheep following the archaic commands of an archaic book. I wish I too had to faith to believe that Bible is no longer to be believed.
In Season 1, Episode 14, entitled, "Take This Sabbath Day," President Bartlett is presented with his first opportunity as president to pardon someone who is about to get executed. All of his staff members think he should pardon the man. They feel that the death penatly is immoral. President Bartlett does not know what to do. He, a strong Catholic man, feels as well that capital punishment is never acceptable. He gets counsel from his old parish priest (played very well by Karl Malden) and from the Pope. We also get opinions from a Rabbi and a Quaker, all saying he should commute his sentence. The President does nothing, and the guy gets whacked, causing much consternation for POTUS.
Capital punishment seems to be one of the favorite issues of liberal minded people. At least, many of them love to hate it. I, an very un-liberal minded person, believe capital punishment is right and necessary. The show posits some of the common arguments against capital punishment to promote its stand. Thomas R. Eddlem, in an older article found here, debunks some of the common myths that formulate the basis for the argument against the death penalty. I would add only a few ideas to the points he makes.
Abolitionists argue that the death penalty is racist, stating that it is used more often against minorities. Eddlem provides some statistics that show this is simply not the case. Even if more minorities were executed than non-minorities, this would not automatically point to racism. Racism is a matter of intent, not outcome. If statistics showed that far more white people than black drink Coca-Cola, would that make Coke a racist company? Is our prison system racist because a majority of people in prison are minorities? Or would these statistics simply reveal that fact that there happens to be more white people drinking Coke, and more minorities in jail? In order to prove racism you have to demonstrate intent. There would have to be evidence that the judges or juries in these cases were motivated by race. Though outcome is connected to intent, it is not solely a result of intent. Statistics can show whatever people want them to show. A cursory and biased reading of statistics regarding executions can be very deceptive. It is not racist to say more murders are committed by black people than any other ethnicity if it is a fact. A fact is a fact, and sometimes it is nothing more than a fact.
Abolitionists state that sometimes innocent people are executed. According the Eddlem, as of 2002, this had never happened. Some people have been sentenced unjustly, but that sentence has never been carried out. It amazes me that abolitionists seem more upset by the possibility of an innocent person executed than by a guilty person set free. I would never want to see an innocent person condemned. Yet, I would much more dislike seeing a guilty person set free. In life we are not always given a perfect choice. Sometimes the less detestable choice is the best choice. The existence of innocent people on death row does not negate the existence of guilty people on death row. A system that fails one time out of a hundred (or in this case, zero times out of 100) is not a worthless system. We can refine the system without scraping it.
Abolitionists state that capital punishment does not deter crime. They might say, "People, like drug dealers, gang members, and serial killers--the ones who commit most of this country's murders--are not going to be swayed by the existence of a death penalty." I have no doubt that our current system does not deter crime. Another abolitionist argument is that the death penalty is administered inconsistently. Is there a chance these are related? I also have no doubt that a system with much more consistency than out system would deter crime. If we executed nearly everyone that committed a murder (outside of the mentally retarded, which is another issue), whether premeditated or not, we would see far less murders. Most people that commit murder are not executed. In their mind they get away with it. Human nature is to do as much as you can without getting caught. If the consequences do not matter to you, then you will keep doing it. Our current system might even embolden murders, as it is so easy to get off with a relatively light sentence. Yet, as Eddlem points out, deterrence is not the primary reason for capital punishment, though it might provide an attractive side benefit. He quotes C.S. Lewis here, and I think it is worth re-quoting:
"[Deterrence] in itself, would be a very wicked thing to do. On the classical theory of punishment it was of course justified on the ground that the man deserved it. Why, in Heaven's name, am I to be sacrificed to the good of society in this way? -- unless, of course, I deserve it. . . . If deterrence is all that matters, the execution of an innocent man, provided the public think him guilty, would be fully justified."
Judicial sentences should be to punish the criminal, and nothing more. Anything else would truly be cruel and unusual.
Abolitionists find the death penalty cruel and unusual. I find rape and child molestation to be cruel and unusual. I think that a father who knocks his two year old daughter unconscious, and then leaves her outside to die in the cold, to be cruel and unusual. I think gang member that kill innocent bystanders during a drive by shooting are cruel and unusual. Executing people who have mercilessly taken the life of another human being is the only option a sane society has. We must value human so much that we punish those who callously abuse it. What kind of people are we if we place more worth on the life of a convicted murderer than on the life of an innocent victim?
Abolitionists say that the death penalty encourages vengeance and violates the Christian principle of mercy. I too believe that executing a murderer out of vengeance is wrong. As Eddlem points out, this is why the state must be responsible for it. The movie In the Bedroom is a perfect example of this. If government is not willing or able to execute justice, then it will be left to the hands of the vengeful. To not execute guilty ones will perpetuate the cycle of violence more than anything else. What can a society do when their government will not mercifully administer justice? The Bible does say that, "Vengeance is mine. I will repay, saith the Lord."--Romans 12:19. The Bible also says that government is the minister of God, and that they hold not the sword in vain--Romans 13. This does not mean that government is exonerated in everything they do as ministers of God, nor does this mean that government is mandated to administer justice. It means simply that governmental officials have Biblical authority behind their justice. Incidentally (or not), many people in our country find acceptable to "punish" chemical and insurance companies with multi-million dollar lawsuits. I am sure, though, that vengeance plays no role in this.
I wish I had the faith of a Jed Bartlett. I wish I had the insight into the mind of God he and others like him have. I wish I could know, as he does, when to follow what the Bible clearly teaches me, and when to follow what I feel in my heart. I wish I had his faith, so that I could remove the mountains of Scriptural teachings to do what makes me feel better, and what helps me sleep at night. There is so little I know of right and wrong. My tiny mind cannot grasp it. All I can do is be the blind sheep following the archaic commands of an archaic book. I wish I too had to faith to believe that Bible is no longer to be believed.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Lullaby
Lay your sleeping head, my love,
Human on my faithless arm;
Time and fevers burn away
Individual beauty from
Thoughtful children, and the grave
Proves the child ephemeral:
But in my arms till break of day
Let the living creature lie,
Mortal, guilty, but to me
The entirely beautiful.
Soul and body have no bounds:
To lovers as they lie upon
Her tolerant enchanted slope
In their ordinary swoon,
Grave the vision Venus sends
Of supernatural sympathy,
Universal love and hope;
While an abstract insight wakes
Among the glaciers and the rocks
The hermit's carnal ecstasy.
Certainty, fidelity
On the stroke of midnight pass
Like vibrations of a bell
And fashionable madmen raise
Their pedantic boring cry:
Every farthing of the cost,
All the dreaded cards foretell,
Shall be paid, but from this night
Not a whisper, not a thought,
Not a kiss nor look be lost.
Beauty, midnight, vision dies:
Let the winds of dawn that blow
Softly round your dreaming head
Such a day of welcome show
Eye and knocking heart may bless,
Find our mortal world enough;
Noons of dryness find you fed
By the involuntary powers,
Nights of insult let you pass
Watched by every human love.
--by W.H. Auden
Monday, January 29, 2007
Concepts of God
Theologian Paul Helm (about whom I know little) has a rather lengthly article on his blog on "The Classical Calvinist Doctrine of God". This is a scholarly and well-constructed discussion of some of the major views of God, with specific emphasis on His foreknowledge and predestination, throughout Church history. He begins with the Calvinist view of God, which is in truth the view outlined by the "'A' team"--Augustine, Anslem, and Aquinas. He compares this view with Scripture and very effectively demonstrates that they are congruent. He then compares three other views with the first one--the Arminian view, the Open Theistic view, and the Modified Calvinistic view. Helm eruditely discusses each view, and its conflict with Scripture. He concludes with some very germane comments on philosophy and understanding.
This is a challenging article. It deals with some difficult Theological concepts. Yet, these concepts are very important. One might say these are the central concepts in a Theological belief system. It is well worth the time of any Christian to ponder these thoughts. We may not come to a conclusion, but we can surely come to a deeper understand than what we once had. Too many Christians are too ignorant regarding these discussions. Most are content to accept what their pastors tell them. Many pastors I have known are not to enthusiastic about tackling such "controversial" topics. They will try to explain it away with a simple analogy. One pastor describes man's free will and God's sovereignty as being like the rails of railroad tracks. Close to us they look like two tracks, but as we gaze into the distance they appear to merge into one. This doesn't explain the relationship between them at all. This doesn't come close to a logical, Scripture explanation at all. Many pastors will state that God is sovereign and we have a free will, they do not conflict, and that is the way it is. Again, no logical, Scriptural explanation.
I doubt that these pastors are too lazy or unintelligent to tack on such a task. I would say that they are afraid. They are afraid of where these concepts will lead. They may lead into a very frightful abyss. Helm explains in his conclusion that we may not be able to follow these concepts to their end.
Note that I have spoken about the article rather than commenting on the article. I am far from qualified. Helm brought up many theological terms and concepts with which I am not familiar. Sad to say I have studied theology very little. One aspect of the article I found interesting was his assertion that, when we look at God's sovereignty and man's free will, we must make one unmovable. That is, when we develop our position, we must either make God's sovereignty the unmovable post about which man's free wheel pivots, or vice versa. His opinion is that the Scripture clearly states that God is sovereign. He predestinates us according to His will, not according to His foreknowledge of our faith or good works. In a sense, our will is according to His will. This is one of those concepts that can be very frightening. Does that mean that we really don't have a free will? Does that mean that God wills sin? I have not the answer to that.
This is a challenging article. It deals with some difficult Theological concepts. Yet, these concepts are very important. One might say these are the central concepts in a Theological belief system. It is well worth the time of any Christian to ponder these thoughts. We may not come to a conclusion, but we can surely come to a deeper understand than what we once had. Too many Christians are too ignorant regarding these discussions. Most are content to accept what their pastors tell them. Many pastors I have known are not to enthusiastic about tackling such "controversial" topics. They will try to explain it away with a simple analogy. One pastor describes man's free will and God's sovereignty as being like the rails of railroad tracks. Close to us they look like two tracks, but as we gaze into the distance they appear to merge into one. This doesn't explain the relationship between them at all. This doesn't come close to a logical, Scripture explanation at all. Many pastors will state that God is sovereign and we have a free will, they do not conflict, and that is the way it is. Again, no logical, Scriptural explanation.
I doubt that these pastors are too lazy or unintelligent to tack on such a task. I would say that they are afraid. They are afraid of where these concepts will lead. They may lead into a very frightful abyss. Helm explains in his conclusion that we may not be able to follow these concepts to their end.
"We have some understanding of what predestination is, but we lack the sort of knowledge that would free us from all the difficulties that it presents to our minds—difficulties about fairness, or about the way in which the divine decree meshes with human freedom, or about the manner in which God's choice is grounded. These matters are at least presently beyond our full grasp, but they are not completely ungraspable.This is a tremendous paradigm. Not being able to find the end of a thread of thought is no reason not to seek the beginning. We should take the ideas giving to us in Scripture, and, by His Grace, seek them as far as they will take us. The Truth, no matter how difficult or mysterious, will set us free.
We should expect mystery, but it is 'targeted' mystery. We can identify the mystery, and say why it is so. In the noble tradition of ‘faith seeking understanding’ we should do what we can to understand the mystery insofar as we have warrant to do so in Scripture, but not at the expense of what Scripture actually teaches."
Note that I have spoken about the article rather than commenting on the article. I am far from qualified. Helm brought up many theological terms and concepts with which I am not familiar. Sad to say I have studied theology very little. One aspect of the article I found interesting was his assertion that, when we look at God's sovereignty and man's free will, we must make one unmovable. That is, when we develop our position, we must either make God's sovereignty the unmovable post about which man's free wheel pivots, or vice versa. His opinion is that the Scripture clearly states that God is sovereign. He predestinates us according to His will, not according to His foreknowledge of our faith or good works. In a sense, our will is according to His will. This is one of those concepts that can be very frightening. Does that mean that we really don't have a free will? Does that mean that God wills sin? I have not the answer to that.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
On communication
Kierkegaard says:
In this discourse he is discussing Solomon's invocation to "Remember thy Creator in the days of thy youth." Kierkegaard goes on to say, "In this way those words of the Preacher are already a demonstration that this thought must be the most natural in youth."
I found the first statement to be intriguing, and worth pondering. If I understand my teacher, he is saying that, many times, we change our thinking to accommodate a thought, or we change the thought to accommodate our thinking. To naturally understand a thought is to understand that thought an sich, without our adding to or taking away from it. It seems to me that we rarely "naturally" think thoughts that come from others. We tend to be very narcissistic people in this present era. I believe we have a real problem with communication in the present era, and I think that Kierkegaard's statement accurately describes the source of the problem.
I have asked myself on more than one occasion: Is honest, sincere, earnest communication between two human beings possible? How much can one person actually communicate to another person? So much of what we say each day is merely noise. Many times I wonder why I say the things that I say, for they have no meaning or relevance. In another book, Kierkegaard notes:
Communication is the transfer of one person's thoughts to another person. Communication, as most know already, is far more than mere words. So often we talk because we would rather not be silent. So often we speak words we assume the other person wants to hear. So often we say whatever we can rather than say what we really think. Harold Bloom comments on Shakespeare's characters that they "overhear" themselves as they speak, for they are "gorgeous solipsists". It seems that this is true of many us as well. So often we speak because we like to hear what we have to say. So often we are waiting to speak rather than listening to what the other person is saying. How often are you more focused on your next comment rather than the other person's current comment? I know that I am saying "we" frequently, and may only be speaking of "me," but I will assume that what is true of one is true of everyone.
Is communication more about hearing accurately what the other person is saying, or about accurately conveying our thoughts? Most will say that communication is about both. I do not know if one is more important than the other. It may be, though, that the reason we cannot understand others is that we cannot understand ourselves. We see ourselves the way we choose to see ourselves, and lucky are we if this is the way others see us. We see others according to the way we see ourselves. Earlier, I said that I will assume that what is true of one is true of everyone. Though we may not formally state it, most all of us think this. The problem arises when we do not see ourselves accurately. Socrates is right when he invokes us to "Know thyself." We can forget about understanding ourselves if we do not understand ourselves.
Communication involves a great deal of trust. Is it possible to completely trust another human being? How much of a role does trust play in communication? Communication is an opening and exposing of our inner selves to others. For many people, this can be quite disconcerting. Many people keep a tight grip on their inner person. Many people have been manipulated and offended by others, and so are unwilling to place themselves in a situation where that can happen again. Many people have manipulated and offended others, and assume that, if they did it, then others might do it to them. Again, what is true of one is true of everyone. Trust, in the Biblical sense, involves subjection. Paul commands us to be "subject, one to another." We are egotists and do not want anyone else controlling us or dominating us. We desperately want to be autonomous. In an age where individuality is the highest virtue, we are giving away a great part of ourselves when we lend control to another human being. Thus, we remain guarded in our communication.
There is another question, the answer to which I don't have readily available: What does the Bible say about communication? I am sure that It says much about it, though I cannot recall exactly what it says. I do not think it is possible for man to truly communicate with each other outside of the Love of God. I do not think it is possible for mankind to truly love each other outside of the Love of God. I need to study the Word and find from Wisdom's source the true meaning of communication, and the true means of communication. Maybe we all need to do that.
"The person who can think this thought along with everything else he otherwise thinks does indeed think most naturally, and the person who does not need to be changed so as to be able to think it and does not need the thought to be changed so that he can think it does indeed think most naturally, because he find in this thought the equivalent in childlikeness, which makes play the best."
In this discourse he is discussing Solomon's invocation to "Remember thy Creator in the days of thy youth." Kierkegaard goes on to say, "In this way those words of the Preacher are already a demonstration that this thought must be the most natural in youth."
I found the first statement to be intriguing, and worth pondering. If I understand my teacher, he is saying that, many times, we change our thinking to accommodate a thought, or we change the thought to accommodate our thinking. To naturally understand a thought is to understand that thought an sich, without our adding to or taking away from it. It seems to me that we rarely "naturally" think thoughts that come from others. We tend to be very narcissistic people in this present era. I believe we have a real problem with communication in the present era, and I think that Kierkegaard's statement accurately describes the source of the problem.
I have asked myself on more than one occasion: Is honest, sincere, earnest communication between two human beings possible? How much can one person actually communicate to another person? So much of what we say each day is merely noise. Many times I wonder why I say the things that I say, for they have no meaning or relevance. In another book, Kierkegaard notes:
"[Talleyrand] (and [Edward] Young before him expressed) discovered and expressed, although not as fully as empty talk does, that the purpose of language is to conceal thought--namely, to conceal that one has none."
Communication is the transfer of one person's thoughts to another person. Communication, as most know already, is far more than mere words. So often we talk because we would rather not be silent. So often we speak words we assume the other person wants to hear. So often we say whatever we can rather than say what we really think. Harold Bloom comments on Shakespeare's characters that they "overhear" themselves as they speak, for they are "gorgeous solipsists". It seems that this is true of many us as well. So often we speak because we like to hear what we have to say. So often we are waiting to speak rather than listening to what the other person is saying. How often are you more focused on your next comment rather than the other person's current comment? I know that I am saying "we" frequently, and may only be speaking of "me," but I will assume that what is true of one is true of everyone.
Is communication more about hearing accurately what the other person is saying, or about accurately conveying our thoughts? Most will say that communication is about both. I do not know if one is more important than the other. It may be, though, that the reason we cannot understand others is that we cannot understand ourselves. We see ourselves the way we choose to see ourselves, and lucky are we if this is the way others see us. We see others according to the way we see ourselves. Earlier, I said that I will assume that what is true of one is true of everyone. Though we may not formally state it, most all of us think this. The problem arises when we do not see ourselves accurately. Socrates is right when he invokes us to "Know thyself." We can forget about understanding ourselves if we do not understand ourselves.
Communication involves a great deal of trust. Is it possible to completely trust another human being? How much of a role does trust play in communication? Communication is an opening and exposing of our inner selves to others. For many people, this can be quite disconcerting. Many people keep a tight grip on their inner person. Many people have been manipulated and offended by others, and so are unwilling to place themselves in a situation where that can happen again. Many people have manipulated and offended others, and assume that, if they did it, then others might do it to them. Again, what is true of one is true of everyone. Trust, in the Biblical sense, involves subjection. Paul commands us to be "subject, one to another." We are egotists and do not want anyone else controlling us or dominating us. We desperately want to be autonomous. In an age where individuality is the highest virtue, we are giving away a great part of ourselves when we lend control to another human being. Thus, we remain guarded in our communication.
There is another question, the answer to which I don't have readily available: What does the Bible say about communication? I am sure that It says much about it, though I cannot recall exactly what it says. I do not think it is possible for man to truly communicate with each other outside of the Love of God. I do not think it is possible for mankind to truly love each other outside of the Love of God. I need to study the Word and find from Wisdom's source the true meaning of communication, and the true means of communication. Maybe we all need to do that.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
The problem of pain
Forbidden Games is a French film made in 1952. It is one of the more poignant war films I have ever seen. The main character is a 5 year old French girl named Paulette. Her parents and dog are killed right before her eyes as they attempt the flee the Nazis. She doesn't understand anything about death, and clings tenderly to her dog. Another lady sees that the dog is dead and throws it into a river. Paulette runs after the dog. In doing so she runs into a young boy named Michel. Michel convinces his family, that live on a small farm, to take her in. He does what he can to teach Paulette about death and burial. He helps her bury the dead dog in a makeshift cemetery. They start burying all kinds of other animals they find, in order so that the dog is not lonely. Being a good Catholic boy, Michel knows that the graves need crosses, so he steals some from the local human cemetery. This causes much dismay in Michel's household. Eventually, Paulette is sent to the Red Cross.
This is a touching film. I think the girl reminded me of my daughter, so it held me quite intensely. This film makes some interesting statements regarding loss, and our methods of dealing with it. The family who takes in Paulette has a son that eventually dies from wounds he received being kicked by a horse. The family is a strong Catholic family, though Michel is the only one who knows his prayers and Catechisms. As the brother dies, the family asks Michel to say some prayers. He does, but he mixes several prayers together, and eventually speaks nonsense. The family doesn't notice, and are content with the fact he is saying any prayer. They soon forget about the loss and focus on the petty dispute they have with their neighbors. They blame everything that goes on, including the missing crosses, on them. At the funeral, both families each try to outdo each other in decorating the graves of their loved ones. Eventually, the two fathers get into a fight and fall into an open grave. Meanwhile, the kids are busy saying prayers and placing crosses over the graves of their animal friends. For much of the film Paulette forgets about her parents. Only at the end, when she is at the Red Cross and sees a man and woman that reminds her of them, does she remember that they are gone. She cries out for her parents and disappears into the crowd looking for them.
Religion in this film is a child's game, something that innocent children look to rather than looking at their loss. The kids are severely reprimanded for stealing the crosses for their pet cemetery. Yet, it is equally silly for the adults to have them in the human cemetery. The adults in the film are also determined to distract themselves. They focus on this silly squabble so they don't have to focus on the war and the loss of their brother. No one in the film faces reality. Yet reality is there, and reality is full of hardship and turmoil. The only thing that doesn't seem to be in the film is God. If He was there wouldn't He stop all the pain and suffering? If He was there wouldn't He do more than provide some temporary balm for the wounds of war? I may be reading too much into the film. However, I know that many people think these things about pain. They see pain as evidence that God doesn't exist. Of course, in doing so, they assume to know how an omniscient deity would act. "If God was good, why would He allow suffering?" What makes the person who says that so sure that they know what is good and what is evil? Who are they to decide that good means life without suffering? Even the famous atheist Nietzsche said, "That which doesn't kill me makes me stronger." Most will agree that good can come from suffering. So what makes them say that suffering is evil, and a good god wouldn't allow it? I find that the existence of pain and suffering to be one of the most profound moral arguments for a God. One of the greatest gifts a good God could give us is a free will, the ability to reject Him. If this God is all-powerful, and the end of all things, wouldn't it be good for us to follow Him, and bad for us to reject Him? Would a good God allow us to make wrong decisions without consequence? Would God be truly seeking our benefit if He let us do whatever we wanted with any type of punishment? From what I can see, man will do more out of fear of punishment than out of hope of reward. Most will allow that suffering results from man's evil. Is it possible to have suffering without evil, and vice versa?
Also, if God doesn't exist, then what do we do with suffering? We have no hope. We have not possible easement. Suffering and pain and loss will always be there, and there is nothing we can do about it. If this is the case, why wouldn't you chose something to distract you? Anything that relieves the burden, no matter how silly or preposterous, would be better than suffering, better than facing the reality of this dreadful world. Why should we look with disdain at those who found a way to endure this dreary life? I cannot see what an atheist hopes to attain. I cannot see how they can get any joy out of life. It what they say is true, what point is there to anything?
This is a touching film. I think the girl reminded me of my daughter, so it held me quite intensely. This film makes some interesting statements regarding loss, and our methods of dealing with it. The family who takes in Paulette has a son that eventually dies from wounds he received being kicked by a horse. The family is a strong Catholic family, though Michel is the only one who knows his prayers and Catechisms. As the brother dies, the family asks Michel to say some prayers. He does, but he mixes several prayers together, and eventually speaks nonsense. The family doesn't notice, and are content with the fact he is saying any prayer. They soon forget about the loss and focus on the petty dispute they have with their neighbors. They blame everything that goes on, including the missing crosses, on them. At the funeral, both families each try to outdo each other in decorating the graves of their loved ones. Eventually, the two fathers get into a fight and fall into an open grave. Meanwhile, the kids are busy saying prayers and placing crosses over the graves of their animal friends. For much of the film Paulette forgets about her parents. Only at the end, when she is at the Red Cross and sees a man and woman that reminds her of them, does she remember that they are gone. She cries out for her parents and disappears into the crowd looking for them.
Religion in this film is a child's game, something that innocent children look to rather than looking at their loss. The kids are severely reprimanded for stealing the crosses for their pet cemetery. Yet, it is equally silly for the adults to have them in the human cemetery. The adults in the film are also determined to distract themselves. They focus on this silly squabble so they don't have to focus on the war and the loss of their brother. No one in the film faces reality. Yet reality is there, and reality is full of hardship and turmoil. The only thing that doesn't seem to be in the film is God. If He was there wouldn't He stop all the pain and suffering? If He was there wouldn't He do more than provide some temporary balm for the wounds of war? I may be reading too much into the film. However, I know that many people think these things about pain. They see pain as evidence that God doesn't exist. Of course, in doing so, they assume to know how an omniscient deity would act. "If God was good, why would He allow suffering?" What makes the person who says that so sure that they know what is good and what is evil? Who are they to decide that good means life without suffering? Even the famous atheist Nietzsche said, "That which doesn't kill me makes me stronger." Most will agree that good can come from suffering. So what makes them say that suffering is evil, and a good god wouldn't allow it? I find that the existence of pain and suffering to be one of the most profound moral arguments for a God. One of the greatest gifts a good God could give us is a free will, the ability to reject Him. If this God is all-powerful, and the end of all things, wouldn't it be good for us to follow Him, and bad for us to reject Him? Would a good God allow us to make wrong decisions without consequence? Would God be truly seeking our benefit if He let us do whatever we wanted with any type of punishment? From what I can see, man will do more out of fear of punishment than out of hope of reward. Most will allow that suffering results from man's evil. Is it possible to have suffering without evil, and vice versa?
Also, if God doesn't exist, then what do we do with suffering? We have no hope. We have not possible easement. Suffering and pain and loss will always be there, and there is nothing we can do about it. If this is the case, why wouldn't you chose something to distract you? Anything that relieves the burden, no matter how silly or preposterous, would be better than suffering, better than facing the reality of this dreadful world. Why should we look with disdain at those who found a way to endure this dreary life? I cannot see what an atheist hopes to attain. I cannot see how they can get any joy out of life. It what they say is true, what point is there to anything?
Wednesday, January 3, 2007
Be thou my good
In Shakespeare's Othello, Iago says:
Virtue! a fig! 'tis in ourselves that we are thusAt another point he says:
or thus. Our bodies are our gardens, to the which
our wills are gardeners: so that if we will plant
nettles, or sow lettuce, set hyssop and weed up
thyme, supply it with one gender of herbs, or
distract it with many, either to have it sterile
with idleness, or manured with industry, why, the
power and corrigible authority of this lies in our
wills. If the balance of our lives had not one
scale of reason to poise another of sensuality, the
blood and baseness of our natures would conduct us
to most preposterous conclusions: but we have
reason to cool our raging motions, our carnal
stings, our unbitted lusts, whereof I take this that
you call love to be a sect or scion.
And what's he then that says I play the villain?Both of these statements seem very similar to statements made by Satan in Milton's Paradise Lost:
When this advice is free I give and honest,
Probal to thinking and indeed the course
To win the Moor again? For 'tis most easy
The inclining Desdemona to subdue
In any honest suit: she's framed as fruitful
As the free elements. And then for her
To win the Moor--were't to renounce his baptism,
All seals and symbols of redeemed sin,
His soul is so enfetter'd to her love,
That she may make, unmake, do what she list,
Even as her appetite shall play the god
With his weak function. How am I then a villain
To counsel Cassio to this parallel course,
Directly to his good? Divinity of hell!
When devils will the blackest sins put on,
They do suggest at first with heavenly shows,
As I do now: for whiles this honest fool
Plies Desdemona to repair his fortunes
And she for him pleads strongly to the Moor,
I'll pour this pestilence into his ear,
That she repeals him for her body's lust;
And by how much she strives to do him good,
She shall undo her credit with the Moor.
So will I turn her virtue into pitch,
And out of her own goodness make the net
That shall enmesh them all.
So farwel Hope, and with Hope farwel Fear,All of these statements reveal a significant aspect of man's nature. Man spends more time excusing his faults, and defending his defects, and avoiding his guilt than he does anything else. Rare is the man that accepts his shortcomings. Rare is the man that acknowledges his faults. Rare is the man willing to stand guilty before all. We convince ourselves of our goodness. We convince ourselves that our vice is virtue. We declare our innocence, not to others, but to ourselves. We are not designed (dare I imply design?) to live with sin (dare I call anything sin?). No one wants to be guilty. No one wants to be evil. The easy path for us to take is to convince ourselves that we are good, that what we do is good. It is easy for us to look on Iago, one of the most wretched, nefarious characters in all of literature, and condemn him for his conniving, his malfeasance. It is so easy for us to judge others of their sin. Who does not do this? Those who speak of moral relativity cast judgment on those who cast judgment on others. How easy is it for us to declare the whole world guilty. And how difficult and uneasy is it for us to declare ourselves guilty before the whole world. That is not the way to proceed. Much better that we manipulate our thoughts so that all we do is good. "Evil, be thou my good," says Satan. "My evil is good," says us.
Farwel Remorse: all Good to me is lost;
Evil be thou my Good; by thee at least
Divided Empire with Heav'ns King I hold
By thee, and more then half perhaps will reigne;
As Man ere long, and this new World shall know.
Why I love films: The Preamble
I am a cinephile. I enjoy greatly watching movies/films. I am also a Christian, a quasi-neo-Fundamentalist (I haven't yet determined exactly what that means). Are those consistent positions? Are you able to legitimately be both? According to a series of articles (Parts One, Two, and Three, so far) by a Fundamentalist named Kevin Bauder, you cannot. His notes that prominent theologians "from Tertullian to Tozer" have been adamantly opposed to the theater/cinema. Having not read all of those writers, I will have to take his word for it. He posits the idea that theater/film is unable to carry the message of Christ. He challenges his readers to "convince [him] that theater as a medium is legitimate for Christians." Apparently, his contention is that theater/cinema is not legitimate for Christians. He gives, though, very specific parameters for this debate.
I was not able to find in his article substantial support for his thesis. He does state that theater/cinema is primarily Dionysian as opposed to Apollonian. "Dionysian" is a term that comes from the Greek god Dionysus, or Bacchus, who is "the god of wine and of an orgiastic religion celebrating the power and fertility of nature." The terms means "of an ecstatic, orgiastic, or irrational nature; frenzied or undisciplined." Thus, theater primarily stimulates our carnal, visceral passions. "Apollonian" comes from the Greek god Apollo, "the god of prophecy, music, medicine, and poetry." The term means "characterized by clarity, harmony, and restraint." Literature, music, and poetry speak primarily to the intellect and reason. Bauder's premise seems to be that the message of Christ is primarily an intellectual one, and, thusly, one that must be carried by an intellectual medium. I would agree with this. I do not, however, agree with his position that film is an entirely unintellectual medium. He states in Part Three, "A competent director does not want his audience to think. He wants his audience to feel, and to feel at some primeval and instinctual level." This is not entirely true. Most serious directors want their audiences to think. Most serious directors want to get convey a specific message. Many directors will use emotions to get this message across, as do many preachers. Some directors will avoid these emotional/visceral tactics and aim straight at the mind. Directors such as Bergman, Fellini, Kurosawa, Tarkovsky, and Allen are more interested in philosophical ideas. Though some of their films are enjoyable at face value, they contain some intense philosophical depth.
Another issue I have with Bauder is his premise that some mediums, namely theater/film, can be inherently flawed. I understand that any medium can be used for carnal purposes. Music, painting, sculpture, photography, and literature can all be used in non-God-honoring ways. Yet I cannot accept that a medium can be non-God-honoring in itself. A medium is a means of communication. It is amoral. There are not good mediums and evil mediums. The morality of a medium depends on the message. It seems very constrictive to say that only certain mediums are appropriate conveyors of God's truth.
Allow me to now lay out my views on cinema, and why I love it. I see film as having two main aspects, the cinematic and the thematic. The cinematic includes the plot, the dialog, the cinematography, the sound, the acting--all the technical/production aspects of the film. These are the things most people see when they see a film. This is the primary reason why most people watch films, for these are the things that easily entertain us. The thematic includes the main theme and philosophy of the film. In most films, the cinematic conveys the thematic. For me, both of these are important. I do not like films that lack in cinematic value. I enjoy a good plot, witty dialog, beautiful cinematography, and good acting as much as any one else. Films that lack these values are not worth my time. However, films that contain only these values are also not worth my time. Popcorn or escapists films may look neat and may provide simple entertainment, but ultimately waste my time, as I walk away with nothing. The thematic is the more important aspect. I want to see a film that has something to say, whether or not I agree with it. I like films that deal with significant and universal themes. I like films that challenge my aesthetic sense, and cause me to think intently about what they are saying. I like films that take a while to digest. Most people, and many times myself, are interested in film because most films think for us. Television is as popular as it is because it does everything for us. This is why TV and film can be so dangerous. We let our intellectual guard down and simply ingest what we are fed. We can probably get something meaningful out of any film if we are willing to bring along our intellect. Some films will challenge us in that their is nothing in it to challenge us. It takes all our intellectual power to squeeze some significant point from the film. For me, film can be endlessly entertaining, and I have yet to see how to be entertained is unhealthy, spiritually speaking. Yet, film can also be endlessly intellectually invigorating. That is why I love films.
If you are going to convince me, however, here is the first thing that you are going to have to do. You must show me that you have understood how theater communicates. You must know and respond to the aesthetic conversation. Once you have done that, then we will be in a position to get down to the really important considerations.I will not attempt to completely answer his queries just yet. As I peruse some articles on Wikipedia dealing with aesthetics and art, I see that I am undeniably unqualified to meaningfully contribute to this discussion. However, I would like to make some preliminary "gut" observations.
I was not able to find in his article substantial support for his thesis. He does state that theater/cinema is primarily Dionysian as opposed to Apollonian. "Dionysian" is a term that comes from the Greek god Dionysus, or Bacchus, who is "the god of wine and of an orgiastic religion celebrating the power and fertility of nature." The terms means "of an ecstatic, orgiastic, or irrational nature; frenzied or undisciplined." Thus, theater primarily stimulates our carnal, visceral passions. "Apollonian" comes from the Greek god Apollo, "the god of prophecy, music, medicine, and poetry." The term means "characterized by clarity, harmony, and restraint." Literature, music, and poetry speak primarily to the intellect and reason. Bauder's premise seems to be that the message of Christ is primarily an intellectual one, and, thusly, one that must be carried by an intellectual medium. I would agree with this. I do not, however, agree with his position that film is an entirely unintellectual medium. He states in Part Three, "A competent director does not want his audience to think. He wants his audience to feel, and to feel at some primeval and instinctual level." This is not entirely true. Most serious directors want their audiences to think. Most serious directors want to get convey a specific message. Many directors will use emotions to get this message across, as do many preachers. Some directors will avoid these emotional/visceral tactics and aim straight at the mind. Directors such as Bergman, Fellini, Kurosawa, Tarkovsky, and Allen are more interested in philosophical ideas. Though some of their films are enjoyable at face value, they contain some intense philosophical depth.
Another issue I have with Bauder is his premise that some mediums, namely theater/film, can be inherently flawed. I understand that any medium can be used for carnal purposes. Music, painting, sculpture, photography, and literature can all be used in non-God-honoring ways. Yet I cannot accept that a medium can be non-God-honoring in itself. A medium is a means of communication. It is amoral. There are not good mediums and evil mediums. The morality of a medium depends on the message. It seems very constrictive to say that only certain mediums are appropriate conveyors of God's truth.
Allow me to now lay out my views on cinema, and why I love it. I see film as having two main aspects, the cinematic and the thematic. The cinematic includes the plot, the dialog, the cinematography, the sound, the acting--all the technical/production aspects of the film. These are the things most people see when they see a film. This is the primary reason why most people watch films, for these are the things that easily entertain us. The thematic includes the main theme and philosophy of the film. In most films, the cinematic conveys the thematic. For me, both of these are important. I do not like films that lack in cinematic value. I enjoy a good plot, witty dialog, beautiful cinematography, and good acting as much as any one else. Films that lack these values are not worth my time. However, films that contain only these values are also not worth my time. Popcorn or escapists films may look neat and may provide simple entertainment, but ultimately waste my time, as I walk away with nothing. The thematic is the more important aspect. I want to see a film that has something to say, whether or not I agree with it. I like films that deal with significant and universal themes. I like films that challenge my aesthetic sense, and cause me to think intently about what they are saying. I like films that take a while to digest. Most people, and many times myself, are interested in film because most films think for us. Television is as popular as it is because it does everything for us. This is why TV and film can be so dangerous. We let our intellectual guard down and simply ingest what we are fed. We can probably get something meaningful out of any film if we are willing to bring along our intellect. Some films will challenge us in that their is nothing in it to challenge us. It takes all our intellectual power to squeeze some significant point from the film. For me, film can be endlessly entertaining, and I have yet to see how to be entertained is unhealthy, spiritually speaking. Yet, film can also be endlessly intellectually invigorating. That is why I love films.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)