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.
Monday, February 26, 2007
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)