Strong vs. Brittle in Cinema

My wife and I went to see the movie “The Intern,” starring Robert De Niro and Anne Hathaway.  For those of you unfamiliar with the plot, De Niro plays a retiree widower who gets a job at a successful dot-com startup to fill the void left behind after a lifetime of work and family. Hathaway plays Jules, the founder and CEO of the company who takes custody of him. The assignment is grudging at first on her part because she “doesn’t get on well with old people.”

It was a good movie. Funny a lot of the time, occasionally hilarious (the “Great Email Robbery” comes to mind). There were well-placed bits of genuine warmth, a few touches of sadness to remind us of mortality, but these fine. They dealt with the characters as individuals, as people. We could all empathize with them as people. The few problems I had with the movie was when it tried to move beyond people, and start preaching to society instead.

There was a particular scene where Jules is dropping her daughter off at school. (More accurately, Jules is walking her daughter from the car to the front of the school; Ben, De Niro’s character was acting as her driver that day.) As the two reach the school entrance, Hathaway is greeted with minor surprise by the other mothers. They are polite, the words are friendly, but the tone and manner conveys a lot: They aren’t used to seeing her, they don’t socialize with her, and they doubt her skills in certain domestic areas. How much of their attitude is assumed and how much is based on history is left to the audience.

If I received that kind of treatment, I would tend to shake it off. Come to think of it, I have, during brief times past when acting as “house husband,” or when picking up the slack while my wife had to travel for business. Different blog entry… 

Failing that, if I were feeling in a rough mood, I might take the attitude that the two ladies “had a problem.” Hopefully, I would keep it to myself, because I can’t really see what kind of benefit there would be to drawing someone else’s attention to such a small incident. Under no circumstances would I dump it onto a junior employee, or a temporary employee that might be hoping to get a permanent position. That isn’t asking for job related work, but personal and emotional support. To me, that crosses a big line.

The people writing for Jules disagree apparently, as she returns to the car and immediately starts griping about “blatant sexism.” And from that point out in the movie, I felt my attitude toward the character change. Up until then I find the character extremely admirable: competent, professional (albeit in a different manner than I was brought up in), dedicated. I could relate to her challenges, the balancing of work and family, the struggles to get respect, the long hours that wear you down, making the other problems seem all the larger. These were problems that can come, will come, despite our best efforts. These are problems that come because we are living in the world, at that’s a lot of what life is: problems.

I could see the chip on her should, now. It didn’t wipe out the better traits of the character, not by far, but it was there, and it drew my attention. I found myself looking for similar messaging in other parts of the movie which, of course, I found. Human nature, I’m afraid. Once you draw someone’s attention to looking for something, they are bound to find it, intended or not. It’s kind of a spoiler.

Later on in the movie, De Niro’s character comes across the same women as he takes Jules’ daughter to a birthday party. Using his kind, subtle style, he relates to them that Jules is the kind of woman that they should really be rooting for, “one of their own” out there pursing the dream and making it big.

I couldn’t help but ask “why?” She doesn’t associate with the other ladies. She hardly knows them. She certainly doesn’t empathize with them or respect them. Nothing that Jules has done or accomplished has benefited them. Whatever the rewards in life the women have received have been the results of their separate choices. The same applies to the costs and challenges. So if the mothers who stay at home receive little or no “cheering” from the women and mothers who go to work, why should the mothers who go to work expect any more? 

As I said before, there are a lot of admirable traits to Jules, a lot of strength. But there’s also a fragile brittleness. At the first sign that her choices are being criticized, part of her shatter, forming jagged edges that seek to tear and rend. But she isn’t just tearing at the ones who criticize her, but at society as a whole, and it’s there that we move from social commentary to irrational irony: She criticizes society because it has failed to banish criticism. She rants against us because we can’t meet the standards that she herself can’t, without ever acknowledging that it’s as much on her as anyone else.

It’s a small reflection on society. So many seem to believe that we should strive for an atmosphere with complete acceptance, without “judgment.” I can’t see it, myself. The only way I could possibly imagine a world without criticism is to first have a world where no one performs actions or harbors attitudes worthy of criticism. It just ain’t gonna happen. Not in this world. 

In the twelfth of Luke, Christ admonished us to not fear the ones who could simply do us physical harm, but to fear God, who had ultimate power over our destiny. If we are not to fear those who wish us physical harm, how much less who merely criticize and nothing more? My mother used a much common reference when teaching me the same thing. It started out “Sticks and stones…” 

It’s a lesson that society seems to forget today, and that’s a tragedy. No matter how many training courses we attend and speech codes we promote and “anti-bullying” laws we pass, mean words aren’t going out of style anytime soon. Fortunately for people of faith, the words of God last longer still. In fact, He promises that His Word lasts forever. All the strength, none of the brittleness. Sounds like a winner to me.

Esau Nation

As I try to be a man of faith and a keeper of the Word, I have to admit that there are examples in the Bible that trouble me. These are the ones that make me scratch my head in wonder and want to ask God “Hey, what’s going on here? This isn’t the way that it’s supposed to be! What are you doing?” Let’s face it: From a human perspective, a lot of what God allows just doesn’t seem (and I hate using this word) “fair.”

One of these situations comes in the story of Jacob and Esau (Gen 25 – 33). It tells the story of two brothers, twins. Whatever closeness they might have shared was eventually lost in rivalry. They were rivals for their parents, with the father preferring Esau and the mother favoring Jacob, and they were rivals personally. The rivalry gets so bad that one day Esau is coming in from a day of hunting and, seeing his brother enjoying a meal, asks for something for himself. His brother agrees, but only if Esau will give his birthright in trade.

The birthright in the Hebrew culture held enormous significance. While it conveyed little while the current patriarch was alive, it signaled who would receive a double share of the family wealth after his death. All in all, it was a ridiculous offer to make, or should have been. Amazingly, Esau agreed, and sold half of his future for a single meal. As if that were not bad enough, Esau’s mother conspires against him, hatching a plan that allows Jacob to commit a fraud that will allow him to take control of the family as soon as their father dies. As the two families branch, Jacob becomes the line that will lead to King David, and eventually to Jesus.

That’s the story. Treachery wins. Deceit triumphs. Not a lot of “fairness” to be seen, at least not as far as I can tell. But there is a reason, if you can accept it. It’s found at the end of Gen 25:34.

Thus Esau despised his birthright.

Jacob was an opportunist, no doubt about it. And though his mother was the architect of the plan to steal the father’s blessing, Jacob went along, putting his basic honesty in serious doubt. Esau’s failings were of a different nature. Esau saw only the present, with no eye to the future. While no doubt hungry from his day in the field, Esau was more than capable of finding something to tide him over until he could get a full meal. He didn’t need to make a deal that no one with an ounce of sense would make. More concisely, Esau was a fool.

A few months ago I was in an online discussion with some people about how freedom of speech and religion were being diminished in favor of new “rights” such as gay “marriage,” or the ability to force people to serve at gay “weddings” whether they chose to or not. Some comments were quite hostile. Others were more resigned. With regards to the First Amendment, one man finally wrote “I guess you don’t miss what you never had.”

At that point, I was torn between wanting to scream and wanting to cry. I knew this man to be both intelligent and good-hearted, and yet he had totally misstated the situation: He had been born with those rights. But because they stood in opposition to what is now considered “anti-discrimination” laws and “gay rights,” he disdained them. He, and millions like him, were more than willing to sweep them aside if it mean that they could get what they wanted.

That’s the way it is for a lot of young people today, and more than a few not-so-young as well. Rather than being educated in the meaning of those rights, of the costs needed to secure them, and the consequences of losing them, they are little regarded. One camp takes them for granted, while another regards them as relics, barriers to a “brighter future,” whatever that might entail. Few understand how much has been lost, and how difficult it will to retrieve, if indeed it can be retrieved.

And what of Jacob and Esau?

Eventually, the two reconciled. Esau must have realized somewhere along the way that while his brother wasn’t exactly perfect, he had brought most of his problems on himself. Jacob became known as Israel, a man of power with man and God, though it was hardly an easy road for him either. But it was a road that lead ultimately to blessings. Jacob learned that, while he must keep moving forward and adapting for the future, the wisdom and lessons of the past had to be honored as well.

Godly wisdom. It never goes out of style. Here is hoping that America can learn that lesson before it is too late.

A Question of Human Values

I just watched the first half hour of the Humans, the new series on SyFy. It’s well done. Good acting, good production values. I don’t know how long I’m going to be able to keep watching, though. Events of late already have me feeling down, and I don’t think this series is going to do much to go against that.

The series advertises itself as an “alternate present,” or near future where androids, called “Synths” have become ubiquitous. They appear as anything from domestic servants to chefs to blue collar workers, with the hint that they are rapidly growing in sophistication, that soon they will be able to replace most any specialty. The effect of these changes on humanity is one of the overarching themes of show. The plot device used to bring out the societal conflict seems to be how the family purchasing the Synth, which they name Anita, responds both to her, and to each other because of her. It’s science fiction with a social message. I’m usually leery of such things, but I’ll give it a chance.

While watching the first episode, I was taken aback by one of the conversations the parents had with the oldest daughter. She’s late teens, with an attitude that alternates between “don’t care in the slightest” and “mad at the world.” The conversation that caught my attention was when her parents questioned how her grades had dropped from an A to a D in one semester. The parents had noticed the a drop in effort prior to this, and encouraged her to get back to applying herself. Her response was, in a nutshell, why bother? If it takes her seven years to become a doctor, but by then a Synth can be programmed to be a doctor in seven seconds, then why bother?

That’s where I turned off the show. It was a worthwhile question, and I wanted to give it some thought. Over the course of a few minutes, a few things occurred to me. None of them are particularly encouraging, but they ring true to me.

We all desire to be valued. As people, we are designed (and I use that term quite purposely) that way. We gravitate toward people we admire. We are flattered when people admire us. The approval excites us, buoys us, occasionally inspires us. This is hardly a new concept. I am pretty certain that people have felt this way from the very beginning. What has changed so radically in this generation is our expectations with regards to that value.

Up until a couple of generations ago, admiration was a tedious affair. There were celebrities, to be sure, but a far smaller collection than people can access today given the internet, cable channels, cell phones, etc. People generally met fewer people, went fewer places, had fewer options. Not surprisingly, the opportunities to generate status were harder to come by as well. At the risk of sounding sexist, a lot of men, perhaps the majority, found their value through work and providing for their families. Similarly, women had their sense of place.

This is not a call to return to “traditional” roles (for these surely varied by culture, upbringing, etc.). This is merely pointing out that as mundane as it was, these were methods that men and women could use to show themselves capable and accomplished. This was how they could generate value in the eyes of other and, equally important, in their own eyes as well.

Today, the search for personal value has changed drastically, and often harmfully. For a large segment of the population it rests not on competence or skill, knowledge or utility. Some pursue it through web exposure, some through infamy. Some expect it to be given by virtue of their existence. Essentially, they demand to be valued while doing nothing of value. Sadly, a portion of society has attempted to meet that demand, bolstering “self-esteem,” but that does little to relieve the problem. It’s rather like treating a drug addict with morphine. It mollifies the pain for a time, but does nothing to relieve the underlying problems.

In our modern age, it seems that we have not only abandoned our better natures, but hold them thoroughly in contempt. Integrity, purity, sobriety, patience, perseverance. Challenging and dull to be sure, but each a virtue to which anyone from the poorest to the richest could aspire. These qualities, and others like them, brought forth the looks of admiration, the quiet murmurs or praise. Applied to labor, they filled the stomach. Applied to study, they filled the mind. Applied to worship, they filled the soul.

Virtue. It’s a term seldom used these days, and I think we suffer for that. These qualities, inspired by a loving Creator, fill both us from within and the nation without. They confirm His presence within us. They reveal His mark, a value that can never be taken by another, only degraded by our own choices.

I pray for revival within our nation though, sadly, I hold out little hope. Our God is a God of miracles, but He must still be true to Himself. That truth means that though He can conquer weather, and sickness, and drought, and even death, He will not conquer us. The only victory we can have is surrender. Our greatest value will come when we resolve to serve.

Rev 3:17 - 20  You say, "I am rich. I have become wealthy. I don't need anything." Yet you don't realize that you are miserable, pitiful, poor, blind, and naked. Therefore, I advise you to buy from me gold purified in fire so you may be rich, white clothes to wear so your shameful nakedness won't show, and ointment to put on your eyes so you may see. I correct and discipline those whom I love, so be serious and repent! Look! I am standing at the door and knocking. If anyone listens to my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he will eat with me.

Will America End Up "Inside-Out"?

I went with my family last night to see the movie “Inside-Out.” It was our weekend family fun activity. Overall I thought the movie was very good. A lot of animated emotions running around a young girl’s head, doing slapstick. Making all the mistakes you’d expect, and a few that might surprise you. It was basically Herman’s Head, for those of you who remember that show, with a modern twist. And that modern twist is a good part of the one real problem that I have with the movie.

The young girl in the movie, Riley, has essentially been controlled since birth by these emotions. Specifically: Joy, Sadness, Fear, Anger, and Disgust, with Joy taking the lead in most circumstances. It’s her job to keep Riley happy, and she takes her job very seriously. In the show Herman’s Head, the breakdown was a little different. There were four aspects controlling Herman’s responses: Lust, Sensitivity, Anxiety, and Intellect. The show was back in 1991, so if there was a single aspect of Herman’s personality running most of the show. I don’t recall. But even given that, the difference is notable.

In the more modern version, intellect is completely absent from the control center. There are core memories which are given credit for developing Riley’s personality. There are islands shown that are built on the importance of those memories. There is reference to a “train of thought” chugging away in the distance, though, what it does or why it’s there is never really addressed. When it comes to determining actions are responses, logic and reason are absent. Emotions run at all. For all the independent thought show, the emotions could just as easily be operating a chimpanzee, or a mouse, or a duck. Or a puppet. Maybe a puppet is most appropriate. Let’s face it: if you’re not going to think, than someone else’s really pulling the strings. The only real question is how they make you dance.

I understand that “Inside-Out” is just a movie, a fantasy for kids. From that standpoint, it’s a good movie. I have no problem with that. My problem is with the very real world attitude it reflects. The attitude that emotions are everything, that how we feel must determine how we act. The attitude that we have the right to inflict those emotions on those around us, regardless of cost or consequence. And the consequences are adding up.

Emotion doesn’t plan, doesn’t think, doesn’t take the long view. All of the priorities are immediate. Emotion does not delay gratification, and has little patience. Sustained high divorce rate, high illegitimacy, high abortion — all of these are responses, to some extent, of acting on a emotion. And, while all of us have some degree of empathy, emotion focuses largely on the self. Emotion does not care about the rights of others. So, if others lose their right to free speech, to act according to their conscience, to work or live, emotion finds a justification.

Emotion demands validation. The lawsuits regarding Christian businesses recently were not, as some insist, about combating discrimination. The people raising the suits approve of discrimination, and support it routinely for their own purposes. The lawsuits were about rage, rage against people that would not validate certain emotional choices. Because of that rage, those who would not bow had to be targeted, vilified, and destroyed if necessary as an example to others. And then on, to the next target.

In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul writes about a time when he reasoned as a child, and then had to grow and move beyond childish things. You can find the text in chapter thirteen of the first letter. That chapter is often referred to as “the love chapter” of the Bible, and I don’t think it was coincidence that placed the text there. I think it was very deliberate, because despite what many insist, love is not just emotion.

Love is a decision. Love is staying with a spouse through the bad times, trusting that the good times that once were can come again. Love is planning. Love is sticking with that job you hate to make ends meet while you look for something better, while you improve yourself. While you make an effort instead of waiting for something to be handed to you. Love is putting others first, like the child who is counting on you day in, day out, whether you “feel” like it not. Love does not just whisper sweet words on the honeymoon. Love says “‘Til death do us part,” and repeats it with the last breath.

Love is a commitment, the way God committed to loving you.

And because love is all of these things, and more, love lasts. The greatest civilizations of the past, the ones that built huge monuments and towers of stone, have all but vanished. That’s the way of earthly things. The strongest don’t last. How much more a society that gives ultimate weight to “feelings,” that come and go in minutes, that change based on the tone someone uses when saying “hello?”

I see parts of our society breaking down. I see it in Ferguson, in Charleston. I see it in those who riot and loot, and claim it is because they demand “justice.” I see it in the outsiders who are paid to go in and raise hatred and turmoil in places they don’t even live or work, and then move on. I see it in politicians who solve nothing, but strive constantly to get us to raise our hands against each other.

I still have faith that America can last, but not like this. The silent movie “Metropolis,” filmed in 1927 made the point that “the heart and the head need each other.” That’s still true today. It always has been. The question is can we embrace that truth in time, or will our entire nation find itself “inside-out?”

Consequences of a Flabby Conscience

There is a law in Greece. Possibly in some other countries in the Eurozone as well. Probably. A lot of the countries seem to have a number of philosophies in common.

It goes like this: The government supplies lots of benefits, but to receive them you need to meet certain requirements. One of the requirements is that you are employed if possible. I was right with them at that point, but the devil is always in the details. Sometimes, that phrase seems a bit more literal than others. Anyway... If you are not employed, the government will find you a job. If they find it, you have to take it. Otherwise, no benefits. Health care is one, I suppose. I'm sure there are other subsidies.

Of course, some of the jobs, though legal, are not particularly appealing. Sex worker, for example. It's a tidied up way of saying "prostitute," but it amounts to the same thing. It's a legal occupation in the country, so if that's what is available when your number comes up, that's what you have to take. If not, kiss everything from unemployment compensation on down goodbye.

That's significant, you see. Just because the profession is legal, doesn't make it desirable or respectable among the public. Lots of women (and possibly men, I haven't researched that aspect) are basically forced into it by the state. A lot of the women are married. Have children. And that isn't exactly the kind of thing you can hide from your family.

I think about that kind of decision being forced on women, and I get incensed, and at the same time I wonder...

I wonder how a vegetarian would feel about being forced to take a job in a slaughterhouse, or possibly starve.

I wonder how someone who is unalterably opposed to the death penalty would respond to being forced to throw the switch that powers the chair, or starts the poison...

I wonder how a member of Green Peace would respond to being forced to work as a lumber jack..

I wonder about all of those things, and honestly, I don't have a clue. No of those cases apply to me. Now, how a devout Christian baker, or photographer, or florist feels when forced to participate in a gay ceremony... That I can imagine. The difference between this case and the others, however, is stark. The forcing of the bakers and florists and photographers is real and legal. The others... not yet.

That's all we can say right now. Not yet. Those who claim that we must limit a person's ability to act, or refrain from action, based on conscience are overlooking a very basic principle: Governments have no conscience. There is no place that rules and laws that disregard the conscience cannot take us over time. The founding fathers recognized that. That's why they included in the Constitution an explicit amendment to ensure that, even though government had no conscience, men would, and that they would be able to act accordingly.

There's a reason that it's called the "free exercise" clause. The "free" part should be obvious. Without the ability to choose one's beliefs and morals, no other freedoms will last. And this is a freedom we are to "exercise." It doesn't stop in our homes, or churches. It is and was always meant to be a lasting part of the public square. That's an unpopular view right now, but an accurate one just the same.

There's more than a little irony at work here. Because of that right, because they were free to "exercise" their faith in the public square, Christians became the single substantial force for the abolition of slavery, eventually succeeding in eliminating it as a lawful institution in the west. And now, in our "more enlightened" times, as the left seeks to once again put people in chains, Christians are the first to be targeted. And they'll succeed, too, unless we all begin to take our "exercise" a good deal more seriously.

A Cornucopia of Victims

Imagine finding yourself in a dream, walking down a very long hall. A man walks beside you, pleasant enough, but gently nudging you along, making sure you keep pace. This seems important, though you don’t really know why. After a moment, you notice a group of doorways beginning just ahead. There are no knobs on the outside, however. All are fastened shut securely with cross beams.

You reach the first doorway, and the man beside you stops. He indicates a small window set in the doorframe. You look, and see a hundred people or so. They are young, old, men, women, all manner of heights, and weights and races.

“Forty of these shall have excellent schools,” the man says. “Twenty will have fair schools. The rest will be placed in schools with bad teachers, or uncontrolled violence, or serious drug or disciplinary problems, and no one will help them. Choose.”

You find yourself taken aback. You have never heard of such a thing. “Why is it up to me?”

“It is how we do things,” the man says. “Choose. Or someone else will chose for you.”

Uneasily you make your choice, and then move on to the next door. Inside is a similar group.

“Fifty of these will be supported by taxpayers,” the man says. “The rest will work to support them. Choose.”

And there are more rooms.

“Twenty will get preference in college admissions. The rest will split up what is left. Choose.”

“Thirty will get health care paid for by the rest. Choose.”

“Seventy will get to decide their own career. The rest will be assigned. Choose.”

“Fifteen can commit crimes and they will be excused of responsibility. The rest will pay the price. Choose.”

“Forty will retain their right to free speech, to an attorney, to trial by jury. To discovery, to cross-examination. To face their accuser. The rest will have their fate decided by a judge, possibly with little or no training in the law. Choose.”

And so it goes until you find yourself at the last room. You take a look inside, and are relieved to find that it is empty. You look over to the man accompanying you.

“That was for deciding who was allowed to believe as they wished and exercise freedom of religion,” the man says. “We don’t use that one anymore.”

If this “dream” sounds like a nightmare to you, it should. And it is all the worse because it is a nightmare that we as a nation take effort to bring further and further into reality each day. For political expediency, the judges and the politicians deny justice, or even the right to due process to those groups out of favor. Mobs pillage, terrorizing the poor and innocent, and the police are restrained in the name of “racial justice.” We wallow over sins of the past, and deny rights and law to the innocent of the present.

Almost since the beginning of mankind, there has been no shortage of victims in the world. Some are victims of criminals. Some are victims of corrupt officials. Each one has a story, and each case is a tragedy, but in each story a ray of hope persists as long as the law remains to address the wrong. Yet now, our nation, and indeed much of the world, is embracing a new form of “justice,” one that states that for one group to receive justice, another must be denied. Two wrongs really do make a right, retribution against the innocent is not only acceptable, but preferable.

And as all of this proceeds, we find that the number of victims does not shrink. It grows. Only now these are not the victims of criminals. They are the victims of law with justice or restraint. They are the victims of everyone who decides in their heart that one person or group is worthy of more than they have, and then use the force of law to achieve it. And they are the victims of those who stand idly by, approving, watching as Saul did at the stoning of Stephen. And they are also the victims of those who do not approve, but still do nothing to stop it.

In this, they are my victims.

I don’t know how to address the ills of the past, as a nation or people. I don’t even know if that’s possible. I don’t know how to make law enforcement perfect, justice as impartial as it should be. In fact, I’m sure that’s not possible. This I do know: You cannot build a justice system that is better by picking and choosing who is deserving of the rights that should be guaranteed to all. You cannot make up for past thefts by taking from those who never stole. And you preserve a nation when you grant any person or group the right to wantonly destroy without consequence to themselves.

This is where we are heading, and we are frighteningly close. And I find that all I can do is pray for guidance from One who already knows where we shall end up. I encourage you all to do the same.