In Defense of Leisure

The first four weeks of my Sabbatical have reminded me of the absolute importance of leisure.

Let me state at the outset that I do not define leisure as laziness or inactivity.  Nor do I envision leisure as merely reclining on a cruise ship, drinking a Long Island Iced Tea and listening to sultry jazz standards (not that there's anything wrong with that).

No.  As originally conceived, leisure is a very profound concept that generally escapes most peoples' sensibilities.  The German philosopher Josef Pieper (taking his cue from ancient and medieval philosophers) offered this erudite definition of leisure:

Leisure is a way of looking at the world, born of an affirming oneness with the origin of all being and an authentically free, gracelike experience of the meaning of reality as a whole.

At the risk of seeming presumptuous, let me try to take that definition down a verbal notch or two:  

To be at leisure is to step beyond the daily grind of life, not to rest passively but to contemplate intentionally the deeper meaning of one's existence and one's place in the world.

Thus, leisure is a state of being that we must choose to enter.  It doesn't just happen when we "stop working."  It requires intentional thinking.  That's why it escapes many people.

In fact, most people exist in either one of these two states of being:

• Functional activity, in which we simply do what needs to be done, accomplish what needs to be accomplished, checking off all the tasks on our list.  In this state, we identify with whatever function we have at the moment.  I'm "at work."  I'm "parenting my child."  I'm "cleaning the house."  I'm "doing something productive."
  
  or...
• Mindless inactivity, which we often mistake for leisure.  In this state, we are often consuming something (media, sports, food, alcohol) to escape from "the real world" of nonstop demands, activity, and busyness.  But to consume is not the same as to receive, and while we may be feeding our bodies or our attention spans, we are not feeding our minds and souls.

Read that last sentence again:  To consume is not the same as to receive, and while we may be feeding our bodies or our attention spans, we are not feeding our minds and souls.

If you want to know why American culture is in jeopardy, I think it is because we are feeding our bodies and our attention spans but starving our minds and souls.  I think it is because many people spend their lives shifting back and forth between functional activity and mindless inactivity.

People need genuine leisure, and the sad part is that our cultural institutions that ought to be promoting and encouraging leisure, aren't.  Whether it's churches, schools, or the arts, quite often they seem to be promoting even more functional activity and mindless inactivity.  They offer few opportunities to step back (not escape) from the "real world" in order to ask deeper questions about what is our purpose, what is the good life, or what ultimate spiritual reality imbues our lives with wonder, majesty and grace.  In other words, they offer us little opportunity truly to be human.

If we cannot rely on our cultural institutions always to provide us with opportunities for leisure, then that means we must create opportunities for ourselves.  Here are just a few that I engage in and recommend:

Soul Friendship.  This is based on an ancient Celtic practice called the anamchara (Gaelic for "soul friend").  Schedule a regular meeting with a trusted friend.  No cell phones, I-pads, Kindles, or laptops allowed.  Don't just talk about what you're doing at work or what mutual hobbies you enjoy.  Talk about who you are.  Explore the deeper values that animate your life.  Ask each other why you do what you're doing.  Encourage one another, but ask deeper questions of each other about your motives and your choices.

Spiritual Disciplines.  The ancient and medieval Christians offer a treasury of disciplines that can be used to create space for leisurely contemplation and, indeed, transformation.  However, I recommend a brand new curriculum entitled Essential Practices of the Faith.  My wife and I are currently journeying through this material.  We love that it is simple without being simplistic; it is profound without requiring a degree in theology; and it requires commitment but not a great deal of time.  One thing it does require is that you study it with others...not on your own!

Contemplate Great Art.  I'm not talking about the "arts" that fill our popular culture and win Oscars, Emmys, or Grammys.  I'm talking about the "Classics."  Read a book with exalted language and heroic characters that embody great values (my favorites are Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird and C. S. Lewis' Till We Have Faces).  Listen to classical music that stirs deep emotion (my favorites are Copland's Symphony No. 3 and Ravel's Daphnis and Chloe, Suite 2).  Look at great works of art that stylize great subjects (my favorite is Dali's Crucifixion).  Find your own favorites, but remember that great art is more than just entertainment.  It "incarnates" and enables you to experience profound ideas at the physical and emotional level.  That is food for the soul.

Screwtape Remixed

Hey readers (if any of you are left!).
After a two year hiatus, I decided to get back into the blogosphere!
Much has happened in my life since I last posted here:

• God called my incredible father, George J. Kahl, home to heaven. I was so blessed to be there with my whole family, and I had the added privilege of "serenading" my dad into God's presence. As I was playing Amazing Grace on the piano, and as my mom was holding his hand, he left us to join His Savior, Jesus Christ. You will be missed by many, Dad!



• I finished the process for Ordination to Word and Sacrament in the Evangelical Covenant Church. A long process, but full of many blessings as I have met many fantastic mentors and colleagues who have encouraged me on this journey.



• On July 31, 2011, my wife Cherith gave birth to our son, Cyrus Shepard Kahl. (Notice the initials...C. S.!) Cyrus has been such a blessing to my life, and I have come to understand the heart of Our Heavenly Father by being privileged to father Cyrus. He has brought us both so much joy. Perhaps in a future blog post, I'll share with you all the many influences behind his name!

So that brings us up to date, at least in the major things.
As for my initial post, I have been thinking quite a bit about the current state of American culture, specifically in light of the upcoming elections and the major confusion over economic, social, and religious issues. I often ask myself the question: What can be done? Involvement in politics at times seems so futile...especially when you consider that most of our problems do not stem from politics but from intellectual and spiritual reality.

Today I was on YouTube and found this incredible lecture by Dr. Peter Kreeft, a philosophy professor at Boston College and a major fan of the Inklings. His lecture is modelled on C. S. Lewis' classic The Screwtape Letters, but its content is updated for a 21st Century audience. Although he is speaking out of his own Roman Catholic background to an audience of like-minded Catholics, I think his basic points have a broad ecumenical relevance. The lecture is over 45 minutes, but well worth the time!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm08x8YiuXk

The Blind Side

Just got home from the movie theater, where I joined my wife and parents to see The Blind Side, which has received box-office success and decent critical reviews. It is the "feel-good drama" of the holiday season, but it is not at all superficial or cheesy.

Sandra Bullock is a wonderful actress whose work in the past has been overlooked. Initially I took her to be a "star" of comedy, action, and chick flicks, but she has since revealed a profound sensitivity and depth in films like Crash and Notorious. I feel that with this film, she is receiving long-overdue recognition, having already nabbed Golden Globe and Screen Actor's Guild nominations for this role. I hope to see her as one of the five Best Actress nominees on Oscar night.

The film's portrayal of committed Christians is overtly positive; it is the strong faith of Bullock's character (Leigh Anne Tuohy) that impels her and her family to take Michael Oher into their home. Their actions are among the most solid examples of specifically Christian compassion and social activism (as opposed to the many secular versions on the market today) that I have seen on film. No segment of society (the poor, the rich, Republicans, bureaucrats) is "demonized" or "blamed" for anything. (Well, there are a couple smart-assed low blows directed towards the GOP, but what do you expect from Hollywood?) The film's lack of cynicism is refreshing.

What I appreciated most about the film is the way in which Leigh Anne Tuohy's compassion for Michael Oher was not a generalized, detached sorrow for his lot in life. She invested in his life as an individual, intentionally struggling to understand who he was. And then she used what she knew about him to motivate him to excel in all areas of his life. The same could be said about her husband, her children, and the other Christian teachers depicted in the film. All of the Christians in the film are true witnesses of the way Christ loves each of us.

Props to director John Lee Hancock, the cast and crew, and the producers for having the integrity to put out such an inspiring film.

And extra props to Michael Oher for his life and his triumph. Sorry the Steelers got lucky and beat you yesterday... :)

Reflections on "The Sing-Off"

This past week my wife and I became engrossed in NBC's new talent competition, "The Sing-Off." What an incredible display of vocal talent by very diverse groups of singers! You don't have to be a musician to appreciate how tough it is for a group to sing a cappella music well, and these groups have nailed it each night!

My two favorite groups are "Nota" (who have given a distinctively urban grit to a cappella music) and "The Beelzebubs" (who combine off-the-wall college-boy antics with superior vocal stylings, and they project the simple fact that music is just plain fun). Going with my gut, I'll predict that "The Beelzebubs" will take the grand prize, but I think "Nota" will give them a tough fight till the end.

Even though I am staying away from theology books until January 1, I've been reminded through my reading of secular books that anything can provoke theological reflection, for God has saturated every inch of His creation with clues to His character and truth. One only needs to seek, and he will find. (I think I read that somewhere...)

With that in mind, here is a nugget of theological wisdom that "The Sing-Off" has helped me to clarify:

The human voice is the only musical instrument that God made without any help from human beings, and it is without a doubt the most beautiful instrument of all. As my wife and I watched "The Sing-Off," we marveled at what those human voices were able to do musically, without any help from man-made pianos, guitars, or drums. And yet it is not so marvelous, when one considers that God specifically designed the human voice for the high and holy purpose of worshipping Him.

Our voices also have more power than any other instrument--for good or evil--to touch us on the deepest levels of our being. But therein lies a profound tragedy, for I believe that part of our rebellion against God is the misuse of our voices. In today's culture, so much of our speech and our singing is focused downward, towards the basest and most sinful elements of life. Ben Folds is one of the judges on "The Sing-Off," a very talented composer, pianist, and singer...and yet his songs are replete with gratuitous profanity, sexuality, and hedonism which make it difficult to respect the serious ideas that his lyrics (sometimes) contain.

Unfortunately, even Christians (including myself) have a way of misusing our voices: communicating anger rather than joy and peace, speaking words of judgment and hostility rather than words of grace and reconciliation. We raise our voices in these improper ways, and yet on Sunday mornings we do not raise our voices with the same level of intensity in our worship to God. That is, in my opinion, sinful, and it reveals the fallenness of the human voice and its need for redemption. If every Christian congregation sang with the same fervency and joy as "Nota" or "The Beelzebubs," I believe the world would be converted in no time.

Indeed, what Christian churches might learn from "Nota," "The Beelzebubs," and the other groups on "The Sing-Off" is how to incarnate an ensemble that resounds with the sonorous harmonies of the Gospel. For I believe if you asked any of those a cappella groups how they got to where they are, they would answer the following (in substance, if not exactly in form):

1 - Ensembles work only when each individual brings forth the best of who he or she is. Slackers, in the long run, will do more harm than good.

2 - Ensembles do not come into existence overnight. When you join a new ensemble, do not be too quick to judge if it does not perform exactly the way you think it should. Perhaps it is you who needs to alter your expectations.

3 - Becoming an ensemble is hard work: you must get to know and appreciate each others' voices, you must commit to learning your part of the score, and you must find a way to blend all the parts harmoniously, knowing when to hold back your own part and when to stand out.

4 - Becoming a good ensemble requires both task-oriented work (learning the music, perfecting the vocals, etc...) and relationship work (encouraging each other, learning to work together in a positive, affirming manner, etc...), and the leadership must be diligent in intuiting which type of work is called for.

5 - Coming together for rehearsal should never be seen as an end in itself. The purpose is always to go out and share the ensembles' gifts with others. If our music is only being heard by our own ensemble, why the heck are we bothering?

Happy Thanksgiving!

For the Christian, and even for the Jew, this day is kind of unnecessary.

Seriously, those of us who claim the Biblical story as our own should not need to set aside one day of the year for giving thanks. Thankfulness ought to be the consistent emotion of our hearts, given what we believe about who God is and who we are.

The Biblical account avers that each individual is a sinner who stands (deservingly) under God's judgment. Ironically, however, the Bible also affirms the incredible reality that God Himself continuously takes the initiative in reaching out to us in reconciliation and love.

In fact, Scripture's unique message is that true religion never consists of human beings trying to take the initiative with God. True religion is always a humble response to what God already has graciously done on our behalf.

God took the initiative in creating us in His Divine image and charging us with the holy responsibility of being stewards of creation. He took the initiative in seeking us out when we fell short of His standards. He took the initiative in creating a community of people - the Jews - who were called to live out His will in the world that all nations might be blessed. And he took the initiative to dwell among us in the Person of Jesus Christ, bringing the definitive revelation of God's character and purposes, and the definitive act of redemption in the scandalous beauty of the Cross.

And what is our part in this? Simply to respond...to repent, believe, and live a life worthy of the love that God has so freely given to us. We do not come closer to God by doing anything, certainly not be taking any initiative with God.

In fact, the Bible reveals with total honesty the horrors that result when we humans come before God with a grasping ambition. We need only think of Adam and Eve going for the fruit of the tree, the building of the Tower of Babel, Abraham's attempt to "force" God to give him the heir He promised, etc... In the long run, anything we do apart from God's grace will give us little reason for thankfulness.

So enjoy today: The parades, the football, the time with family, the food, and the shopping (well, maybe not the shopping...). But in your prayers ask God to cultivate within your soul a consistent "attitude of gratitude" that transcends this national holiday. Certainly the Pilgrims - those whom we commemorate on this day - would agree with me.

Jeff's Oscars - Pre-1980

For the years prior to 1980, I'll avoid personal commentary, and just list the year's winner, noting when I disagree with the Academy's final vote.

1979 - Kramer vs. Kramer (Jeff's pick: Apocalypse Now)

1978 - The Deer Hunter

1977 - Annie Hall (Jeff's pick: Star Wars)

1976 - Rocky (Jeff's picks: All the President's Men or Network)

1975 - One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

1974 - The Godfather Part II (Chinatown is a close second!)

1973 - The Sting

1972 - The Godfather

1971 - The French Connection (Jeff's pick: Fiddler on the Roof)

1970 - Patton

1969 - Midnight Cowboy

1968 - Oliver! (Jeff's pick: 2001: A Space Odyssey or The Lion in Winter)

1967 - In the Heat of the Night (Jeff's Pick: Cool Hand Luke)

1966 - A Man for All Seasons

1965 - The Sound of Music (Jeff's Pick: Doctor Zhivago)

1964 - My Fair Lady (Jeff's Pick: Becket or Dr. Strangelove)

1963 - Tom Jones

1962 - Lawrence of Arabia (Jeff's Pick: To Kill a Mockingbird)

1961 - West Side Story (Jeff's Pick: Judgment at Nuremberg)

1960 - The Apartment

1959 - Ben-Hur

1958 - Gigi (Jeff's Pick: The Defiant Ones)

1957 - The Bridge on the River Kwai (Jeff's Pick: Witness for the Prosecution)

1956 - Around the World in Eighty Days (Jeff's Pick: Giant)

1955 - Marty

1954 - On the Waterfront

1953 - From Here to Eternity

1952 - The Greatest Show on Earth (Jeff's Pick: High Noon)

1951 - An American in Paris (Jeff's Pick: A Streetcar Named Desire or Quo Vadis)

1950 - All About Eve

1949 - All the King's Men (Jeff's Pick: Twelve O'Clock High)

1948 - Hamlet

1947 - Gentlemen's Agreement

1946 - The Best Years of Our Lives (Jeff's Pick: It's a Wonderful Life)

1945 - The Lost Weekend

1944 - Going My Way (Jeff's Pick: Double Indemnity)

1943 - Casablanca

1942 - Mrs. Miniver (Jeff's Pick: Yankee Doodle Dandy)

1941 - How Green Was My Valley (Jeff's Pick: Citizen Kane or The Maltese Falcon)

1940 - Rebecca (Jeff's Pick: The Great Dictator or The Philadelphia Story)

1939 - Gone With the Wind

1938 - You Can't Take It With You (Jeff's Pick: Boys Town)

1937 - The Life of Emile Zola (Jeff's Pick: The Good Earth)

And that's about as far back as I go, except to say that the Academy got it right in 1934 with It Happened One Night and in 1931 with Grand Hotel. Both great flicks!

Hope you enjoyed this stroll down Oscar lane!

Jeff's Oscars - The 80's

1989
Oscar's Pick - Driving Miss Daisy
Jeff's Pick - Glory
How was this film not even nominated for Best Picture, while the feel-good flick Field of Dreams was? Glory is one of the best Civil War dramas ever made, based on the first African American regiment of soldiers to go into battle. It is a poetic story of African Americans as moral and military heroes, an inspiring true account of men who learn to fight and die together. Compelling cinematography, visual effects, costumes, and music. And most compelling of all is Denzel Washington, who deservingly won the Supporting Actor prize for his flawless portrayal as a bitter ex-slave who transforms his hatred into grace.

1988
Oscar's Pick - Rain Man
Jeff's Pick - Rain Man
Very simply, this is a character-driven drama that would have either risen or fallen depending the portrayal of the two brothers, especially the autistic Raymond. Dustin Hoffman did not disappoint...he played the part to the hilt and rightly was awarded the Best Actor Oscar. Tom Cruise elevated his image above that of a Hollywood pretty boy, and the chemistry of the two actors is what made the film worthy of the Oscar. Well, that and the fact that the other nominated films left a lot to be desired.

1987
Oscar's Pick - The Last Emperor
Jeff's Pick - The Last Emperor
From what I know, there were at least a few historical inaccuracies in this epic film by Bernardo Bertolucci. But artistically, no other film made that year could hold a candle to The Last Emperor. The performances (especially by John Lone and Peter O'Toole), the cinematography within the Forbidden City, the exotic musical score, and the artistic direction all are employed perfectly to entertain and inspire.

1986
Oscar's Pick - Platoon
Jeff's Pick - The Mission
My rejection of Platoon possibly stems from my general dislike of Oliver Stone, his leftist politics and his revisionist approach to history. But acknowledging this bias, I still think The Mission is a superior film...and the folks at the Cannes Film Festival obviously agreed with me when they awarded it the coveted Palme d'Or. Things that stand out to me are Chris Menges' cinematography, Ennio Morricone's music, the theme of worldly violence vs. Christian pacifism, and Jeremy Iron's heartfelt portrayal of a compassionate Jesuit missionary.

1985
Oscar's Pick - Out of Africa
Jeff's Pick - Witness
Harrison Ford is definitely more of a "star" than an "actor," but I truly believe he deserved the Oscar for his portrayal of Philadelphia cop John Book. Witness, which contrasts the violent corruption of the city with the pastoral simplicity of the Amish, is a true achievement of director Peter Weir. At its heart is the innocence of an Amish boy (superlatively portrayed by Lukas Haas) who witnesses a brutal homicide, but who is also a witness to the world-weary John Book that there is another way to look at life.

1984
Oscar's Pick - Amadeus
Jeff's Pick - Amadeus
Milos Forman's film, which tells the story of the rivalry between Mozart and Salieri, is a brilliant account of an artist (Mozart) yearning to break free from the restrictive maxims of his day that stifled his true creativity, and a portrait of another artist (Salieri) whose burning envy of that creativity literally drove him mad. F. Murray Abraham and Tom Hulce both give impeccable interpretations, and it is a historical drama of the highest order. Maurice Jarre, who won the Best Original Score Oscar for A Passage to India, should have been thankful that Amadeus' composer (Mozart himself) was ineligible to be nominated!

1983
Oscar's Pick - Terms of Endearment
Jeff's Pick - Tender Mercies
Like 1988, this was a year dominated by "small" films...but I think Terms of Endearment is a little too small. Tender Mercies features a performance by Robert Duvall, who is, in my opinion, one of the greatest film actors of all time. It's a serious story about one man's repentance and redemption, and it relies on genuine emotional drama to keep our attention (in contrast with Terms of Endearment, which relies on the overdone humor of Jack Nicholson).

1982
Oscar's Pick - Gandhi
Jeff's Pick - E. T.
I thought Gandhi was an honest, not-too-sentimental attempt to honor a true hero, and it certainly deserved highest honors. But in this case, I'm going with sentiment and picking one of the first films I remember seeing in the theater at age 9, with my brother Greg and my friend Jeff Poerstel. I'll always look at E. T. through the eyes of a 9-year-old, and I'm sorry...it was just a great film!

1981
Oscar's Pick - Chariots of Fire
Jeff's Pick - Chariots of Fire
Everybody thought that the Academy would stay true to its leftist politics and its penchant for awarding "big" films by giving the highest honor to Warren Beatty's Reds. What a refreshing surprise that they broke form and honored a truly great and inspiring film that uplifts Christian commitment, heroic optimism, and individual integrity...rather than a film that glorified collectivism and "revolution." My favorite line of the film: "My arrogance extends only as far as my conscience demands." Amen!

1980
Oscar's Pick - Ordinary People
Jeff's Pick - Ordinary People
This film does the same thing that American Beauty did 19 years later: it exposes the superficial facade that hides a deep alienation and spiritual emptiness among American suburbanites. But Ordinary People does it much better. The plot is less contrived, the characters more realistic, and the ultimate message less morbid. And as for the performances: Timothy Hutton as a confused and angry teen, Mary Tyler Moore as a repressed and superficial mother, and Judd Hirsch as the compassionate counselor... just great acting! Kudos to director Robert Redford for a great film!

Jeff's Oscars - The 90's

1999
Oscar's Pick - American Beauty
Jeff's Pick - The Insider
I enjoyed American Beauty mainly because of its open homage to other Oscar-winning films that I love, like The Apartment and Ordinary People. Its story and performances were a little overdone, in my opinion. The Insider, on the other hand, is an intense and complex story with a real issue of moral integrity, and it is executed flawlessly by director Michael Mann and actors Al Pacino and Russell Crowe. Again, Crowe should have one for this performance, not for Gladiator.

1998
Oscar's Pick - Shakespeare in Love
Jeff's Pick - The Thin Red Line
Terrence Malick is perhaps one of the most underrated directors in Hollywood, and I personally believe that The Thin Red Line is a masterpiece, both in its visual spectacle and its poignant script. Set during World War II, it contrasts the horror of modern warfare with the natural beauty of Guadalcanal and its native population. Even deeper, it allows the viewer to experience the internal conflicts and diverse perspectives of the American soldiers, most notably the character played by Jim Caviezel. A little slow-moving, yes, but well worth it!

1997
Oscar's Pick - Titanic
Jeff's Pick - L. A. Confidential
Oscar went with popular sentiment and voted for the "big" film, with 15 nominations and 11 wins. But seriously, L. A. Confidential stands with The Maltese Falcon, Double Indemnity, and Chinatown as one of the classics of film noir. Kim Basinger's win for supporting actress should have been met with, at the very least, nominations for Kevin Spacey, Russell Crowe, and Guy Pearce...all who deliver pristine performances as 1950's L. A. detectives. In my opinion, L. A. Confidential is the iceberg that should have sunk Titanic.

1996
Oscar's Pick - The English Patient
Jeff's Pick - Fargo
Again, the "big" film won. And what exactly was the point of The English Patient? I mean, other than it being a way-overdone love story? Ethan and Joel Coen made a great film in Fargo. Is it a thriller? A comedy? A crime drama? (Apparently it's even based on a real-life story). And the acting from Frances McDormand, William H. Macy, and Steve Buscemi was just plain fantastic. When The English Patient won, all I could do is sit in...total silence.

1995
Oscar's Pick - Braveheart
Jeff's Pick - Braveheart
Okay, so sometimes I think the "big" film should win, and this is one clear example. Gibson took a great script by Randall Wallace and then weaved in the scenery of Scotland, evocative music, fervid battle sequences, and earnest performances to perfectly express the emotional depth of that script. In the category of historical dramas, this film rates as one of the all-time best.

1994
Oscar's Pick - Forrest Gump
Jeff's Pick - The Shawshank Redemption
I had a tough time on this one, because I do love Forrest Gump and think it's a great film. But in this particular case, I have a bias towards any films that were made in a town where I lived, and Shawshank was made in Ashland, Ohio where I attended college and seminary. (The old prison still exists in nearby Mansfield). Plus, it's based on a favorite short story by Stephen King, and I think Morgan Freeman should have won Best Actor for this one.

1993
Oscar's Pick - Schindler's List
Jeff's Pick - Schindler's List
I think The Pianist is a better Holocaust drama (see my last post), but after years of being snubbed by the Academy for other great films (Jaws, E.T., and The Color Purple) they finally rewarded Spielberg's brilliance for this mature, passionate movie. The black-and-white adds atmosphere, John Williams' score sets a perfect tone, Ralph Fiennes is absolutely remarkable in revealing the psychology of a Nazi, and the last scene with the real "Schindler Jews" was a great sentimental touch.

1992
Oscar's Pick - Unforgiven
Jeff's Pick - Unforgiven
It's been a while since I saw this film, but I remember being impressed with how different it was from earlier Eastwood westerns. It seemed less about the violence (although there was quite a bit) and more about the reflective nature of Eastwood's character. Definitely not your typical western, but one thoroughly deserving of Oscar.

1991
Oscar's Pick - The Silence of the Lambs
Jeff's Pick - The Silence of the Lambs
If it's possible for a horror film to be psychologically deep and philosophically intelligent, this film does that and more. Anthony Hopkins and Jodie Foster deliver two of the best performance ever to grace the screen. Director Jonathan Demme uses ever frame of film to deliver symbolism and reinforce the bizarre nature of the plot. Every time I watch this film, I catch something I missed before.

1990
Oscar's Pick - Dances with Wolves
Jeff's Pick - Goodfellas
Yeah, I like Kevin Costner's film, but it was a little too "politically correct" for my taste. Martin Scorsese is a great director, and crime drama is his forte. This is one of the films he should have won the Oscar for (Taxi Driver is another), and not for The Departed.

Jeff's Oscars - the 2000's

I am a movie buff, and I have been following the Oscars for at least twenty years. Like all democratic votes, sometimes we agree with the results, and sometimes we don't. In my opinion, some years Oscar has gotten it right, and other years it really missed the boat. So for the next few posts, here are my picks for "Best Picture of the Year" and how they square up with the Academy's vote:

2008:

Oscar's Pick - Slumdog Millionaire

Jeff's Pick - The Dark Knight

Don't get me wrong...Slumdog is a great film. But The Dark Knight brought powerful performances, philosophical insight, incredible cinematography, emotional depth, and cultural relevance to the popular superhero story. And it wasn't even nominated for Best Picture! Shame on you, Academy!

2007:

Oscar's Pick - No Country for Old Men

Jeff's Pick - No Country for Old Men

Oscar got it right, even though it had some stiff competition from There Will Be Blood. For my thoughts on this particular movie, check out my post earlier on this blog.

2006:

Oscar's Pick - The Departed

Jeff's Pick - Pan's Labyrinth

The Academy went sentimental and gave overdue kudos to veteran Martin Scorsese as an apology for overlooking his brilliant work in Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Goodfellas, Gangs of new York, and The Aviator. However, choosing not on sentiment but actual cinematic achievement, I think they should have picked the (again, not even nominated) Pan's Labyrinth, an aesthetically brilliant and emotionally touching fantasy by Mexican filmmaker Guillermo del Toro.

2005:

Oscar's Pick - Crash

Jeff's Pick - Crash

A brilliant script, fueled by intense performance (many of which deserved to be nominated), and addressing a very sensitive topic of racism with honesty, integrity, and even humor...I literally cheered when Jack Nicholson read the envelope!

2004:

Oscar's Pick - Million Dollar Baby

Jeff's Pick - Hotel Rwanda

Okay, Clint Eastwood is a great director, and Million Dollar Baby was a good movie. But yet again, the Academy didn't even nominate Hotel Rwanda, which was a movie bigger in scope and a much more profound message. Don Cheadle and Sophie Okenado give amazing performances.

2003:

Oscar's Pick - Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

Jeff's Pick - Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

Peter Jackson did as good a job as anyone could in bringing Tolkien's masterpiece to the screen. It's just a brilliant film.

2002:

Oscar's Pick - Chicago

Jeff's Pick - The Pianist

I don't think Chicago can hold a candle to some of the great film musicals of the past, some of which did not win Best Picture. Now, don't get me wrong: I have no personal respect at all for Roman Polanski and think he should stay in prison. But hell, he's made some great films (Rosemary's Baby and Chinatown, just to name two favorites). And The Pianist deals with the Holocaust in an honest, artistically humble, and historically precise way...rather than overtly sentimentalizing it like Spielberg did in Schindler's List. It is truly a masterpiece by a great director.

2001:

Oscar's Pick - A Beautiful Mind

Jeff's Pick - Gosford Park

I enjoyed A Beautiful Mind and think Russell Crowe deserved to win the Oscar for this performance, rather than for his bravado turn in Gladiator. But for my mind, Gosford Park combines a lucid theme, an incredible ensemble cast, a profound script, and magnificent artistry...all brought together by the beautiful mind of a humble but powerful director: Robert Altman. A favorite to watch with my wife!

2000:

Oscar's Pick - Gladiator

Jeff's Pick - Traffic

Gladiator was a visual spectacle...and a testosterone-packed guy film...and that's about the extent of it. Traffic probes the reality of drug trafficking and its effect on all segments of American society, and it is a sobering critique of the superficial means often used to address it (and other deep problems). It features another incredible ensemble cast, including riveting performances by Michael Douglas, Benicio Del Toro, and Catherine Zeta-Jones.

More to come...

Inklings and Emergents

I have made no apology about my obsession with The Inklings, whose writings have shaped my thinking more than any others (except--hopefully--for the Bible). I also attempt to keep up on what is current in Christian thinking and practice, not because I'm particularly interested in being "relevant" or "with it" but because we must follow Christ's command to read the signs of the times. For that reason, I also am interested in listening to the leaders of the Emerging Church like Brian McClaren, Dan Kimball, Spencer Burke, and Tony Jones.

I recently brought these two stands of thought together and came up with a remarkable observation: the two groups of Christian thinkers have some interesting commonalities, as well as some telling divergences.

Here's what I think:

COMMONALITIES:

1 - Both groups regarded themselves as an "informal conversation" rather than a formal, structured church ministry. Their conversation generally occurred outside the framework of institutional religion - in fact, more often than not, it occurs in pubs with pints of beer in abundance.

2 - Both groups are "trans-denominational," drawing from all backgrounds and theological perspectives.

3 - Both groups were critical of modern rationalism which confines all truth to scientific categories and all religious belief into a shallow, respectable "churchianity."

4 - Likewise, both groups were critical of the modernist view of God (almost Deism) and sought to reclaim the free, wild, sovereign Christ who shatters all of our pretentions and dares us to follow Him.

5 - Both groups prefered to use the arts (rather than systematic treatises) to communicate the Christian faith, seeking to engage the "intuitive imagination" (rather than just reason) of their audiences.

6 - Both groups had severe criticism for the institutional churches of their age for being more interested in self-preservation than in communicating Christian truth to people in contemporary language and in practical ways.

7 - Interestingly (but perhaps superficially), both groups were composed of white males. This is not a criticism of either group. It does, however, point to an irony in the Emergent movement, a movement which claims to represent a more diverse Christianity than that of the modern church.

DIVERGENCES:

1 - While the Inklings were made up almost exclusively of laymen, most of the Emerging Christians are either pastors or have served in some official capacity in a local church.

2 - The Inklings may have been deeply critical of the open heresy and sin in various Christian communions, but they were entirely supportive of (and indeed, loved) The Church as an institutional reality. On the contrary, most Emerging Christians are (at the very least) critical of The Church as an institutional reality, some of them opting to leave the church entirely. They stress the relational aspect of the Gospel almost to the point that they believe that the Institution is more of a hindrance than a means of furthering the relationship.

3 - The Inklings believed that their role was to bring the Church back to its basic faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and to fight against a watered-down, relativistic gospel that seemed prevalent in many denominations. Emergents, on the other hand, seem to believe that their role is to bring the Church into a greater engagement with American Culture, even as they present a very watered-down, relativistic gospel...even to the point of denying the exclusivity of Jesus Christ or His substitutionary atonement on the Cross.

4 - The Inklings followed the wisdom of the ancient and medievals writers who believed that, while our knowledge may not be 100% perfect, our minds are capable of reasoning, making judgments, and knowing the difference between truth and falsehood, right and wrong. Conversely, Emergent Christians are deeply suspicious of any truth claims and seem offended by any inference that a person must choose either/or.

5 - The Inklings, by and large, held a high view of the Bible and of the historic confessions of the Church. For them, these are not "living documents" to be updated in different cultural realities, but truth statements that confront all cultures and challenge people to repent and believe. Obviously, the Emergents have a much more watered-down view of Scripture and the Creeds, believing that nothing in Scripture is above culture. Therefore, cultural realities become the standard by which to interpret Scripture and the Creeds (rather than the other way around).

Well, that's what I think. What do you think?

Blessed Are the "Peace-talkers?"

President Barack Obama has been rewarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.

Interestingly, the deadline for nominations for the prize was February 1, less than two weeks after Obama took the Oath of Office. Before becoming President, Obama's major accomplishments were serving as a "community organizer" alongside corrupt Chicago politicians, voting "present" for a majority of Senate roll calls, and authoring two memoirs glorifying his own personal history and experience.

So apparently in less than two weeks as an actual national leader, "somebody" felt he had accomplished enough to merit being placed alongside the likes of Theodore Roosevelt, Martin Luther King Jr., and Mother Teresa. (On the other hand, more recent Nobel Peace Prize winners include Al Gore and Jimmy Carter; apparently their standards have gone down considerably in recent years.)

Here is the reasoning behind the decision to award Obama:

Rather than recognizing concrete achievement, the 2009 prize appeared intended to support initiatives that have yet to bear fruit: reducing the world stock of nuclear arms, easing American conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthening the U.S. role in combating climate change.
"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future," Thorbjoern Jagland, chairman of the Nobel Committee said. "In the past year Obama has been a key person for important initiatives in the U.N. for nuclear disarmament and to set a completely new agenda for the Muslim world and East-West relations."
He added that the committee endorsed "Obama's appeal that 'Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.'" - KARL RITTER and MATT MOORE, Associated Press Writers

Translation: "We do not recognize that Obama has achieved anything for the cause of peace. But, he himself is a 'symbol for peace' and he talks about peace an awful lot. By the way, we endorse his politics (and you can shove that up your you-know-what, George W. Bush!)."

If being a symbol of peace, and talking about peace an awful lot, and "capturing the world's attention" is enough to win the Nobel Peace Prize, why not give it to actor Ben Kingsley for his riveting portrayal of Gandhi? Or better yet, why not give it to David Letterman, who finally humbled himself enough to apologize to (and thereby make peace with) Sarah Palin?

Only history can judge if Obama's national and international political tactics will achieve a lasting peace. People are simply unable to view their own times objectively, and they are not able to fully grasp all the consequences of their ideas, decisions and actions. Simply speaking the language of peace means, in the long run, very little.

For example, in the 1930's, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain adhered to an international politics similar to Obama's - to meet hostile forces without preconditions, to apologize for his own nation's actions, and to seek compromise or agreement wherever possible. None of this did anything to deter the aggression of Nazi Germany or prevent World War II. Can we honestly call Chamberlain a "peace-maker?"

On the other hand, the 70-year-long Cold War was effectively ended, at least in part, due to three individuals: Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and Pope John Paul II. All three of them took a hard line stance against Soviet Communism, refused to apologize at all for their own positions, and (in the case of Reagan and Thatcher) strengthened their countries militarily in order to go to war if necessary. The result? The Communist bully backed down, the Soviet Union collapsed, the Berlin Wall was dismantled, and Western ideas such as freedom, justice, and Christianity are now openly proclaimed among the former Soviet peoples.

Jesus said "Blessed are the peace makers" - i.e., people whose concrete actions (of whatever sort) actually bring about peace in the world. (And as he said somewhere else, "The tree is known by its fruit" - i.e., not by its good intentions.)

On the other hand, the prophet Jeremiah criticizes people who "dress the wound of my people as though it were not serious. 'Peace, peace,' they say, when there is no peace."

And the Apostle Paul warns, "While people are saying, 'Peace and safety,' destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape."

All due respect to the Office of the President...but in my humble opinion, Barack Obama most certainly does not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, and his receiving it is an insult to all true peace-makers.

Then again, maybe I'm making too much of nothing. After all, past nominees for the Nobel Peace Prize include Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini, and yes, even Adolf Hitler. Maybe it's not the honor everybody thinks it is.

Wise Words from a Pretty Boy

First of all, a point of clarification: I am not the "pretty boy" referenced in the title of this post. I use that title to describe a young Hollywood actor, Chace Crawford, recently voted "Hottest Bachelor" by People magazine. His wise words, which I will quote later in this post, are an oasis of rationality in the inchoate worldview propounded by the cultural elite (include Hollywood, which makes his words all the more oasis-like).

In a nutshell, for several decades (perhaps much longer) Western culture has posed doubt to be the summum bonum of life. Our current cultural quest, it seems, is to rid our minds and hearts of any attachment to "absolute truths" as foundational to existence. This is the ultimate end of Western "individualism" - ridding our lives of any external, transcendant standards so that each individual may "define his or herself" however he or she wants, without any risk of accountability or judgment.

This can be seen in two current postmodern philosophies. Neo-pragmatism avers that the only standard of value in life is "what works for me." Deconstructionism propounds the meaning-laden theory that nothing means anything, so I can make anything mean whatever I want.

This is seen also in international politics, in which our current President seems utterly unwilling to take a clear moral stance towards the evil regimes in the Middle East, but only expresses his doubt about American goodness. In fact, it seems that any sense of absolute morality has been ejected from political discourse.

Hollywood recently put forth two films that explicitly address this topic.

The film Doubt, featuring riveting performances by its four cast members, superficially deals with a case of child-molestation by a Catholic priest. But the deeper issue in the film is the utter inability of people to have absolute certainty about anything. An older nun (superlatively portrayed by Meryl Streep) is the only character in the film who displays a sense of firm conviction about her faith; yet the climax of the movie comes when she despairingly cries, "I have such doubts!"

Religulous is comedian Bill Maher's satirical attempt to poke holes in the very notion of religion itself. In the film, he interacts with individuals who represent only the most absurd elements of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and other faiths. He does all of this to prove that religion is pointless, that those who endorse it are ignorant rubes, and that it is much better to live in perpetual doubt.

Sadly, this attitude is infecting the Church as well, with "Jesus Seminar" followers destroying the credibility of Scripture and with some (though not all) Emergent Christians expressing disdain for orthodox Christian teachings or for the exclusivity of Christ as the unique Savior of humankind. I still haven't decided whether these phenomena are the result of Christians' prideful unwillingness to submit to the authority of God's revelation, or the result of Christians' sad proclivity for desiring to be "with it" even more than they desire to be "with God."

In any case, it's my opinion that the following simple quote from pretty boy Chace Crawford ought to be seen as prophetic to all disciples of Jesus Christ:

Doubt your doubts before you doubt your beliefs.

I called the quote simple but it is, in fact, quite profound. Think of it this way: When you are confronted with a proposition that claims to be an absolute truth, and your initial reaction is to doubt that truth, today's culture would say that you should go with your doubt not just about that particular absolute but about all absolutes.

Chace Crawford's words give us a different piece of advice. When we doubt a proposition that claims to be absolute, we should first ask ourselves why do we doubt it? Is it because we have thought carefully about the questions raised by the proposition, and have we looked at it logically? Or is it because there is something deep within us that doesn't want to acknowledge its truth?

If we reject a truth claim, is it because we have found a more logical proposition to answer the questions is raises? Or does the proposition so unsettle us that we'd rather dismiss it than deal honestly with its claims?

The ancient and medieval philosophers put it this way: We should not seek to conform the truth to my own mind and soul; rather, we should seek to conform my own mind and soul to the Truth. It is objective truth that critiques me, not I who critiques objective truth. When I am confronted with a proposition that claims to be absolute, like 2 + 2 = 4, I have only two options: I can conform my mind to that truth and accept it, or I can live in rebellion against its reality. There is no middle ground.

We Christians--indeed, all human beings--have been seeking to find middle ground in matters of faith for too long. In reality, we have only two options: we can doubt the Christian faith and reject it (as much of our culture is doing), or we can follow Chace Crawford's advice to doubt our doubts, and live boldly (not apologetically) in the truth of the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Behind Every Great Man...

Everyone knows how much I rave about C. S. Lewis, whose writings have influenced my Christian walk more than any others outside the Bible. There is, however, that old saying that "behind every great man is a great woman." This is especially true in the case of C. S. Lewis.

Although a bachelor for most of his life, in the mid-1950's he married Helen Joy Davidman. Born a Jew in New York City and living as an atheist for much of her younger life, she was - like Lewis - an adult convert to Christianity. Joy was a scholar and artist in her own right; she published a renowned book of poetry (Letters to a Comrade), a novel (Anya), and a lucid interpretation on the Ten Commandments (Smoke on the Mountain). She was honored, along with Robert Frost, with a national poetry award.

Since her writings are not well known, I would like to offer just a few quotes from her book Smoke on the Mountain. Although published 55 years ago, it has much to say to a fragmented church and disillusioned world today. (Please notice that she wrote these things a half-century before the pompous Emergent Christians suddenly claimed to have "discovered" them.)

On Idolatry: An idol is an inanimate object that can do no harm...So is a gun. But a man can do great harm with it. Idolatry lies not in the idol but in the worshiper. The real horror of idols is not merely that they give us nothing, but that they take away from us even that which we have...The more we look to material objects for help, the less we can help ourselves or ask help from the grace of God.

On the Name of God: The necessary corollary of the Third Commandment must be: Thou shalt take the name of the Lord thy God in earnest! We who have used the Name for unhallowed ends, from necromancy down to getting our own way in a family quarrel; we who have misused the power God put in flesh and coal, in wood and waterfalls, in solid matter and in empty space; we who have called upon God to bolster up our own vanity, or have NOT called upon Him to deliver us from prejudice -- we are all black magicians, and like Elymas the sorcerer, we have been struck blind for our sins and now grope in mist and darkness. Habitually, day after day, we have taken God's name in vain. Let us, if we can, teach ourselves to take it in earnest. It is high time.

On Sabbath-Keeping: Most of the ordinary people who lose their faith are not overthrown by philosophical argument; they lose faith because they are disillusioned by the churchmen they meet. One sanctimonious hypocrite makes a hundred unbelievers. One little knot of gossips tearing a neighbor's reputation apart on the church steps smashes the Sabbath to splinters. If we are to put it together again, we must be Christians indeed -- must show the rest of the world that a Christian gets something worth having out of his worship. It is not much use asking others to turn to God unless we set them the example. Let the church members behave like Christians seven days a week, and it is likely that the Sabbath will take care of itself. For how do you make a day holy? By seeing that it is holy already; and behaving accordingly.

And perhaps the most relevant to our current economic crisis, here is what Helen Joy Davidman has to say about stealing: The mother who teacher her child to slide under the subway turnstile rather than pay his dime; the athlete who sells his skill to the highest bidder; the rich man who wins applause through benevolent foundations that just happen to be tax-free, and the poor man who feels more comfortable with government support than with a job; the bribed policeman and the bribing bookie, the bribed judge and the bribing gangster, the bribed Congressman and the bribing industrialist -- are they getting something for nothing or aren't they? And who pays the bill? And what would Christ have called them? And anyone who promised to cure the ills of our time with easy hopes and facile solutions would be the most heartless of all.

Thank God for thoughtful, faithful women like Helen Joy Davidman, whose witness and leadership have spoken prophetically to the church and the world. May we heed her sound words and example!

Imbibing God

New Year's Eve is almost upon us.

It's 2009! An opportunity for new resolutions, a chance to start over, an occasion to set our sights on the future. Right?

Bullshit.

As it currently exists, New Year's Eve is a commercialized, pagan spectacle that affords a rationalization for indulging in base passions like drunkenness and self-indulgent partying. Watch "Dick Clark's Rockin' New Year" (or whatever it's called) and tell me if it is anything more than an expensive, glamorized frat party in Times Square.

Do I sound judgmental? I'm not intending to be.

In fact, I'm trying to interpret this merry-making in some kind of redemptive way. There is obviously some deep need in the human psyche that people are trying to fill with all of this hedonism that exists, not just on New Years' Eve, but all the time in our culture. Are people merely trying to escape the harsh reality of life? Or are they seeking some legitimate pleasure, only through the wrong means?

Once again, I turn to my master C. S. Lewis, and I find this in his "golden sermon," The Weight of Glory:

Nature is mortal; we shall outlive her...We are summoned to pass in through Nature, beyond her, into that splendour which she fitfully reflects. And in there, beyond Nature, we shall eat of the tree of life. At present, if we are reborn in Christ, the spirit in us lives directly on God; but the mind and, still more, the body receives the life from Him at a thousand removes. The faint, far-off results of those energies which God's creative rapture implanted in matter when He made the worlds are now what we call "physical pleasures;" and even thus filtered, they are too much for our present management. What would it be to taste at the fountainhead that stream of which even these lower reaches prove so intoxicating? Yet that, I believe, is what lies before us. The whole man is to drink joy from the fountain of joy. As St. Augustine said, the rapture of the saved soul will "flow over" into the glorified body.

If Lewis is right, and I believe he is, then every physical pleasure in which we now indulge ourselves, even the basest of them, is in some sense a shadow of what we are to experience in Heaven. The medieval saints were wrong in supposing that Heaven is nothing more than a "beatific vision": a detatched, objective gaze at God's essence for all eternity. For Lewis tells us that in Heaven, we will consume God, and be consumed by Him (though without losing our own identities), in the same way (though a million times greater) that people consume and are consumed by the hedonistic pleasures of this life. The merriment of alcohol, the physical joy of dancing and singing, the passionate glory of the sexual act...all of these, in some odd way, point beyond themselves when they are understood and enjoyed correctly. They are hints of a rapturous ecstasy that, God willing, we will one day experience for all eternity.

Our culture sends way too many messages of the pleasures of alcohol, partying, and sex. When people get "taken in" by those messages and indulge those pleasures, we often accuse them of having desires that are too strong. But we are wrong. Their desires are not too strong...they are too weak. They are desiring the shadows, the idols, rather than the Reality...much like a child who would rather remain playing in his sandbox than enjoy a vacation at the beach.

If "Dick Clark's Rockin' New Year" (or whatever it's called) is merely a shadow of the joy and ecstasy that Heaven affords, then I hope and pray that I will live life knowing that even "our present sufferings are not worth comparing to the glory that will be revealed to us" (Romans 8:18).

May we all "imbibe God" through Word, Sacrament, and Obedience in this life, knowing that He is the Consuming Fire who will intoxicate us for all eternity.

Let's Talk About Sex, Baby...

Below is another answer that I submitted in my ordination paper, regarding the church's position on human sexuality.

If you want to hear an incredible talk on the Christian teaching of sexuality, go to the following link-- http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/24_sex-in-heaven.htm -- and listen to the thoughts of masterful Christian apologist Peter Kreeft. It's worth the time!

Anyway, here's my own writing on the subject:

Articulate the Evangelical Covenant Church’s position on human sexuality. How does this inform your theology and practice of ministry?

In its stand on human sexuality, the ECC avoids two notions. The first is that the Bible calls for repression of the human sexual drive, that sex is (at worst) the product and proof of original sin or (at best) a necessary evil that is to be indulged only for reproductive purposes. The second notion posits no standards or limits on human sexuality, asserting that individuals alone must decide how to indulge their sexual appetites and that any Biblical injunctions on the subject are archaic, irrelevant, and inconsistent with human freedom.


In contrast to these false visions of sex, the ECC upholds the Biblical teaching that human sexuality is good—in fact, that sexuality is intimately tied to our identities as embodied persons—but that God has ordained a specific covenantal relationship to express human sexuality in a way that reflects His nature as an intimately loving, self-giving Being. That covenantal relationship exists when a specific man and specific woman come together as complementary partners and are united as “one flesh” under God. In this context alone, sex may be expressed in a godly fashion. Outside of that context, an individual must be willing to live a chaste life. Corrupted forms of sexuality are characterized either by the desire to dominate another (rape, molestation, pedophilia) or by a confused understanding of one’s own identity as a person (homosexuality, bestiality, adultery, incest). These perversions do not reflect God’s standards as laid out in both the Old and New Testaments.


Our culture’s current obsession with sex is, in my opinion, a cry of bitter and lonely people longing for intimacy. The way teens (and even adults) dress and treat their own bodies reveals their inability to respect themselves as individuals created in God’s Image. The church must expose these deeper issues and allow struggling individuals to express them in non-sexual ways, such as intimate worship experiences, healing prayer, spiritual direction, and even just authentic friendship. Spiritually mature individuals must model masculinity and femininity in a godly way for others. All Christian leaders must hold fast to God’s standards for sex, both in their teaching and in their personal lives, in order to maintain the integrity of the Church’s witness in the face of our culture’s rebellion and confusion.

"The Dundees" - ("The Office" as Ecclesiastical Allegory, take two)

Introductory note:

In my previous post, I attempted to take a humorous jab at the "corporate" situation of the Church by comparing it to the screwball antics of Steve Carell and his cohorts on The Office. Certainly recognizing that there is much good in the institutional church, my intent was to illustrate that all too often, "institution" (the lifeless corporation) becomes prioritized instead of "church" (the living, dynamic, relational, Spirit-led Body of believers).

The Church needs some level of institutional framework in which to function effectively. I acknowledge this. But here's my problem. The institutional framework should be flexible and secondary, and its purpose should be to serve the living, dynamic mission of the Gospel which is primary. (This is the reality that is illustrated in the New Testament, especially in Acts). In the current situation of many denominations we see exactly the opposite happening: The institutional framework is rigid and primary, and the living, dynamic mission of the Gospel is now seen as flexible and made subservient to the ends of the institution. This is not merely bad ecclesiology...it is contrary to God's will for His people and, therefore, sinful.

-------

Now, back to The Office: In one of Michael Scott's (Steve Carell's) many attempts to revitalize the spirit of his underlings, he hosts a yearly award party called "The Dundees." These are awards given to various office staff in dubious categories such as "the longest engagement," "the hottest guy in the office," etc... Here are some "Dundees" that I would give out to people in the Church:

The "Dwight K. Schrutte Award" - Also known as The Assistant (to the) Regional Manager Award - This award goes out to those folks in our congregations who are nice to the Senior Pastor only because of the power they think will come along with the relationship. I'm sure we all have a few people like this who try to snicker up to us, who are undyingly loyal to us and constant "yes-men" (or "yes-women"), but only for the purpose of having a sense of their own power in the church. They are the Jameses and the Johns, who want to sit at Jesus' right and left in committee meetings so they can be seen with the pastor, but who have no desire to truly serve others and meet others' needs in a meaningful way. Plus, they're annoying as hell.

The "Pam Beasley Award" - Pam, the self-effacing secretary at Dunder-Mifflin, who constantly puts on the back-burner her true desire to go into graphic design and art. She's a gem of a person whose artistic talent could probably help Dunder-Mifflin's advertising department immensely, but who is never encouraged to pursue those gifts. This award goes to all those like her in the church who have oodles of modesty, whose "insignificant" work probably goes unnoticed 99% of the time, but who have gifts and talents that are totally underutilized. Perhaps those gifts were never encouraged, because we pastors are too focused on having our own gifts affirmed and we don't stop to look deeper at the hidden gifts of others. So this award goes to all those folks in the congregation who would probably bring new life, creativity, and vitality to our churches, if only we would recognize them and give them a chance.

The "Angela Award" - The anal, judgmental, hypocritical accountant at Dunder-Mifflin. This award goes to all those "church people" whose sole aspiration in life is to feel absolutely morally superior to everyone else, to hide their own faults with ruthless intensity, and to constantly find something wrong with everyone and everything. I know every church has them. I praise God for them. I also think he needs to miraculously remove the sticks from their rear-ends.

The "Jim Halpert Award" - Of all the characters in The Office, I identify with Jim the most: he's sardonic, cynical, and he sees with crystal clarity the failings of Dunder-Mifflin, but he sticks with it because he sees something beautiful there (Pam) that he just can't let go of. Perhaps I'm being a bit prideful in assuming that I'm like Jim. Perhaps I'm more like Angela, Dwight, or even (God forbdid) Michael Scott. That's for God and other people to judge, not for me. I just identify with Jim. I'm sardonic, cynical, and I see with crystal clarity the many inconsistencies and failings of the Church (including my own inconsistencies and failings). But in that Church I see something beautiful that I just can't let go of. I see my wife who reminds me daily of God's unconditional love. I see people like the Inklings, whose Christ-formed minds have made me ever passionate for truth and dialogue. I see saints who have mentored me and guided me through many of my struggles and who were faithful even when I was not. I see the story of Scripture which resonates in my mind and heart with deep truth and wisdom. And more clearly than any of these, I see Jesus Christ, Whose nail-pierced hands beckon me to come and pick up my cross and follow Him.

I pray that you all will stick with this frail corporation we call "The Church," and that you will cling to one promise: that we who have faith in Christ will do even greater things than He did. That's what He said....

"The Office" as an Ecclesiastical Allegory

My wife and I have become addicted to the NBC hit show The Office. I admit, it took both of us a little while to figure out what everyone found so funny, but once we did we couldn't get enough of it. The new season just kicked off this past Thursday, and we can't wait to see the antics that unfold.

Like many in the Christian fold, I diligently try to be an able exegete of the cultural realities around us (although, I must admit humbly that I fall short when compared with Eric Park. http://www.chcumc.com/weblog/eric/ Read his post on Prince, especially the last hilarious paragraph. But I digress...)

Anyway, lately I've been noticing some pretty interesting parallels between the situation in The Office and the situation in much of the Christian Church today. I'm sure that some of what I write will come off as offensive, but I ask you to take my comments, not as an attempt to degrade the Church and those who work in it (since I'm one of them), but as a voice of deep love for it and a concern for its future. Here are some allegorized interpretations of some aspects of The Office:

DUNDER-MIFFLIN: A New York-based paper company whose best days are in the past. It has branch offices in Scranton and elsewhere, and does try diligently to add personal service in providing individuals and businesses with its product. However, it is dealing two new realities: First, most people are buying paper at mega-marts like Staples and OfficeMax because it is cheaper and because Staples and OfficeMax offer a smorgasbord of alternatives; second, paper is less in demand than it was in the past, because computers and other technology have rendered paper usage largely obsolete in areas where it was once a necessary commodity.

Does this sound a little bit like the American Church? Are we dealing with the reality that many people no longer want our product (our Message)? Or how about the reality that "successful" churches are those "mega-Churches" which are able to offer the Message at a "cheaper price" (i.e. less is demanded in terms of real discipleship)?

"CORPORATE": On the TV series, we rarely see the true executives of Dunder-Mifflin (known as "Corporate" by the characters), and their positions seem to have little effect on the day-to-day business of the Scranton branch. Their current vision for the company seems to be one of "status-quo maintenance" - keep marketing our product the way we always have, downsize and make cuts wherever we can, be the authority figures that we are. But nowhere do we see them attempting to think creatively about adapting to the new reality described above, no vision for new marketing strategies or even changing their product to meet new needs. Just holding onto the status quo and maintain the corporation...even as sales go down and less money comes in, even if we are no longer providing a meaningful service to the public.

How about many churches today? Do we see executive leadership engaged in a "maintenance mentality" when they should be challenging pastors and lay ministers to engage creatively in new types of ministry and in presenting the Gospel in different ways? Has the "corporation" of church become the highest value, even when declining numbers is evidence that its current structure may not be the most effective way to provide meaningful service to the world? When the Church in other parts of the world is growing, evangelizing, Spirit-driven and Christ-centered, has the American Church become so infected with a "corporate" mentality that it has little power to think outside the box and engage the new culture in a meaningful way?

"MICHAEL SCOTT" - The regional manager for the Scranton branch of Dunder-Mifflin (flawlessly portrayed by Steve Carrell). As a salesman, Michael was one of Dunder-Mifflin's best; he was truly gifted to connect with people and successfully market the product. But for reasons unknown, Corporate promoted him to his current administrative position for which he has no skills or passion. As an administrator he does not hold the employees accountable to high standards of productivity and performance; instead he throws parties to boost their spirits and create and atmosphere of "camaraderie" (which fail miserably most of the time). He hates making unpopular decisions or taking a stand on anything which might offend someone. In his administrative incompetence and failed attempts to be "popular" with his staff, however, he is unwittingly even more offensive.

When we're really honest, I think we can admit that at both the local and denominational levels, there are many people in administrative positions who should not be there. These men and women are surely gifted in many ways, as all believers are, but as individuals called upon to provide visionary leadership for the Body they are failing. They seem more interested in keeping everyone happy and creating an atmosphere of "camaraderie," when what might be called for is real prophetic provocation which (while offensive) might be just the thing to stir the ashes and create a fresh blaze. This is especially necessary in theological areas, where so many Church administrators are failing to take a stand on basic biblical issues for fear that they may offend someone. But it is also necessary in the area of church commitment and discipleship, in which we allow people to get away with the "bare mininum" in terms of their active participation, rather than making it clear that Christianity is not, so to speak, a "spectator sport."

Let me just reiterate what I wrote above: I make these observations not with the purpose of being offensive, but with a deep love and concern for where the Church of Jesus Christ is and where it is headed. When I look at this "ecclesiastical allegory" of The Office, it is a mirror in which I see myself as much as anyone else.

I think I will put the rest of my observations in a sequel post, because for right now, this thing has gotten long enough. (Don't say it, Michael...)

"What I've Done" - Sin and Responsibility

Recently, the youth praise band here at BUMC introduced me to a song by Linkin Park entitled What I've Done. It's a single from their latest studio album, Minutes to Midnight, which was released exactly one year ago. That I am just now introduced to it reveals the sad truth that I am at least one year "behind the times" when it comes to much of popular culture. On the other hand, considering that I'm a child of the '80's, I guess I'm doing pretty well.

The music itself is an interesting mix of a hauntingly repetitive piano motif, juxtaposed with very raw-sounding electric guitars and percussion. But what caught me was the lyrics:

In this farewell
There’s no blood
There’s no alibi
‘Cause I’ve drawn regret
From the truth
Of a thousand lies

So let mercy come
And wash away
What I’ve done

I'll face myself
To cross out what I’ve become
Erase myself
And let go of what I’ve done

Put to rest
What you thought of me
While I clean this slate
With the hands of uncertainty

So let mercy come
And wash away
What I’ve done

I'll face myself
To cross out what I’ve become
Erase myself
And let go of what I’ve done

For what I’ve done
I start again
And whatever pain may come
Today this ends
I’m forgiving what I’ve done!!!

What I’ve done
Forgiving what I’ve done

If you preview the video on YouTube, you'll see that these words and music are intermingled with incredible visual images revealing the reality of sin in our world: drug abuse, war, terrorism, racism, pollution and environmental destruction, materialism, evil dictatorships, and nuclear destruction. Clearly, all of these images point to the consequences of our fallen human nature and our rebellion against the sovereign Lord of the Universe.

The typically modern view of sin (if sin is acknowledged at all) is that it is something out there, in the world, in society. We humans are essentially good, modernity taught us, and that the evil in the world is all of these external evils such as war, poverty, ignorance, etc... Sin can be overcome merely be combating these external evils and removing them from the earth, so that we humans can thrive with our natural goodness. In general, modernity tended to shy away from the "dark side" of human nature, believing that we are all in a natural process towards progress. Human reason and motivation are infallible and good, and they alone can save us.

This is certainly not the vision of What I've Done.

While the video depicts all of the external evils rightly abhored by modernity, the lyrics go to the heart of the issue by focusing on what I've done. The lyricist/singer has no illusions about his own essential goodness, or the purity of his motives. He takes full responsibility by acknowledging his own sinful actions, and he hints that mercy must come to him from somewhere outside himself in order that those sinful actions can be fully washed away. While he does declare presumptuously that he will forgive himself, he acknowledges that starting again and forgiving himself must come at the cost of great pain.

Authors such as Hugo A. Meynell and Robert Webber aver that modernity's naivete towards human evil has gone out of fashion among the postmodern generations. Contemporary people, especially the young, are not only more willing to talk about the evils inherent in life, but they are also willing to deal honestly with evil's manifestations in their own minds, hearts, and actions. "The power of positive thinking" and the "cult of self-esteem" has given way to a more realistic assessment of the individual person who, while having clear aspirations to the true and good, acknowledges the limits (even the corruption) of his own reason and volition.

The song What I've Done illustrates a significant scriptural truth, that the individual must fully deal with the log in his or her own eye, in order to see clearly and then deal with the speck that is in our neighbor's eye. It also suggests that our culture today is much more open to hearing a biblical view of individual sin and responsibility - a view which much of the church has failed to proclaim in our world.

Too few Christians are hearing from the pulpits a Word-informed anthropology which stresses the full weight of what we've done as individuals. We are rebels against a holy and righteous God, and we constantly set up false idols to fill the absence of His presence. Certainly, the world beyond the church is not hearing this truth. As it is, we are not giving people a true reason for being Christians in the first place: to receive God's incredible forgiveness and justification in Jesus Christ, to have our sins washed away in sanctification, and to live in the reality of His grace and mercy.

Clearly, Linkin Park (and obviously much of their fans) understand the need to face themselves honestly, to have mercy come to them, to have their sins washed away and the slate wiped clean, and to feel the joy of forgiveness. It's about time that we proclaim the whole Gospel without fear of offending others, so that those inside and outside the Church can be convicted of their sin and thereby return to the One who bore the pain of our forgiveness and Who accepts all of us in spite of what we've done.

How Great Thou ART

Jeff Vanderhoff's remarks in my last post (see below, "No Country for Jeff") have led me to reflect on movies as an art form. As is typical with nerds like me, I ended up pondering an even more philosophical question: What is art? And what is its purpose in our lives?

As Vanderhoff commented in my last post, he would much rather watch a good comedy that gives him a little escape from life, rather than a heavy movie like No Country for Old Men which seems to confuse and frustrate more than clarify and edify.

So what is the purpose of art? Why should we watch movies, listen to music, read books, attend plays? Is it to be entertained? To be instructed? Or to just escape from the "real world" for a while?

In general, I believe there are three views of the purpose of the arts in human existence. I know that we all can come up with many specific reasons for liking specific pieces of art, but what I'm listing are just broad categories about the arts in general.

First, there's the view that art is essentially a "handmaid of religion" - that the purpose of art is almost exclusively for religious expression, worship, and for giving glory and honor to God. In other words, art is justified by its faithfulness in representing religious truth. Simple totem poles, ceremonial dances, and mythical stories in the pre-Christian religions. Gothic cathedrals, passion plays and Gregorian chants of the Middle Ages. Even much of the contemporary Christian music business today. All of those would be examples of this first philosophy of art.

Secondly, there's the view that, fundamentally, the purpose of art is to entertain...that art exists for the sake of the audience. The justification of art is, therefore, its ability to reach people subjectively. In this view, what is being said/portrayed is much less important than how it is being said/portrayed. Most of popular music/literature/art falls into this category, although there are excellent exceptions (U2, The Beatles, etc...). Take pop music for example: most of what is actually communicated is trivial, pedantic, and vulgar, yet it is presented with such fanfare and sensationalism that the audience is simply taken up in the experience of the "show."

Finally, there is the philosophy that art is the concretization of the artist's fundamental views of life: that in the specific media of music, painting, literature, etc..., the artist is communicating a basic understanding of human existence, inviting the audience to enter into that understanding, perceive, and enjoy. In this view, the audience can not sit passively and expect pure entertainment. They must engage the work of art with their mind and heart and, in doing so, attempt to discover the major themes that are actually being communicated.

Take two of my favorite films: Hugh Hudson's Chariots of Fire and David Fincher's Seven. In my opinion, each film presents a certain view about the nature of humanity. Chariots of Fire presents humans as having all the potential to be heroic, to live with integrity, to maintain their core beliefs even in the face of opposition, and ultimately to achieve great success. Seven, on the other hand, presents human life as being hopelessly depraved, in which even those with the best intentions are doomed to either failure, cynicism, or despair. Both films use their stories, characterizations, and cinematography flawlessly to present these views. Neither film is "entertainment for its own sake;" but each, in my opinion, is brilliant in what it seeks to achieve.

In Genesis we are told that God is a Creator, and that humans are made in His image. Therefore, I believe that it is in the nature of human life to want to create, to express our deepest longings and beliefs, and to share those with others. I thank God for the brilliant artists, past and present, who have added much to my mind, heart, and life.

No Country for Jeff

So two events happened in the past two weeks that prompted these reflections:

1). On March 2, I turned 35 years old, the age which many people associate with the beginning of the male mid-life crisis.

2). This past weekend, I splurged with some of my birthday money and went to see the movie No Country for Old Men, which recently took top honors at the Academy Awards and which features riveting performances from Josh Brolin, Javier Bardem, Tommy Lee Jones, and Kelly MacDonald.

If you want to read a first-rate review of this film, go to Eric Park's website and check it out. I won't even attempt to equal his analysis of this incredible flick, but I do wish to comment on the three major characters.

1 - First there's Llewellyn Moss, a young man who unexpectedly happened upon a suitcase filled with money at the scene of a botched drug deal. With no moral framework that would help him to do the right thing (turn the money in to the police), impulsively he decided to keep the money for himself. Throughout the course of the film he reveals his propensity for making stupid, spur-of-the-moment decisions that end up doing more harm than good. He even puts his relationship with his wife second to doing what is necessary to keep the money. Llewellyn represents opportunism at its worst.

2 - Then there's Ed Tom Bell, the old sheriff who represents not only law and order but also a sense of decency and morality that was typical of an older America but seems to be fading. Ed Tom even hints that he once had a high hope in God. And yet that hope has long since disappeared for Ed Tom, who observes a culture around him that has no more use for his moral and ethical ideals. Rather than resisting the trend towards moral decay, I sense that Ed Tom chooses instead to wallow in cynicism and merely wait for retirement and death.

3 - Finally, there's the serial killer Anton Chigurh, who I think will go down in history with Hannibal Lecter and Norman Bates as one of the finest villains ever portrayed on film. For Anton, life is senseless and arbitrary, almost a game of chance, and human beings are indistinguishable from cattle if they deter him from his goals. He values nothing beyond his own survival. I'd characterize him by his nihilism. Is he crazy? Evil? Or is he the only person who knows what it takes to survive in a world where there is no objective standard of truth and goodness?

So here I am, 35 years old, looking out at the current culture in which I find myself, and in many respects, these three characters represent the only three options that a secular agenda could offer us. Opportunism, cynicism, and nihilism -- what else is there in a life where God is seen as irrelevant, where truth is reduced to opinion, and where morality is relative?

None of these three options is appealing to me. I pray to God that the moral universe implicit in No Country For Old Men is not the moral universe to which we are headed. There are many signs that it's happening. But there is hope.

Just like there was hope in the movie, embodied in the character of Llewellyn's wife, Carla Jean, beautifully portrayed by Scottish actress Kelly MacDonald (who, in my opinion, should have been nominated for an Oscar). In spite of her husband's opportunism, she shows unconditional love and faithfulness to him. In spite of Sheriff Ed Tom's cynicism, she puts her quiet confidence in his ability to uphold law and order. And when she is face to face with the serial killer Anton's nihilism, she poignantly pleads with him to realize that he is capable of making a better choice.

I pray that in this country of ours, all Christians can have the character and faithfulness of Carla Jean. For those may be the best things we have to offer.