I might have to take a page from the Red Stick Rant book and put this website into temporary(?) hibernation. The last 2 weeks have been working 10-12 hours/day which is fine. Hard work is part of congregational ministry. But has not left me with much extra time or mental/spiritual energy for posting. As for politics the situation is so bad what more is there to say? The health of this nation – by which I mean liberty opportunity responsibility prosperity security and charity – will not improve until the political-cultural left is removed from power by legitimate democratic means.

And now I have been offered the chance to teach Intermediate (Biblical) Hebrew at Louisiana State University as an adjunct starting this semester. Which is fantastic. But also means less than 5 weeks to prepare! So in addition to (1) full time congregational ministry which has become more demanding as our new co-pastors provide new direction and leadership and (2) part time computer/network support – which lately has been unusually time consuming because of the issues involved with getting two Mac computers to play nice with our Small Business Server 2003 network environment – add (3) teaching one course at the university which means both class time and extensive preparation.

Maybe I could just get in one or two posts a week. But cannot promise that.

Before turning off the light – hopefully temporarily – let me list some of the things I was hoping to address. Just so you know what I have been thinking and reading about.

Review of New York Metropolitan Opera performance of “Die Walkuere” by Richard Wagner. Quick summary = One does not normally expect to enjoy 5 1/2 hours of Wagnerian opera! But truly this performance/production will go down in history as one of the great triumphs in the history of opera.

Review of New York Metropolitan Opera performance of “Madame Butterfly” by Gioachino Rossini. Quick summary = Fascinating and excellent performance. An utterly heartbreaking and tragic story that raises cross-cultural issues as well as the (past?) problem of American colonialism.

Review of “Super 8″. Quick summary = Loved it so much paid to see it twice.

Review of “X-Man First Class”. Quick summary = Awesome.

Review of “The University in a Single Atom” by the Dalai Lama. Which I read primarily because it was a gift from my sister. Quick summary = Excellent and illuminating. Christians who are interested in (a) the relationship between science and religion and/or (b) understanding Buddhism do well to read this.

The Southern Baptist Convention’s recent resolutions on immigration and ministry to (illegal) immigrants. Quick summary = Rather surprising and leaves many people in the odd situation of regarding those Southern Baptists as too liberal!

Allen West versus Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Quick summary = There are more effective ways to rebuke the political-cultural left.

Modest proposal for how English language Bibles should translate Hebrew tsdaqa(h) and Greek dikaiosyne.

Terence Fretheim on the book of Exodus and to what extent scholars and pastors and teachers may misunderstand and even misrepresent biblical law and covenant theology.

One of the traditions we observe in our family is to watch a movie at the theater on special holidays like Thanksgiving and Christmas. This year we had several internationals in our home on Christmas and saved the movie for December 26 aka Boxing Day.

“Tangled” is based on the traditional tale of Rapunzel – the girl with super long hair who is imprisoned in a room at the top of a tower with no way in or out except a window/balcony. The man who comes to rescue her has to call out “Rapunzel, Rapunzel, let down your sweet hair”.

This traditional tale is still here but transformed and expanded. The man who rescues(?) her is a rogue. And in some ways it is she who rescues him.

The movie is very enjoyable. A few songs. Some tense moments. Plenty of humor. I strongly recommend it for adults and children alike.

I am going to step out on a limb and hypothesize that it is also shockingly political – although not everyone will pick up on it.

It first hit me during the “Mother Knows Best” song/scene. When Rapunzel asks why on earth she can’t go anywhere why she has to stay in that room at the top of the tower all the time. And the enchantress Mother Gothel – who has fooled Rapunzel into believing she is her mother – sings a song to explain and convince her why she must never leave or even ask to leave.

It’s a dangerous world out there. You can’t handle all the situations you will face. I love you. I’m trying to protect you. Trust me. Mother knows best. That’s why you have to stay. Why you can’t ever leave. And why you need to stop nagging me about this. (paraphrased)

Dear readers are probably starting to get it.

Rapunzel wants to be free. The enchantress does not want Rapunzel to be free – and the reason why is also telling. Moreover the enchantress casts everything in terms of I only want what’s best for you… I’m just trying to protect you… Trust me… I know best.

Rapunzel represents free people. The enchantress represents Statism aka Big Government.

(Warning – spoiler alert! You have been warned.)

The enchantress needs Rapunzel to stay put because the enchantress needs Rapunzel in order to live – her magical hair. Hair = taxes/money/productivity/allegiance?

And notice what Rapunzel does at the end in order finally to be free of the enchantress.

So if the movie is largely an allegory about freedom/government – what else fits this interpretation? what does not fit?

The other two rogues = Big Business/Corporations? Remember that capitalism is not the same thing as free market economics. Capitalism – properly understood – is a tight relationship between large businesses/corporations and the government. We pass laws and make policies and regulations that mean more profit for you. And in turn you support us in our efforts to take more and more control over the lives of the people.

General Electric anyone? Just to pick one example.

The other two rogues work with the enchantress. You help me get the citizen. I help you get the crown back. Although strangely enough even when they have the crown it’s not enough. They want the other guy Flynn Rider. The entrepreneur/small business owner? And Big Mother will help us take him down.

My interpretation still needs some work. The king and queen? The kingdom? What do they represent? The soldiers who try to catch Flynn the whole time?

Consider the Pub Thugs. Rapunzel asks “don’t you have dreams?” Turns out they do. Nearly every dream is a form of going into business for yourself. Remarkable.

Although have been trying to shift this website away from politics still have a strong interest in the topic of education.

We are told that conservatives and liberals alike (classic liberals and leftists) have hailed the new documentary film “Waiting for Superman”. To a large extent the film places the blame on bad teachers and on unions for blocking efforts at educational reform.

Robert Weissberg at American Thinker offers another view:

Underlying Superman is the unarticulated (perhaps unspeakable) proposition that students themselves have nothing to do with “bad schools.” One can only wonder how many candidates Guggenheim interviewed before uncovering these five cinematic educationally goal-oriented kids with dedicated mothers. Even then, how many of them will endure the necessary tedium and hard work over twelve or sixteen years? My guess is that charter schools are largely a silver-bullet hope among today’s public school strugglers, not the golden opportunity to spend years mastering hard lessons. Such selectivity is classic Hollywood manipulation, today’s version of the rags-to-riches saga.

Moreover, it is as if the evil, bad public schools were initially constructed with graffiti, had architecture inadvertently conducive to mayhem, and were staffed by teachers disdaining innocent, knowledge-craving students. But inoperable equipment, tattered or missing textbooks, overflowing toilets, and similar “bad school” conditions do not mysteriously appear: students, bad students, are responsible. Truth be told, talented teachers rationally flee perilous settings, and to insist that schools underperform because they have “bad teachers” is but a duplicitous way of admitting that rambunctious students can drive out frustrated skilled teachers enjoying flight options. Allegedly dedicated students are not “victimized” by lifeless objects.

I am not entirely persuaded although that is not the same as saying Weissberg is wrong. To what extent can great teachers achieve positive results with students from troubled backgrounds? The regional director of Teach for America is a member of this congregation and has shared the story of when he taught for two years in the Bronx.  I know what my wife has been able to achieve with her students. There is an elementary school in north Baton Rouge whose students come from some of our worst neighborhoods. Thirteen years ago an exceptional principal took charge and began to turn it around and now it has been a Blue Ribbon School for five years and the only such school in Baton Rouge for 2010. Jaime Escalante anyone?

Do not misunderstand me. Of course environment matters. And many city schools reflect the cultural problems that are largely the result of well intentioned but deeply flawed government policies. But there are plenty of examples of what good schools can accomplish with what Weissberg would label as bad kids.

But Weissberg is correct to point out that you cannot just blame bad teachers. Teachers function within a system. If any other part of that system is messed up – the principal the administration the district the students and/or their parents – then that will reduce or even negate their effectiveness.

Tomoe and Seibei in "The Twilight Samurai"

“Two Surprising Virtues”
Ecclesiastes 2
Richard M. Wright
Church of the Nations
10th Sunday of Pentecost (C)

Marry her you dummy!

“The Twilight Samurai” or <Tasogare Seibei>. A very good movie from eight years ago. Won twelve Japanese Academy Awards. Set in Japan during the nineteenth century the movie tells the story of Seibei Iguchi played by Hiroyuki Sanada. He is a samurai but now works as an accountant in a food warehouse. His wife became sick and died. He mother is old and losing her memory. He has two daughters. They are poor but have a home and enough to eat.

But somehow Seibei is happy. Mostly. He is lonely and his daughters need someone who will be a mother to them.

Everything changes when Tomoe comes back to town. She was in a bad marriage and is now divorced. She and Seibei were close friends as children. Tomoe spends time at the Iguchi home. Teaches his daughters how to sew helps them practice calligraphy takes them to a festival in the village.

Her brother Iinuma asks Seibei to marry her. He knows she loves him. But he says no. Because he is poor and she comes from a wealthy family. He does not want to her share his poverty. And Tomoe stops coming.

I want to reach into the story grab this man by the shirt and shout What’s wrong with you? Are you crazy? Marry her you dummy!

The person who made this movie could be the same person who wrote the book of Ecclesiastes from which our Bible reading comes.

Completely useless! says the Teacher? Preacher? Professor? Completely useless. Everything is useless.

The book of Ecclesiastes is one of the strangest books in the Bible. We almost never read from the book of Ecclesiastes in the Christian calendar. This reading one time every three years. And chapter three once a year on Christmas. We do not read it hear it study it very often in the life of the Christian church. But in my opinion this book is one of the most important. Especially for the world in which we live today.

Most scholars believe it was written between four fifty and three fifty BC. During the time of the Persian Empire. A time of economic activity and opportunity. Business finance and commerce. Population moving from the country into the city. People making large amounts of money. Sometimes losing money. The growing problems of corruption abuse of power and bad leadership. Nobody seems to care about the poor or know what to do for them. People working all the time but not sure why. People have lots of knowledge but not sure it makes a difference. Society becoming less about family and community and more about the individual.

Does this sound familiar?

The writer of Ecclesiastes looks at the world at people at life and makes at least four main points:

• Nobody knows the future – you do not know what will happen tomorrow.
• Money and knowledge and power – none of these guarantee what will happen.
• Nobody knows and nobody can change what God is doing.
• Everybody dies.

The book of Ecclesiastes almost was not included in the Bible. Many teachers and scholars believe its message is very negative. Everybody dies. No one knows. Nothing we do is certain. I was fortunate to take a seminar on the book of Ecclesiastes with William Brown who is one of the top Ecclesiastes scholars in the nation. He transformed our understanding of this strange book that nobody reads. The book of Ecclesiastes in fact offers hope. It proclaims good news for human beings who live in a crazy and uncertain world.

I do not have time to share with you everything the book of Ecclesiastes teaches. This spring I taught a Bible study on this book for University Baptist Church. More than six hours. And that did not cover everything. We do not have six hours.

Of all the things the book of Ecclesiastes teaches there are two that are especially important. Two virtues.

From our Bible reading chapter two. There is nothing better for human beings than to eat and drink and find joy in their work. And I see that this comes from the hand of God. In chapter three. And I know that there is nothing better than to enjoy (or rejoice) and to do good in his life. And for every person to drink and eat and see good in his work. This is a gift of God. In chapters five and eight almost the same thing. In chapter nine. Go eat your food with joy. Drink wine with a good heart. God is already pleased with what you do. Enjoy life with the wife that you love all the days of your life.

Joy. Joy in our “daily bread” as we pray during Communion. Joy in what we drink. Joy with our friends and family. Even – and this is shocking and perhaps especially important – joy in our work. Not work so that when you are done you can enjoy life. But see the joy in your work. Because all these things are a gift from God. Receive with thanks to God the joy that God gives in each moment. In the small ordinary beautiful moments of life. Good food and drink. Good friends. Family. Our work.

Seibei somehow sees good in his work at the warehouse. Joy when he goes fishing with his good friend Iinume. He certain sees great joy with his children. But he does not receive the joy that Tomoe offers. Until later.

That is part of what Jesus talks about in the other Bible reading from the book of Luke. This rich farmer who saves and stores everything he has. But he does not share it. He does not enjoy it with others. He does not save treasure in heaven that nothing and no one can ever take away no matter what happens tomorrow.

The other virtue that Ecclesiastes proclaims is reverence.

Chapter three. Whatever God does lasts forever. Nothing can be added or taken from it. God has done this so that everyone will stand in reverence before him. Also chapters five and seven. In chapter eight Even if sinners do evil and hundred times and live long lives it will be better with those who fear(?) God because they stand in reverence before him. And at the very end of the book chapter twelve. The end of the matter. Everything has been heard. Fear(? reverence?) God and keep his commandments. That is the whole duty of everyone.

Reverence. English Bibles often translate this Hebrew word yara’ as fear or awe but I prefer reverence. Not fear as in be afraid of God. But more than respect. To have reverence is to recognize that we are human. We are finite. We are not perfect. We are not God. So on the one hand we are not arrogant. We do not talk or think or act like we are God. And on the other hand we are patient with ourselves. We do not worry. Because we trust God. And reverence is a virtue – who or what we are – that in turn shapes how we live.

Joy. Receive with gratitude the moments of joy that God places into the present.

Reverence. God is God. We are not. Know that. Respect that. Live that.

(Ed – Edited and shortened original version of this post.)

I have not posted about (former) agricultural official Shirley Sherrod because frankly am mighty tired of talking about “race”. And boy are we talking about it a lot since 2008. Which is strange.

The significance of this story lies not with Ms Sherrod but with how everyone reacted. This is where it gets messy and ugly. Because everybody – excuse me almost everybody – looks bad. Prominent left wing organization looks bad. White House looks bad. Leftist aka “liberal” Mainstream media looks bad. Liberal aka “conservative” media look bad.

Ann Althouse as always finds the subtle truth that eludes everyone else including me:

To react like that [ed - see edited video and condemn Ms Sherrod as racist] is to display the same human weakness that underlies racism itself. You see one thing, you see the whole person as nothing but that one thing, you feel instinctive aversion and fear, and you reflexively push that person away. Blaming those who showed you that one thing does not absolve you from your responsibility to rise above the level of instinct and fear. It is up to you to go beyond your first perception, to search for the truth, and to use reason and judgment before you make a decision about someone.

The Anchoress has an exceptional post on this mess. May she forgive me for quoting her at length but I want everyone to read this:

This whole sordid mess of a story–which is clearly not over–may tell us that it is past time for people of good will to stop tolerating politically-expedient charges of racism [ed - link added], regardless of whether they originate from genuinely from overzealous, malicious bloggers or from Congressmen who are confident that any charge they make will be deemed insta-credible, or from journalists who ignore real racism while trying to ignite the charge elsewhere, for the advancement of their own partisan agendas, or from the rightly marginalized, fringe-living, stupid people who every sensible person condemns.

The NAACP’s maneuver last week was an attempt at cynical manipulation, a lazy card they thought they could play, because it’s always taken the pot, before. They ticked off Breitbart, who upped the ante, but appears to have done so recklessly.

Everyone’s credibility is now strained, and perhaps that is a good thing. Perhaps the left should finally leave behind the smug instinct to sniff, “racism, straight up” over sincere disagreements on policy. If they can manage that, then perhaps the right can stop feeling so defensive.

There is absolutely nothing simple about the matter of race in America; there is a ways to go before content of character will finally overcome color of skin. But I am not sure if further progress toward a truly color-blind society can be made until the manufactured cry of “raaaaacism”–by people who know that their are merely fanning flames or manipulating movements–has finally been rejected by both the right and the left. Race-baiters must be made to understand that their cheap tactic will no longer bear weight among fair-minded people, who are horrified by genuine racism but tired of its weaponized unreasonable facsimile.

In a nation that has come far enough to see African-Americans hold its highest offices, and wield enormous power–power given to them by people of all races and backgrounds, who can and will take it back at their own pleasure–the overplayed charge of “racism” among the chatterers is not only toxic, it is self-revelatory: it betrays their own tawdry cynicism, and their own racial fixations. (emphasis in original)

Word.

She also provides a list of links. Check some of them out. Here are a couple extra:

• Politics, Policy, Pathology and Hope within the Black Community – “I a black conservator support Shirley Sherrod” (addresses issue of statements taken out of context and problem with “gotcha” journalism)
• The Right Scoop – “Glenn Beck Defends Shirley Sherrod” (calls into question the charge of racism within the NAACP)

During the last few years I have become more interested in reading and watching mysteries. Stay with me.

There is a theme one finds in nearly every mystery story. There is a crime. The main character(s) investigates the crime. And uncovers a host of sins and smaller crimes that are not always connected to the main crime.

Several years ago there was one of those excellent films that not many people watched. “Snow Falling on Cedars” based on the novel by David Guterson.

Set on the fictional San Piedro Island in the northern Puget Sound region of the state of Washington coast in 1951, the plot revolves around the murder case of Kazuo Miyamoto, a Japanese American accused of killing Carl Heine, a respected fisherman in the close-knit community. The trial occurs in the midst of deep anti-Japanese sentiments following World War II. Covering the case is the editor of the town’s one-man newspaper, Ishmael Chambers, a World War II veteran who lost an arm fighting the Japanese. Torn by a sense of hatred for the Japanese, Chambers struggles with his love for Kazuo’s wife, Hatsue, and his conscience, wondering if Kazuo is truly innocent.

Spearheading the prosecution are the town’s sheriff, Art Moran, and prosecutor, Alvin Hooks. Leading the defense is the old, experienced Nels Gudmundsson. An underlying theme throughout the trial is prejudice. Several witnesses, including Etta Heine, Carl’s mother, accuse Kazuo of murdering Carl for racial and personal reasons.

Snap judgment. Kazuo is guilty. Racial and personal reasons.

And yet during the trial we discover that those who accuse Kazuo themselves harbor prejudice. They did not support or defend their Japanese-American friends and neighbors when they were taken to internment camps. We also learn about a disputed parcel of land which the Miyamoto family was going(?) to purchase from the Heine family. To simplify a complicated story the Heine family kept most of the money paid for the land but sold it to another family. That must be why Kazuo murdered Carl.

Here is the point. Those who accuse Kazuo reveal their own prejudice and cynicism. In the same way how we judge(d) Shirley Sherrod reveals much about ourselves.

Can you believe the nerve of that woman who washes the feet of Christ with her tears and dries them with her hair?!?

Lord have mercy on me.

Whenever my kids complain about how cold it is I remind them of their Viking ancestors.

“How to Train Your Dragons” tells the story of a boy who lives in a Viking village where it snows 70% of the year and hails the other 30%. And all the buildings are new.

Why? Well because of their constant ongoing battle with dragons who come to steal their food and livestock.

The goal of every child is to learn how to kill dragons and become a real Viking. And pretty much every child and every adult in this village is big burly and able to knock the teeth out of a dragon with a good right hook.

Except Hiccup. And he is the son of Stoic(sp?) the village chieftain.

Small scrawny and not very violent. But he manages early in the film to bring down the most elusive dangerous and feared type of dragon. And changes everything.

“How to Train Your Dragon” is almost pure joy. Utterly delightful. Alternately funny then exciting then dramatic then moving then back to delightful.

I have not been able to draw any deep theology or meaning out of the film yet. Oh wait maybe a little.

A cornerstone of my person theology is that human beings were created with a high calling. To manage the world with and for God. To use the world sometimes for food clothes and houses? Sure. But never to exploit or destroy. And always with an eye toward managing preserving even continuing the creation. This is straight up Genesis 1-2 people. I remember one saint saying the reason another saint got along so well with animals is because “they could smell the fragrance of Adam on him”.

And straight up Genesis 3 is that this all fell apart and even our relationship with animals has become broken.

There is a sense in which “How to Train Your Dragon” is partly about human beings rediscovering their original Adamic vocation. To understand and to care for the created world. Including otherwise wild and dangerous animals.

(Although I recall a significant paper by Margaret O’Dell a few years ago at a Society for Biblical Literature meeting. She argued that the eschatological “lion lies down with the lamb” imagery does not mean ultimately we all live together in harmony. Rather we all live in our proper places. And that is how we will all get along with each other.)

There is also the usual “God created everyone different and your child might be different in a special way”. Stoic goes from being embarrassed of his misfit weakling son to proud and grateful.

Finally – and this is similar to the first point – there is the biblical theme of Chaoskampf. How even God battles and restrains chaos. (This is one of my areas of interest in the study of the Hebrew Bible. What I call “primordial mythology” in the Bible. Good place to start is Creation and the Persistence of Evil by Jon Levenson.) Sometimes personified as the “deep” or the “waters” or “behemoth” or “Leviathan”. There is a “Leviathan” in this movie that threatens humans and dragons alike.

We saw it in 3D but the frankly the film stands on its own. The 3D is just bonus.

(Most memorable 3D effect was toward the end when ash was falling and you would swear some of the flakes were landing on your lap.)

What hath the dreadful Star Wars prequel “The Phantom Menace” to do with current debates over worship style?

A few months ago my friend Joshua Villines directed my attention to a critical review of “The Phantom Menace” that is biting, insightful, and very funny. Among other points made is that story and character are among the most important elements of a good film. And all the hundred of millions of dollars worth of computer generated special effects are not a substitute.

The review led to the website of the reviewer Red Letter Media. Which led to an article on movie reviews. Which led to this video called “Low Budget Eye Candy #1″.

LOW BUDGET EYE CANDY #1 from Steven Boone on Vimeo.

Oddly enough Boone makes his points using a clip from “THX 1138″ by George Lucas which for years I have regarded as a classic science-fiction movie of the dystopian genre. Once upon a time George Lucas knew how to use film craft to tell a good story with compelling characters and with a relatively low budget.

What does this have to do with worship?

The congregation which I serve University Baptist Church is going through a difficult time. The senior pastor resigned in October. He used a tremendous amount of pastoral capital aka “chips” to (a) begin a second worship gathering in the (b) “emerging” style in order to (c) attract and communicate the current generation. For the record I supported this move. Many people believe that disagreements over the second gathering were the most important issue leading to the pastor’s resignation.

(I disagree. It was an issue. But maybe 4th or 5th on the list. Anyways.)

A common argument one hears is that churches absolutely have to have a “contemporary” worship service in order to attract younger people including young families with children. Because they do not care for “traditional” worship. The idea that we need to understand the culture of the people among whom we wish to minister is not a bad one. Nor that we need to adjust how we do worship in order to speak to them. Church of the Nations does that too. We use simple English. We follow a very consistent order of worship every Sunday. We sometimes sing in other languages. We adjust our style of worship for people who come here from other countries and have little to no religious background.

But here is the thing. Churches do not need to have “contemporary” worship gatherings in order to attract younger families with children as reasonable as that sounds. There is abundant proof of this.

One of the most thriving churches in Baton Rouge is First United Methodist downtown. A downtown church. With very traditional worship. (Although it is not boring. They have a strong choir and excellent music. Quite a few congregants are professional musicians.) They are busting at the seams. In fact churches which are losing members (for whatever reason) see many of them move to First United Methodist. This includes University Baptist Church and First Baptist Church downtown.

I had the joy of meeting with one of their associate pastors who is a longtime family friend and graduated from Drew Seminary not long ago. “What’s your secret?” She did not really have a clear answer except for the dynamic leadership of their longtime pastor Chris Andrews.

Bob B_ for a long time was part of the ministry of Church of the Nations until last year (when his wife fell asleep in the Lord after battling leukemia for almost a year). He has recently joined South Main Baptist Church in Houston. Which is busting at the seams. And has very traditional worship. I asked him about that specifically.

Do not misunderstand me. I am not against “contemporary” or even “emerging” worship styles. I believe in the need to understand and adjust to the culture of the people among whom you wish to minister in the name of Christ our God. But the idea that we have to have “contemporary” or “emerging” worship because younger people including families with children will not be part of a church with “traditional” worship. That idea just does not hold up.

Tradition is surprisingly attractive.

Ask Anglicans. Ask Roman Catholics. Ask the Orthodox.

What does it mean to be human? More specifically what does it mean to be a person? How do we find meaning and purpose in an apparently absurd universe?

It boggles my mind that critics could rave about how “Moon” (2009) is brilliant science-fiction that everyone must see – and yet the film was released only in Los Angeles and New York City. In other words everyone needs to see a movie that almost no one can see.

For months I have ached to see it. Finally January 12 arrived and my family gave it to me for my birthday. Watched it with my younger daughter. She thought it was sad and depressing. I do not disagree but would phrase it differently. It is both profoundly disturbing and profoundly moving.

The sets and visuals are persuasive – all the more impressive when one realizes that “Moon” was filmed on a mighty small budget. The background music is exquisite. One of my pet peeves in many American films is the loud music that tells us how we should feel at every given moment. But in “Moon” several important scenes have no music. And when music is present it is elegant delicate and haunting. It enhances rather than forces the emotional impact of key scenes.

“Moon” tells the story of Sam Bell – the always enjoyable Sam Rockwell provides an exceptional performance – who is only two weeks from the end of his three year contract. His job is to maintain the equipment that mines the surface of the moon for Helium-3 (an isotope used in fusion to generate energy back on Earth). He is completely alone. Well except for the constant companionship of the robot helper Gerty (voice by Kevin Spacey). The communications satellite has been broken all this time so he cannot have live conversations with his family back home. He can only watch and send back recorded messages.

The years of loneliness and isolation appear to be taking their toll. But he is going home! “Two more weeks buddy!” Sam says to Gerty while eating breakfast (which is “the usual” – a nice touch that reinforces the sense of isolation and monotony).

Already the film raises important issues about the human need for companionship. How does a human being survive complete isolation? Sam appears to enjoy his work. The monotony of checking and reporting how many miles a harvester covered each day is occasionally broken by a full H-3 canister which Sam must retrieve and then ship back to Earth. But even Sam still has plenty of free time which must be filled somehow. He cares for and talks to his plants. He carves wooden models of people and buildings back home. He watches old television reruns.

But notice the pattern. Sam is utterly alone. He must talk to somebody. To Gerty. To his plants. Even the lunar harvesters are given names. A person needs relationship with another person. Even if the other is a substitute. (See also Tom Hanks in “Cast Away” and his relationship with “Wilson”.) This raises questions about the extent to which we engage in substitute personal(?) relationships. Virtual pets. Video and online computer games. Again we confront the interior-exterior distinction which is so important in Orthodox Christian theology. We are created for relationship – but relationship with persons.

I do wonder “would God be enough?” If for whatever reason I was completely alone would the presence and companionship of the Triune God – who himself is three persons in relationship – be enough to keep me from going insane? The answer is probably yes when one considers the stories of monks and saints from Christian history.

But even then – the idea of escaping from the world is to bring back to the world the spiritual resources we gain during our time in the wilderness. Sam’s three years alone is a struggle but it also changes him for the better (confirmed by one of the recorded messages from his wife Tess).

But back to the struggle. One evening Sam is making coffee when he sees a teenage girl(?) sitting in his chair. We wonder, Have the 3 years been too much? Is Sam losing his mind? Who is this teenage girl that Sam thinks he sees?

The next day Sam once again goes out to retrieve a full canister of Helium-3. And something happens that changes everything.

***WARNING – SPOILERS AHEAD!***

One can read a summary of the plot here.

But in a nutshell Sam has an accident. And when he wakes up he finds that there is another Sam Bell with him at Sarang Base. Oh and someone took down all his pictures and erased everything he wrote on the wall in his bedroom.

Or you could say Sam goes out to a stalled harvester and finds another Sam Bell in a crashed rover.

Which is the “real” Sam Bell? Is the other Sam Bell a hallucination? What is going on here? And is Gerty part of the conspiracy?

Meanwhile the “first” Sam Bell is not doing so well. His health begins to disintegrate. Headaches nosebleeds fevers and vomiting.

And the two Sam Bell’s at first do not get along. Each distrusts the other. Each insists he is the real “Sam f****ing Bell!” Each insists the other must be a clone.

The dreadful powerful moment comes when the first Sam Bell asks Gerty directly “Am I a clone?”

And Gerty tells him. Yes he is a clone. And his memories of life back on Earth with his wife Tess and his daughter Eve are all implanted from the original Sam Bell. His entire life his entire world is a lie. (Later in the movie it gets worse when Sam is finally able to call Earth.) It is cheaper for the company to use clones than to train and send – and later pay – a new person every three years.

It is a quintessentially existential crisis. The world is absurd - in this case it is literally a fabrication. Now what? Give up? Or create one’s own meaning?

Without giving away all the details neither Sam Bell gives up. They make decisions. They push back against the intolerable situation in which they have been placed. And in a way they each achieve victory.

Why is it so offensive to discover that one is a clone? An issue which I come across more and more as I read Orthodox Christian theology is the central importance of personhood. See Being and Communion by John Zizioulas and The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church by Vladimir Lossky. In which a theology of the Christian church and a theology of the Trinity are constructed largely around person.

Why would a clone/copy of Richard Wright be so offensive? That I am no longer unique? This is an issue which my old friend and classmate John Davenport (professor of philosophy at Fordham University) has explored in some of his writings.

And yet would the clone/copy have no value of his own? The two Sam Bell’s do find meaning and value in the decisions they make. “I choose to go outside when Gerty says I must not. I choose to sacrifice myself for the other. I choose to return to Earth”. Even Gerty chooses to tell Sam the truth and to help him. Will and decision-making are also important themes in Davenport’s work.

Just as Sam Bell (which one? you need to see for yourself) is about to head back to Earth Gerty says that he and the newly awakened clone will continue with their programming. Sam turns back to Gerty and asserts “We are not programmed. We are persons”.

Precisely.

I almost did not go to see it. Most of the conservative blogs/websites I follow criticized harshly the movie “Avatar” directed by James Cameron. In a nutshell – that it is a silly and predictable leftist anti-American anti-capitalist rehash of “Dances with Wolves”. But some people I know and respect saw it and loved it. Perhaps I should see it and make up my own mind. But what if I hate it? Will James Cameron give me my money back?

Even the harshest critics acknowledge how impressive the film in terms of visuals and effects. In 3D we are as immersed in Pandora as is the protagonist Jake Sully when he lives among the Na’vi. Normally one sees people get up during a movie to visit the restroom or buy a snack or check the time on their cell phones. During “Avatar” hardly anyone moved. Even to stretch or shift in their seats. About two-thirds through the film I noticed my neck was sore from being held in one position for nearly two hours.

So on one level we can appreciate “Avatar” as a powerful visual and cinematic experience. We can also appreciate the creativity and innovation Cameron demonstrated not only in creating this film but in developing new technologies and techniques that such a film requires.

It is precisely this point – “Avatar” as immersive experience – that represents an important counterpoint to the list of conservative(?) criticisms against the film. Conservative critics of “Avatar” focus on what they discern to be its underlying (social-cultural-political) message. (And I will return to this.) That is they criticize the film as ideology. But what about “Avatar” as science-fiction?

My friend and colleague Joshua Villines has penned an original and thoughtful review of “Avatar”. He writes:

In Avatar, James Cameron has chosen to tell a story by creating a fully-immersive, coherent world.  For fans of science fiction, that alone is a huge gift. [emphasis added]

In science-fiction not everything has to add up scientifically. (Most of the time. “Hard” science-fiction which focuses heavily on science would be an exception.) Cameron creates a world and immerses us in it through the visuals cinematography and effects.

Quibble all you like about gravity inconsistencies and weak dialogue, James Cameron has crafted perhaps the most internally-consistent, immersive, extra-terrestrial world ever brought to life on the large screen.  In so doing, he has made the atrocities of ethnocentric consumerism real in a way that a cleverly contrived plot alone would not have.  For threats of mass destruction or genocide to be real to us, they must threaten our home.  This is why the apocalyptic scenes of Terminator are so much more terrifying than the destruction of Alderaan in A New Hope.

Read the whole thing here.

So what about those conservative criticisms?

In a nutshell – they are partly correct. Sorry. In fact they might be more correct than people realize.

This week an article by Patrick Goldstein on the Los Angeles Times website asks “Why do conservatives hate the most popular movie in years?” The article – by someone who is not conservative – understands the situation well.

For years, pundits and bloggers on the right have ceaselessly attacked liberal Hollywood for being out of touch with rank and file moviegoers, complaining that executives and filmmakers continue to make films that have precious little resonance with Middle America. They have reacted with scorn to such high-profile liberal political advocacy films as “Syriana,” ”Milk,” “W.,” “Religulous,” “Lions for Lambs,” “Brokeback Mountain,” “In the Valley of Elah,” “Rendition” and “Good Night, and Good Luck,” saying that the movies’ poor performance at the box office was a clear sign of how thoroughly uninterested real people were in the pet causes of showbiz progressives.

The dirty little not-so-secret is that Hollywood is not just interested in making money. Because generally the “high-profile liberal political advocacy films” tank at the box office. And generally the conservative(?) themed films – at least those films that do not ridicule the lifestyles and values of “middle America” – do much better. So why does Hollywood continue to churn out films with a (left/liberal) message that lose money? Probably because they care about the message.

The article understands the situation well – but to a point.

Of course, “Avatar” totally turns this theory on its head.

Um… no. Not only because it is silly to think a single exception turns a general rule on its head. Especially when the article goes on to explain precisely if accidentally how “Avatar” may be an exception that proves the rule.

“It has the politics of the left, but it also has extraordinary spectacle,” says Govindini Murty, co-founder of the pioneering conservative blog Libertas and executive producer of the new conservative film “Kalifornistan.” “Jim Cameron didn’t come out nowhere. He came on the heels of all the left-wing filmmakers who went before him, who knew that someone with their point of view would have the resources to finally make a breakthrough political film. But even though ‘Avatar’ has an incredibly disturbing anti-human, anti-military, anti-Western world view, it has incredible spectacle and technology and great filmmaking to capture people’s attention. The politics are going right over people’s heads. Its audience isn’t reading the New York Times or the National Review.”

Ding. “The politics are going right over people’s heads”. Audiences are captivated by the spectacle and miss the underlying message.

Or do they?

Some of the comments left in response to Goldstein’s piece are instructive:

It is not so much that the people embrace the ideology of the film, which most certainly leans left, but that the message of anti-America, anti big business, and embrace mother earth themes are not really portrayed in the trailers. It’s not until you are sitting in your seat in the theater that this themes are revealed by then it is too late – the money has been spent.Try getting a refund from the theater because it doesn’t agree with your politics. Even my 76 yr old mom, a life long Democrat, came out and the first thing she said was “Why was that movie so Anti- American?” [emphasis added]

Or this comment which directs our attention toward one of the inner contradictions of the film:

Why is everyone who isn’t in love with this movie automatically “a conservative”? I’m a Democrat and I find it a total sop to American fantasies about how much the world requires our presence. The spectacle of the Na’vi needing an outsider to become their spiritual leader is nothing new or groundbreaking. This movie panders to American culture’s greatest wet dreams about itself.

Ah. Okay. So we have (1) these highly industrialized and technological humans who would despoil a beautiful planet and to make a profit also (2) murder the peaceful non-industrialized non-technological natives who must be led and saved by – pay attention now – (3) a human being who is only able to join them because of some highly advanced technology.

Please note that Goldstein at no point denies what conservative critics of “Avatar” claim is the underlying message of the film. Quite the contrary. Note also a recent ABC News piece on “The Politics of ‘Avatar’”:

For his part, Cameron has been unabashedly open about his political intentions.

The movie is about how greed and imperialism tend to destroy the environment, in this case the “pristine” environs of Pandora, Cameron said in an interview with NBC’s Today show. “It’s a way of looking back at ourselves from this other world, seeing what we’re doing here.”

We have a film that appears to criticize imperialist America and its capitalist economy driven by the military-industrial complex…

That cost $300 million to make… $150 million to market it… that required new technologies… that could only have been funded and made in (more capitalist than not) America… a nation that is largely free and safe thanks to the United States military.

There is a word in the English language for that.

9/11 and America-as-terrorist

***WARNING – SPOILERS AHEAD***

I am surprised that even conservative critics did not draw attention to the (in my opinion very obvious) parallels between the destruction of the Hometree and the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City. [Correction - Apparently they do and they did. I should have read those reviews more carefully.]

Visually the destruction of the Hometree is eerily similar if not identical to footage from those attacks. The tree is attacked from the air not the ground. The billowing smoke rising above the city – I mean forest. The fires out of control. How the tree burns for a while before its horrifying collapse. How the Na’vi run away from the tree as it burns and as it begins to collapse. How when the tree falls it kills/crushes even more Na’vi than died in the initial attack. The angle of the tree after it has fallen – almost identical to photographs taken after the collapse of the towers. The ashes that fill the air and cover everything and everyone.

And if that is not obvious enough we have human soldiers talking about “fighting terror with terror… shock-and-awe” during the attack on Hometree.

So if Cameron invites us to see parallels between the attack on Hometree and (say) the invasion of Iraq and the terrorist attacks of 9/11…

And if – now this is less clear – the humans represent America whose capitalist economy is propped up by the military…

Then it would appear Cameron is – through that one scene – saying America is morally equivalent to the terrorists who destroyed the twin towers of the World Trade Center.

I could be wrong. Cameron may not have this in mind. But I am struggling to come up with an alternative interpretation.

Spirituality and the interior/exterior life

Another aspect of “Avatar” that I have not seen discussed much is the issue of the interior versus exterior life.

At one point Jake Sully – when he is not living among the Na’vi by means of his avatar body – wonders if he is awake or dreaming. Which is real and which is the dream? His existence as a human being – or his “virtual” existence as a Na’vi?

The distinction between interior versus exterior life is sometimes discussed in Orthodox Christianity. Orthodox Christian bishops have expressed their concern about video games and massively-multiplayer-online role playing games (MMORPGs).* [RW - I distinctly remember reading this but am unable to find the reference.] Not because participating in them is “evil”. But because they represent a distraction (a word that carries a precise theological meaning in Orthodox spirituality) from the true exterior life we have in relationship with God and with other human beings. (See Meletios Webber, Bread and Water, Wine and Oil, chapter 2. Also the brilliant presentation by Prof Alfred Siewers, “Christianity and Ecology” available online at Ancient Faith Radio.)

Video and online games are a kind of “false” life.

I confess that I do enjoy video and online games. They are one of my main ways to relax(?) during my free time. But sometimes during the rest of the day I am not thinking so much about God or my family or church or my work with internationals – I am wondering what to work on the next time I am playing on the computer. My interior virtual life sometimes occupies my thoughts and attention more than my true exterior life.

And yes it is precisely through his virtual interior life that Jake Sully is able to appreciate the true exterior life of Pandora and the Na’vi. I would not call this a contradiction but an “inner tension” in the film. (And perhaps in defense of Cameron we might say using capitalism/technology to make a film critical of capitalism/technology is not so much a contradiction but a necessary “inner tension”.)

Where conservatives might… uh… “plug in” to “Avatar”

This might be one point at which conservative critics can and should interpret “Avatar” more generously. Are the humans really representative only of “imperialist capitalist militaristic technological and industrial America”?

Is it possible the film is also about humans who have become overwhelmed by their own technology?

Cell phones. Laptops. iPods and iTouches(sp?). Blogs. RSS feeds.

Perhaps the film does oversimplify and overglorify the virtues of the happy indigenes in touch and in harmony with Nature (with a capital N). But does it not also ask, How much has technology become our master rather than our servant? How much does technology destroy rather than foster the true exterior life – relationship with God with others and with creation?

Not the most eloquent or well-formed review. Perhaps rambling half-raw thinking in spots. But in summary:

• I think conservative criticisms of “Avatar” are more correct than not
• The film does appear to convey an anti-American anti-military anti-capitalist message
• Which may represent a (hypocritical?) contradiction on the part of James Cameron
• But it also possesses qualities we should appreciate or at least interpret more generously
• Such as “Avatar” as science-fiction
• How the film wrestles with the tensions between interior and exterior life
• Legitimate questions the film may be asking about the role technology has come to play in modern life

Yes I saw it. Almost said “you can go without me”. Glad I went.

A tradition in my family has always been to go see a movie on a holiday – like Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year’s. So we went to see recent Disney release “The Princess and the Frog”.

It was delightful. Especially when you compare it to the stream of movies from Hollywood that basically insult the audience. If you pay attention there are a few welcome “conservative” themes and messages in “The Princess and the Frog”. It will be interesting to see how it fares at the box office compared to the other left-leaning fare.

***WARNING – A FEW MILD SPOILERS***

Prince Naveen is the rich aristocrat who is no longer very rich. All he wants is to avoid work and have fun.

His servant Lawrence is the one who envies what Naveen has. And wants to steal it through trickery and deception.

And Tiana is the one who has a dream. And believes the way to achieve her dream is through hard work and saving every dollar she can.

Imagine that! If you want something – you work for it. Rather than expect the government or *ahem* the forces of evil – represented by the Shadow Man – to give you what you want by taking it someone else.

There may be some subtle commentary on “haves versus have-less”. The film does not appear to criticize Big Daddy for being so wealthy. In fact it recognizes the simple fact that rich people hire and pay other people to do things like make dresses (Tiana’s mother Eudora) for their spoiled daughters or make beignets (Tiana) for a masked Mardi Gras ball. Big Daddy is rich but he is generous and his wealth supports such cultural activities as a Mardi Gras parade.

And – trying not to give away too much here – what happens to Doctor Facilier aka Shadow Man in the end? He plays with the forces of darkness – “friends on the other side” – and ultimately he pays the price. There are consequences for messing with spiritual forces of evil.

This is not to suggest the movie is full of orthodox Christian theology. There are no references to God or Christ or scripture. At most we get “good magic” in the person of Mama Odie versus “bad magic” in the person of Doctor Facilier (whose name oddly enough means “Doctor Make-easy”). And several times characters seem to “pray” to a star in the night sky. This is not a criticism. Just trying to recognize how religion and spirituality are portrayed.

In a way I find refreshing how the film addresses(?) race relations. People of darker skin can have genuine friendship with people of lighter skin. Although it does not ignore altogether that racial tensions can and do exist – such as when the bankers refer to Tiana’s “background”.

What is interesting is that Disney has gone back to old fashioned drawn animation. I thought they had shut down their drawn animation department in order to focus exclusively on computer animation. My argument then as well as now is “it’s not the computer animation – it’s the story stupid”. Disney seems finally to get that point. But drawn animation might strike some as ugly and primitive compared to “Toy Story” or “Up”. The comparison is unfair. But not if you compare it to the work of Hiyao Miyazaki or even the exceptionally beautiful “Snow White”.

Critics often focus on the music – and sure enough characters in the movie often break into song. Are they “memorable” or Oscar-winning? Only time will tell. Some of the songs are quite catchy – such as “Dig A Little Deeper” which my wife used in her sermon this morning.

Finally – Louisiana.

The story is set in New Orleans and the Louisiana bayous. Having lived in the south for a while I am sensitive to how “southern accents” are portrayed – you would think every southerner speaks in a South Carolina drawl. Most of the accents and speech patterns in “The Princess and the Frog” sound correct. Some are not quite right. But in order to establish the setting – New Orleans and Louisiana – one must expect some degree of exaggeration for the sake of emphasis.

One concern(?) is that people who do not live in Louisiana might not appreciate all the inside jokes. Like when Ray the Cajun firefly introduces all the members of his immense extended family. Or when Ray asks Naveen and Tiana where they are from – the answer is perhaps only to Louisianans one of the funniest lines in the entire movie (the audience erupted in laughter). Or how the name of the love of Ray’s life is “Evangeline”.

Overall an animated film I can heartily recommend.