Luke 20 is one of the lections for this Sunday the 24th Sunday of Pentecost year C.

Bet you didn’t buy a greeting card for that.

The famous and in fact only exchange between Jesus and the Sadducees in the book of Luke.

I will be preaching on this text again this Sunday. And will emphasize that the Christian faith does not teach what we often call immortality of the soul. It teaches resurrection of the dead.

First a point of self-correction. Although the Sadducees ask a question about the resurrection in the future the response Jesus gives is not primarily a defense of resurrection in the future so much as a demonstration of life with God in the present.

Joseph Kommanchak marvelously compares comments by N T Wright with commentary by Thomas Aquinas.

Aquinas quotes the Orthodox(?) bishop Theophylact with reference to Luke 20:

If the patriarchs had returned to nothing so as not to live with God in the hope of a resurrection, He would not have said, ‘I am,” but “I was,” which is the way we usually speak of things dead and gone, e.g., ‘I was the lord or master of that thing.’ But since he said, “I am,” He shows that He is the God and Lord of the living. This is what follows: ‘But he is not a God of the dead, but of the living, for all live unto him.’ For although they have departed from life, yet they live with Him in the hope of a resurrection.”

Compare Wright:

Jesus’ answer to the Sadducees, in fact, does point towards the refocusing of the resurrection hope which was to take place later, not least through the work of Paul. It speaks of a different quality of life, a life which death can no longer touch, and hence a life in which the normal parameters of mortal (i.e. deathbound) life, including procreative marriage, are no longer relevant. It speaks of an intermediate state in which all the righteous dead are held in some kind of ongoing life while waiting for the resurrection which everyone, Pharisees and Sadducee alike, knew perfectly well had not happened yet. It speaks about YHWH’s past word to Moses, in order to indicate a present reality (the patriarchs are still alive), in order thereby to affirm the future hope (they will be raised to a newly embodied life). [emphasis added]

How delightful to see this confluence of Orthodox with Catholic with Anglican commentary!

So when my excellent teacher in seminary Isam Ballenger emphasized “Christianity does not teach immortality of the soul it teaches resurrection” that is mostly but not entirely correct. There is a kind of continuation of the soul beyond death. But without resurrection of the body this continuation is an incomplete form of immortality(?). Komanchak quotes Aquinas on 1 Corinthians 15:

Two answers may be given. First, if the resurrection of the body is denied, it is not easy, in fact it is difficult, to maintain the immortality of the soul. For the soul is naturally united to the body, and for it to be separated from it is against its nature and per accidens; soul stripped of its body is imperfect for as long as it is without its body. Now it is impossible that what is natural and per se be finite and almost nothing, while what is against nature and per accidens is infinite, [which is what would be the case] if the soul were to perdure without its body. That is why Platonists, positing immortality, also posited reincarnation, even though this is heretical. Therefore, if the dead do not rise, it is only in this life that we have hope.

Second, man naturally desires the salvation of himself. But the soul, although it is a part of the human body, is not the whole man, and my soul is not me [anima mea non est ego]. Hence, although the soul attains salvation in another life, I do not, nor does anyone else. Besides, since man naturally desires salvation of his body also, that natural desire would be frustrated [without the resurrection of the body].

This may by the way represent a definitive answer to my earlier post “Those who ‘sleep’ (or) Moebius syllogism?”

Let me confess that on the one hand my conviction that the teaching of the resurrection is one of the essential teachings of the Christian faith but on the other hand is the teaching I find most difficult to believe.

God? Okay. Trinity? You bet. Jesus the God-man? Sure why not?

Resurrection of the dead? Oh man that’s hard. Hard to conceive. Hard to imagine. Hard to believe. So far removed from our normal day to day existence that this is where the scientific(?) rational(?) side of me says are you kidding me?!?

Do not misunderstand. I believe it. Teach it. Proclaim it. Base my life upon it. But where I too cry out “I believe Lord help my unbelief!”

One of funnier moments in Introduction to Christian Mission was when Isam Ballenger then wondered aloud:

How much does God need to resurrect? And what happens if I lose part of my body during life? What if I cut my fingernail or lose an arm? Will I get that nail or arm back? My my my! (very paraphrased from rough memory)

Yeah we had a short laugh at that. But what he said has haunted me since. His questions raise a serious issue. How exactly will we be raised?

Let me put it this way. What if we cut our nails – how long will they be at the resurrection? What if we lose an arm – will we get it back?

Let us raise the stakes. What if we never had an arm – will our resurrected bodies now have arms? What if we have extra digits or limbs – will we have the usual number? What if we are deaf or blind – will our resurrected bodies be able to hear or see? What if we are hermaphroditic – will we be one clear distinct sex? What if we have Down’s Syndrome – will we have a complete set of chromosomes? What if we have dwarfism – will we be normal size? What if we are conjoined twins – will we have separate bodies?

The last group of questions are more difficult because if we say yes then what are we saying about people with these characteristics? I have read of deaf people who are offended by the notion that they will hear after the resurrection because they regard their deafness as difference rather than something that needs to be “fixed” even by God.

Let us continue with some more general questions. How old will we be? Will someone who died at 110 be raised as if they are 30? Will someone who died at birth be raised as if they are 20? And since resurrected life is theologically continuation of this life then what kind of memories and personality will a resurrected infant have?

Hold that thought.

Will we have sex? Probably not.

Will we reproduce? Probably not.

Will we eat and drink? This is a serious question because the reason we eat and drink and breathe is so that we will not die. As one of my teachers Alan McNeil at Cornell University said “the Second Law of Thermodynamics is why we eat lunch”. But if the resurrection signifies the final defeat of death and we will never die then why would we need to eat drink and breathe? For the fun of it? Quite possibly. The Bible frequently refers to the eschatological banquet.

Okay then. Will we go to the bathroom? How will the resurrected body metabolize food and drink?

Oh right. Science-fiction.

The most serious attempt to wrestle with the implications of resurrection is the Riverworld series by Philip Jose Farmer. No matter how old you were you are “resurrected” having a particular age. Although there is a special planet set apart for people younger than 5 – so that they have a chance to learn and grow. Farmer also attempts to explore the exact “technology” that would allow resurrection. Every human being from conception(? trying to recall) has a wathan which is an artificially created “soul” that retains a perfect record of the whole person and his/her life and personality.

Obviously Farmer’s theoretical version of resurrection is not the reality that the Christian faith teaches. But it is the only serious attempt to flesh out *cough* what resurrection of the dead would look like in practice.

I believe in the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.

But I have some questions. Which may not matter.

Amen.

H/T The Anchoress by the way.

If I were to list my 10 favorite books there would be one science-fiction novel on that list:

The Dispossessed by Ursula LeGuin.

It tells the story of Shevek who is a physicist on Anarres which is a nonauthoritarian communist society. Theoretically no government. No money. And no laws as such. Shevek travels to the homeworld Urras of which Anarres is a moon to complete his work on a general unified field theory of time. At first a pampered honored guest of the A-Io government he escapes his hosts in order to support a general strike. The government uses military force against the strikers. Shevek manages to escape and survive and eventually seek asylum at the Terran embassy.

The ambassador from Terra says to Shevek:

Perhaps Anarres is the key to Urras… The revolutionists in Nio, they come from that same tradition. They weren’t just striking for better wages or protesting the draft. They are not only socialists, they are anarchists; they were striking against power. You see, the size of the demonstration, the intensity of popular feeling, and the government’s pani reaction, all seemed very hard to understand. Why the commotion? The government here is not despotic. The rich are very rich indeed, but the poor are not so very poor. They are neither enslaved nor starving. Why aren’t they satisfied with bread and speeches? Why are they supersensitive? … Now I begin to see why.

Yes I know. Another political post.

The new “V” series totally rocks.

In a recent episode Father Jack, Erica, and Hobbes have a prisoner – a human ex-soldier who works for the “V” and recently shot and killed a human supporter of the Fifth Column. They have a dilemma. They desperately need the information he has in order to save lives there are in immediate danger. He will not divulge the information. Should they torture him or not?

That was the moment I saw them in a new way. Each represents a different facet of the human psyche – or perhaps a different approach to being human. We have Father Jack who represents purity/nobility/sacrifice/morality. We have Hobbes who represents force/violence/ruthlessness. And we have Erica who represents the pragmatic synthesis – how often does she decide what the group does? Perhaps the super-ego the id and the ego. I still do not know how Morris the V fits into all this.

Father Jack believes torture is wrong. “Do not torture – even if there is a ticking bomb and torture is the only way to stop people from getting killed”. On this occasion he backs off and walks away. Hobbes will do whatever it takes no matter the morality or consequences. Last night he said it well. “You can call yourselves freedom fighters or rebels. Face it people – we are now terrorists”. Erica sometimes goes with Jack sometimes with Hobbes. Sometimes tries to find a balance between the two. Use violent force – but restrained and guided by morality.

I am not sure how Morris fits into all this.

Let me share what I recently posted on facebook:

I think Father Jack is one of the coolest characters I have seen in years (although he sure was a dunce last night). Not some stupid cookie cutter idiot… See More minister like we often see in entertainment. The guy rocks.

Consider the core group: Erica, Jack, Hobbes, and Morris the V (whose name is seldom spoken – odd). Each (except for Hobbes) is a well written well rounded character. They stand on their own. But I hypothesize that each represents a different facet or approach. Similar to the 4 hobbits in Lord of the Rings (Frodo is compassionate/suffering, Sam is bold/judgmental, Merry is valiant, Pippin is youthful/foolish). Or Kirk, Spock, and McCoy in Star Trek (logic, emotion/passion, synthesis?). Perhaps Jack is idealism/compassion, Hobbes is ruthless/violence and Erica somehow represents the pragmatic/balanced synthesis – and in that schema who the heck is Morris?

In a way each episode shows how the different “faces” of humanity – or different approaches to dealing with the V crisis – interact and ultimately play out. Sometimes Jack’s pure nobility wins the day (“always do the right thing”) – but last night it sure bleeped things up. Sometimes we judge Hobbes as too ruthless and unrestrained – but sometimes boy is he right. And Erica? Still don’t know how Morris fits in.

Recently my mind has been on the issue of morality ethics versus(?) virtue ethics. During March and April I led a series of Bible studies on the book of Ecclesiastes. What I shared was drawn heavily from the work of William Brown with whom I had the privilege of studying that biblical book in seminary. Biblical scholars universally agree that Ecclesiastes is an example of what we call wisdom literature. So far so good. But what is the theological center of wisdom literature? Proverbs seems so different from Job different from Ecclesiastes different from wisdom Psalms. What could possibly be a common thread in all of them? Brown suggests wisdom literature is about character – the shaping and reshaping of character.

And a critical component of character is virtue.

This is important because of the distinction between virtue and morality.

Virtue involves what kind of a person you are – not just whether you obey a set of rules. Now some Christians would object. The Bible include moral teachings – rules if you will – that we must follow. But those same good Christians would remember the insights of Paul. Good rules do not by themselves make good people. And the fruit of the Spirit is this – followed by a list of virtues or character traits rather than rules.

A system of morality that focuses exclusively on rules and principles can account for motivations and intentions to act on them only on an ad hoc basis. Conversely, one cannot conceive of character traits except as including dispositions to act in certain ways according to moral principles… Yet the cultivation of virtue is of primary necessity when it comes to situations that demand choosing between conflicting principles of duty or revising working rules of right and wrong. It is precisely this necessity that suggests the primacy of “virtue ethics” in moral discourse: Rules can never be exhaustively specified so as to preclude the need to judgment that extends beyond the rules themselves. Even when moral rules are adequate guides to conduct, they merely constitute the form of morality, not its point. (William Brown, Character in Crisis, 13)

Do note that Brown does not argue against the value of moral rules (get reference/citation).

During the Bible study series I shared that Ecclesiastes challenges and deconstructs traditional wisdom. Good behavior does not always produce good results – such as material prosperity. But Ecclesiastes does not leave us with nothing. It offers a new(?) set of virtues. The two I most strongly emphasized are joy and reverence. I told the class that if they remember nothing else please remember that Ecclesiastes preaches joy and reverence – and this is good news for the modern and even post-modern world. I will return to this in a forthcoming post.

Reverence.

One of the most important books I have read during the past decade is Reverence by Paul Woodruff who teaches at University of Texas – Austin. When I was on the planning committee for the Greater Baton Rouge Federation of Churches and Synagogues annual prayer breakfast we brought Woodruff to give the main address several years ago – and it was arguably the best prayer breakfast I attended since I have been here. Which is ironic because it was the least religious/theological presentation to the prayer breakfast. Which is one of the key points of his book Reverence.

Reverence is a virtue. Simple enough. Rather than a moral rule. A moral rule might say “never make fun of the government”. Woodruff argues that sometimes reverence requires us to make fun of the government – when our national leaders are acting like tyrants that is when they are not governing with reverence. A moral rule might say “never ever kill another human being”. Woodruff does not argue that reverence sometimes requires us to fight and kill but he does argue that it is entirely possible nay essential that soldiers who fight and kill be reverent. “It is reverence that moderates war in all times and cultures, irreverence that urges it on to brutality” (Reverence, 14).

Now what does all this have to do with “V” (2009)? Great question.

I do not know.

But I wonder if the dynamics in “V” (2009) – the interplay between Jack, Erica, and Hobbes, perhaps along with Morris – are related to this distinction between morality and virtue. How do they decide exactly what to do in each situation? Torture the prisoner or not? Kill another human being or not? Shoot down a shuttle or not? Warn another human being of a possible attack or not? Simple morality does not answer those questions – or rather it does answer them but in ways that leave our heroes unable to act in defense of humanity. But virtue might guide them in these situations. What kind of people are they? What virtues do they exhibit? And how do those virtues guide them to make the good decisions in these different and complex situations? Perhaps more precisely how do virtues guide them to act well upon the decisions they make?

I thought this was just brilliant.

It helps to know this is a remix of a rather good song “Empire State of Mind” by Jay-Z with Alicia Keys. Which itself incorporates an original song “Empire State of Mind” by only Alicia Keys.

H/T Ace of Spaces HQ.

My wife and I watched “Stargate SG-1″ religiously.

Religiously?!?

I sorta kinda got into “Stargate Atlantis” after a while.

Now we have “Stargate Universe”. Great concept. And some friends said to check it out it’s pretty good.

This weekend I watched all the episodes of “Stargate Universe” available online.

Sorry but I was disappointed. It has some good points. Concept. Special effects. Creative story devices. Some of the characters are interesting. But the end result is dreary depressing and most importantly boring. Found that after the first 10 minutes or so I would be looking at something else while the episode continued to play. Part of what made “Stargate SG-1″ work so well was the moments of humor. Oh sure plenty of drama and action anger and sadness. But even the most miserable “oh man we are so gonna die horribly at the hands of the Goa’uld” episodes had some humor to lighten the emotional load. “Stargate Universe” so far as I can tell does not. And no Eli the uber-geek does not quite cut it.

Although I have to admit now that Rush has been marooned on a desert planet…

Sorry. As loyal as I am to the “Stargate” brand just cannot stay with this one.

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

This will be a short post.

The script for “V” was written during the Bush administration.

So those who think it is about the Obama administration are mistaken. That includes those who think “yeah! sock it to them!” and those who think “what is this paranoid right-wing extremist nonsense?” And there have been many of both.

That does not mean it might not apply. I think it applies rather well.

My wife and I watched it Saturday evening on the computer and it was excellent. Tense. Disturbing. Creepy.

I thought it interesting to note there were two actors who had been in the short lived but excellent science-fiction series “Firefly” – although by the end of the pilot one of them was thoroughly dead. Nice to have you in town.

We look forward to more.

In a nutshell – I thought it was much better than the mediocre or even negative reviews led me to expect.

I read enjoy and respect Big Hollywood. John Nolte was not kind to “Terminator Salvation”.

What a crushing and noisy disappointment this is. For whatever reason, Director McG’s fourth chapter in the “Terminator” franchise tosses aside the simple but successful plot template that made its predecessors so memorable and goes all “Bourne” with a hyper-complicated plot, narcissistic “hero” and a big fat wide blur between the concept of good battling evil. Yes, welcome to Hollywood’s post-Bush “Terminator,” where a militaristic Resistance demands we “Stay the course,” Terminators work through their feelings, and John Connor runs off to find himself only to end up in a numbingly dull third act that plays like a direct-to-DVD toss off.

Read the whole thing here. You do not have to register.

I still respect Nolte of course. But I enjoyed the film. I did not think it was as sullen and dull and lacking-in-warmth as many critics (not just Nolte) argued. My daughter rather pithily commented, “If people want warmth they should watch a chick flick”. (Hey um Big Hollywood? Got an opening for a twelve year old?) I thought the story was engaging. The pacing tense. Some of the acting genuinely touching.

Let me offer a couple quick and mild criticisms centering on the character of Marcus Wright.

{WARNING! SPOILERS AHEAD! AWOOGA! AWOOGA!}

He is indeed a sympathetic character. But believable? This person was sentenced to death for the murder of his brother and two police officers. How then does this person come off as so noble and selfless? Is it programming?

And the movie never quite explains just how that whole “Marcus gives his body to science [read Cyberdyne] and ends up working for Skynet” thing works. Is the doctor sent back in time by Skynet? Is she human? If so – what does she think she is doing? Was it an experiment in making benign cyborgs that gets coopted by Skynet? This part of the plot is just too full of holes to ignore.

Now – I understand why more conservative reviewers think there is a post-Bush dig on the war against terror. “They are the machines. We are human. We are supposed to behave like humans”. Fair enough.

But is it that obvious? And is there a counterargument? Do conservatives wish to argue that… argue what exactly? Do we not often argue that one of the problems with liberalism is that too often liberalism assumes the end justifies the means? That results do not matter only motives? (“Well we are trying to help the poor. Does not matter if the result is generations of broken families enmeshed in poverty”.)

Moreover – does not the movie imply that we are defined by our decisions more than our nature? Do we not often argue that liberals emphasize too much “this is what you are” – as if background and ethnicity and orientation determine destiny? Is it not conservatives who tend to argue “yeah sure that is who you are and where you are from – but you have a choice“? And that is precisely the point of Marcus Wright.

Marcus breaks free from his destiny. He chooses against his programming. “There is no fate but what you make”. Surely conservatives can celebrate that!

Anton Yelchin (as Kyle Reese) is much better here than in “Star Trek” (where the Russian navigator Chekhov cannot pronounce the phoneme v). I admit that Kate Connor’s pregnancy is completely and strangely ignored.

I think the movie deserves better than the 33% rating at Rotten Tomatoes. If you enjoy the “Terminator” movies – see it! You do not have to wait for the DVD.

Wow.

Personally I thought it was fantastic – primarily in terms of “when you sat there watching it did you enjoy it?” Exciting. Touching at times. (Got choked up in a couple spots – I refuse to show tears in front of my wife. If I can help it.) And unexpectedly funny – laughed all over the place.

Kirk well done. Spock very well done. McCoy perhaps my favorite. Pike well done.

Later I will add some not-quite-profound reflections. Let me shift to a few criticisms.

SPOILER ALERT! SPOILER ALERT! AWOOGA! AWOOGA!

I was looking forward to Simon Pegg as Scotty. Funny – but also a bit silly.

Chekhov makes me want to scream. There is no way a Russian cannot pronounce v. Hello? Zdrazdvooytye? Dva? Dyevet? I feel bad for Eric Bana who played Nero – very poorly developed villain(s).

Yes I know Scotty was the first to figure out intra-solar beaming and beaming onto a ship in warp. But the Enterprise is en route from Delta Vega (where Kirk and Scotty are) to a rendezvous point. There is no way you beam… onto a ship in warp… that is several light years away. That is nuts.

Wait – a star goes supernova… it threatens the galaxy… Spock has time to try to do something about it in the next quadrant? Ridiculous.

The relationship between Spock and… Nah. And public displays of affection? You must be joking.

Although I accept the premise of the movie which is that Nero’s appearance has created an alternate history – still I am troubled by the radical change to the Trek universe. Romulus is gone? Vulcan is toast?!? Abrams has functionally erased “Star Trek: The Next Generation”, “Deep Space Nine”, “Voyager” and all of the “Star Trek” movies heretofore in one fell sweep.

But otherwise engaging enjoyable and entertaining.