Belief, Doubt, and Behavior (Part One)

Over the years I have had discussions with many college students who struggle with doubts about their Christian beliefs or who say they feel their faith is “slipping away.”  Some of them seek me out in hopes that I can provide some reassurance or guidance as they work through this trial.  In such cases, I always probe to see if there are any personal or relational issues lurking beneath the intellectual surface which might shed light on their struggles.  Often I discover that the student is involved in some misbehavior.  For example, a few years back a male student, whom I’ll call Bill, shared with me that he was struggling with deep doubts about his faith—questioning the truth of Christianity while also wallowing in a general apathy about it.  As I gathered some background information, Bill told me that his longtime girlfriend had broken up with him and since then he found it difficult to attend church.  So I asked Bill when was the last time he attended a church service.  His answer:  “about eight months ago.” 

               “Interesting,” I said.  “And when was the last time you read the Bible?”

               “Probably about that long—at least six months.”

               “Hmm…  Bill, do you suppose the fact that you haven’t sat under the preaching and teaching of Scripture might have something to do with your doubts and apathy?”

               “Wow,” he said calmly, and without even a hint of irony, “I haven’t thought of that.”

In conversations with other students I’ve learned that when it comes to the impact of behavior upon beliefs, many of them “haven’t thought of that.”  Such cases are, you might say, examples of people failing to “work out their salvation,” as Paul puts it in Philippians 2:12.  The life of faith must be active and engaged in the spiritual disciplines (e.g., prayer, Bible study, fellowship, worship, service, sacrifice, fasting, confession, submission, etc.), or faith will die.  Sadly, those who fail to pursue the disciplines are, for this very reason, unable to see that they are the ones causing their own doubts or apathy toward the faith.  As Peter says, “they stumble because they disobey the message” (1 Pet. 2:8).  See also Pr. 4:19 and Pr. 19:3. 

In short, disobedience gives rise to unbelief.  This biblical truth is evident in such passages as Ephesians 4:18-19, where Paul says that certain Gentiles “are darkened in their understanding…due to the hardening of their hearts,” which in turn he explains by the fact that “they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity” (Eph. 4:18-19).  On the other hand, obedience brings wisdom and insight, as Scripture also teaches.  God makes wise the simple and grants understanding to those who humble themselves (see Psalm 19:7, Psalm 25:9, Prov. 1:4 and Prov. 11:2).

Spiritual understanding is not just an intellectual matter but is also deeply moral.  This is why it is crucial that doubts be addressed with spiritual formation in mind.  In my next post I will note some of the psychological dynamics involved in the playing out of this biblical truth.

On Football, Dogs, and Athletic Achievement

I love football, particularly of the NFL variety.  So for fans like me, this is the most exciting time of the year, as the playoffs begin next week.  Of course, post-season play is the most exciting time in any sport at any level, but in the NFL it’s especially thrilling, because it’s a single elimination tournament culminating in the single most viewed sporting event of the year—the Super Bowl.

I follow the NFL closely—well, at least as closely as one can without the benefit of television or lots of free time.  I do manage to watch a few regular season games, usually those featuring one of my favorite teams—the Colts and the Saints (a great regular season for both of these teams, and their fans, by the way).  And I’ll be sure to watch all of their playoff games in the coming weeks.

Yesterday, while playing fetch with my dog, my thoughts drifted off to football.  Not random daydreams, my thoughts were inspired by the fact that my dog is quite a nimble beast—fleet of paw and amazingly elusive.  Watching him romp in the yard is a treat, as he can stop and start on a dime and instantly accelerate to a full sprint.  As a young, 50-pound standard poodle, he might be rather ordinary, but compared to humans his athleticism is impressive.

So the thought occurred to me that has occurred to many football-loving dog-owners:  How would an NFL team fare against my dog, or any dog for that matter, if they had to run him down on the field?  Of course, this premise has been the subject of a few silly films over the years.  But consider this:  If dogs were allowed to play in the NFL and if a dog such as my standard poodle could be given the IQ of, say, a human 7-year-old, then that dog would be the MVP of the league.  In fact, he would easily be a Hall-of-Fame player.  How so?  Well, no one could catch him.  Even the best NFL defenders would look inept trying to tackle him.

What position would he play?  Clearly you wouldn’t want to play the dog at quarterback or wide-receiver, where good hands are a must.  Nor would you want to give a dog the task of blocking or kicking, for obvious reasons.  So, granting our canine friend the right to carry the ball in his mouth (which isn’t illegal by NFL rules, as far as I know), the position of running back becomes an obvious choice.  Also, kick or punt return duties would be a possibility.  In any of these positions, once the dog gets possession of the ball, forget it.  He’s gone—leaving a trail of flailing defenders in his wake.

Yes, it’s a silly suggestion that conjures funny mental images.  But it also raises some interesting questions, both about football and athletics generally.  First, what does it say about football as a sport that a dog with the IQ of a first-grader would be a dominant player, probably the greatest the game has ever seen?  I don’t have any answers to proffer here—at least not yet.  I simply pose the question for your consideration.

Second, this is a good reminder that much of human athletic achievement, as impressive as it is in so many sports contexts, is a species-centric thing.  True, only humans can play tennis, golf, baseball, hockey, and many other sports.  But when it comes to running, jumping, swimming, and some other basic athletic skills, the animal kingdom puts us to shame.  It isn’t just cheetahs, horses, and greyhounds that can outrun Olympic gold-medal sprinters, but even cats, raccoons, and squirrels can do so.  And I suppose there are thousands of species of fish who can swim faster than Michael Phelps.

So the next time you’re blown away by the speed, power, or agility of a professional athlete, you might want to put his or her ability in broader zoological context.  And when you’re watching your favorite team in the NFL playoffs in the coming weeks, just consider how much better they would be if they had my dog returning kickoffs.

The Best and Worst of 2009

It’s been another exciting year, and we want to thank you all for reading and, if applicable, posting comments on our blog.  Once again, we would like to close out the year with summary remarks about good and bad stuff related to film, music, books, politics, and family. 

Best Film Experiences:

  • Jim:  Slumdog Millionaire, Inglourious Basterds, and The Blind Side. Three very different films with one thing in common: a compelling story.  See my March 2 post for extended comments on Slumdog, and our joint review of Inglourious Basterds in our October 29 post.  As for The Blind Side, I confess that I went to see it begrudgingly, figuring it would subject me to two hours of eye-rolling melodrama.  On the contrary, this simple but powerful film had me in tears the entire evening.  And I’m no sentimentalist…
  • Amy:  Jim chose the ones you’ve heard of, so here are a few older ones you might not have seen: 1927 Academy Award winning Sunrise.  I am not a big fan of silent films but this one is amazing, a perfect movie. Another oldie but goodie is The Red Shoes.  Finally, Murder!  I am slowly working my way through all the works of Hitchcock and this was one I marked off the list this year.  It’s classic Hitchcock, which is to say, suspense with heart and soul.  Finally, this one isn’t an oldie, but since I spend a great deal of time watching children’s films I will give a shout out to my friends Charlie and Lola.

Worst Film Experiences: 

  • Jim:  Little Children—Three of my pet peeves in contemporary Hollywood films are:  1) stilted dialogue, 2) gratuitous sex scenes, and 3) plotlines that encourage viewers to root for a character to commit adultery.  Well, this movie features all three of these vices.  Some thematic originality or insight into truth might have helped to redeem the film despite these flaws.  But, alas, this one was disappointing down to the last, contrived and implausible, scene.
  • Amy:  The Reader, Japanese Story, and Summertime are three that standout in their badness.  There are bad movies which are flawed in one way or another (poor writing, bad acting, etc.) and then there are movies that are faulty on a deeper level; like people who are really smart that you enjoy being with as long as you don’t think about what they are actually saying.  These films would fall into the latter category.

Best Musical Experiences of the Year: 

  • Jim:  Wilco (The Album).  Jeff Tweedy & Co. have been making great music since the mid-90s, and their latest effort is more of the same.  2009 is also the year that I discovered the Kings of Leon.  Thanks to Jason Fortner for his insistent introduction to the beauty of the Followill brothers’ musical world.
  • Amy:  It isn’t a specific album but I loved my Christmas music this year. One of my faves included Sufjan Stevens Songs for Christmas, “What Child is This” by Andrea Bocelli, and Mary J. Blige and Emmylou Harris’ Light of the Stable.  They all strike the chords of awe, sadness, and rejoicing that I love about the season.

Favorite Songs of the Year:

  • Jim:  “Breathe” by U2.  This song slaps you in the face, spins you in circles, then sits you down and caresses you into ecstasy.  What begins as an almost tuneless rapid-fire narrative resolves into one of the most melodically satisfying songs in the U2 repertoire.  Check out that entrancing combo of cello and guitar as well as the memorable lyrical images—e.g., “people born of sound” wearing songs “like a crown” and “the roar that lies on the other side of silence.”  Oh yeah.
  • Amy:  See my comments above about Christmas songs.

Jim’s Favorite Sports Moment of the Year:  The season-long dominance of the Saints and Colts (two of my favorite teams), both of whom earned home field advantage throughout the NFL playoffs.  I’m not naïve enough to think both will make it to the Super Bowl (#1 seeds almost never meet in the championship).  But I’m hopeful that one of them will play on Super Sunday.

Jim’s Most Disappointing Sports Moment of the Year:  The Detroit Tigers’ squandering their division lead on the last day of regular season.  It wasn’t so much a moment as a week-long, fated collapse.  Ugh.

Amy’s Best Eating Experience of the Year:  New Orleans’ restaurant Mona Lisa’s eggplant parmesan.  Spicy marinara sauce, crispy eggplant in a creative setting with friendly folks.  And the service is great—at the Mona Lisa everyone is treated like a regular.

Amy’s Worst Eating Experience of the Year:  “Zucchini and Basil Soup.”  In an attempt to cleanse our bodies of toxins, Jim and I did a cleanse diet which excluded all cheese, eggs, wheat, soda, and basically anything you might enjoy eating.  The diet was actually not that bad, but this cold “soup” was definitely the low point.

Most and Least Satisfying Reads of the Year:

  • Jim:  Antony Flew’s There is a God, in which the former atheist chronicles his journey to belief in God and masterfully summarizes the three main considerations which prompted him to embrace theism.  I’ve also greatly enjoyed the Arts and Letters Daily blog.  My least satisfying read was Kwame Appiah’s Cosmopolitanism—an attempt to salvage shared moral values while affirming cultural relativism.  I kept waiting for an argument, but it never came.  And until the very end I hoped Appiah would rescue his project from incoherence.  My hopes were never realized.
  • Amy:  Elizabeth Gaskell’s Ruth, Charles Dickens’ Little Dorrit and Same Kind of Different as Me were all inspiring.  They just don’t write them like that anymore.  I didn’t like The Girls from Ames.  Also, on three separate occasions, I began reading The Shack, but I couldn’t complete it.  Bad theology and even worse writing.

Political High Point of the Year:  Our hopeful sides want to celebrate the seemingly grass roots movement afoot in our country against government expansion and irresponsibility.  But our cynical sides tell us that it’s all just more talk that will, in the end, be undermined by profiteering.

Political Low Point of the Year:  The revelation that (now former) Green Czar Van Jones was a Marxist…or perhaps the revelation that (now former) White House communications director Anita Dunn was a Marxist sympathizer.  Or (speaking of Marxism?) perhaps the real low point was the health care bill.

Most Outrageous News Events of the Year:  The balloon boy hoax (what can you expect from a couple who would name their kid “Falcon”?) and Bernie Madoff (an appropriate surname, until the Ponzi schemer artist got busted) and climategate (when scientists feel they have to fudge numbers, this should give pause to even the most dogmatic believers in their theory).  Ah, the hits just keep on coming, don’t they?

Our Kids’ Most Memorable Statements of the Year:

Bailey:  “I think cussing is just adults’ way of whining.” 

Sam:  “Dad, just try to name a breakfast cereal I don’t like.”

Maggie:  “I think the wind is God whispering ‘I love you.’”

Andrew:  “I never want to get married, ‘cuz you have to kiss someone every day.”

Most Satisfying Shared Experiences of the Year: 

  • Jim:  Walking around the French Quarter together at the ETS conference in November.  Also, our August vacation in Houston with the incomparable Newcomb family. 
  • Amy:  Our various bike rides together as a family; also, seeing two of our kids become communicant members of our church and sharing the communion experience with them.

New Year’s Resolutions:

  • Jim:  To get to bed before midnight more than half of the time
  • Amy: To put Ranch Pringles behind me once and for all

Happy 2010 everyone!  And happy new decade as well!!

The Aesthetics of Christmas

As another Christmas rolls around, Amy and I have been struck again by the sheer beauty of the story.  The God of the universe condescends to take on human flesh and even humbles himself to the point of joining a rather pedestrian family.  And, as Amy noted in her last post, the irony of the Christmas story is wondrously exceeded by the Easter story, as the Christ is murdered—by us, the ones he came to save—but, in the most beautiful moment in human history, he rises from the dead, defeating death itself in the process and earning salvation for his elect, who were powerless to save themselves.  Truly, in terms of aesthetic richness, the Gospel story is incomparable.

For all of its spiritual significance, the aesthetics of Christmas (as with Easter) should not be overlooked.  Indeed, the spiritual and aesthetic dimensions of the Gospel are inseparable—a point emphasized by Pope Benedict when he recently met with hundreds of creative artists.  See my post on this on the EPS blog.

Merry Christmas, everyone!

Top Ten Albums of the Decade

It’s the end of the ‘00s, which means it’s time for top ten lists.  Below are my picks for the best albums of the last ten years.  Honorable mentions: Bob Dylan’s Modern Times, The Killers’ Day and Age, Neko Case’s Fox Confessor Brings the Flood, The Strokes, Is This It?, Red Hot Chili Peppers’ By the Way, The Shins’ Chutes Too Narrow, Arcade Fire, Funeral, and Modest Mouse’s Good News for People Who Love Bad News.

AHA SHAKE10. Aha Shake Heartbreak (2004) – The Kings of Leon Just when it appeared that no one would make a great rootsy, blues-based rock again, the Followill boys arrived on the scene to prove it can still be done…and how.  Aha Shake Heartbreak was the sophomore effort from the Kings of Leon, a marked improvement on their debut which earned critical acclaim in its own right.  These guys are the full package, soulful at every instrument with the chemistry of kin to boot.  This album soars from the start and never lets up.  Highlights:  “King of the Rodeo” and “The Bucket”

RINGLEADER9. Ringleader of the Tormentors (2006) – Morrissey For his second album since his return from a seven-year hiatus, the Moz put legendary ‘70s producer Tony Visconti at the helm.  The results lived up to the hype, as Visconti built innovative orchestral elements into most of the song arrangements.  Combined with the fact that the songs were among Morrissey’s strongest compositions ever—both technically and emotionally—it’s no surprise that some critics hailed it as the best ever from the Pope of Mope.  Highlights:  “The Youngest Was the Most Loved” and “In the Future When All’s Well”

NO LINE8. No Line on the Horizon (2009) – U2 Following two strong but less than groundbreaking efforts, the legends from Dublin looked to find some fresh musical inspiration in the unlikely country of Morocco.  Setting up camp in a studio in Fez, some of the songs on the album bear the marks of Arabic musical influence.  During the long recording process the band invited producers Brian Eno and Daniel Lanois to make songwriting changes as well in hopes to make the material still stronger.  The results on No Line speak for themselves, as it is the most fresh and inspired U2 album since Achtung Baby.  It is also less commercial than anything they’ve done since Zooropa, which explains the cool reception of the album in some quarters.  But let’s hope this doesn’t discourage the band from further musical exploration.

THIEF7. Hail to the Thief (2003) – Radiohead On the heels of their landmark Kid A and Amnesiac albums, what could the Oxford quintet do next?  How about create another masterful album which is even more unified than its predecessors, if only because it’s creative explorations are not as multifarious.  The album also has a discernible theme, which is evident in its title.  And the interpretive Rosetta Stone for the 16-song cycle is “A  Punchup at a Wedding,” where the most sacred of events is marred by a drunken brawl.  For Radiohead the wedding is nature, and human beings are the intoxicated fighters.  A powerful image, even if it does seal Yorke & Co. as misanthropes.  Such a dark theme, however, does not diminish the sheer beauty of this album.  Highlights:  “Go to Sleep” and “Scatterbrain”

RETRIEVER6. Retriever (2004) – Ron Sexsmith This unsung Canadian songwriter’s songwriter has yet to make an album that isn’t at least very good.  Retriever features a dozen artful tunes which demonstrate why everyone from Elvis Costello to Paul McCartney count themselves among Sexsmith’s biggest fans.  Producer Martin Terefe effectively created an organic warmth which perfectly reinforces the wistful melancholy of most of the tracks.  Several songs are achingly beautiful.  Some still move me to tears.  Highlights:  “Imaginary Friends,” “For the Driver,” and “Wishing Wells”

YANKEE HOTEL FOXTROT5. Yankee Hotel Foxtrot (2002) – Wilco Recorded in 2001, Wilco’s record company, Reprise Records, refused to release the album because of its perceived lack of commercial viability.  Eventually the band was released from their Reprise contract and signed with Nonesuch Records, who released the album the next year.  Naturally, the album sold like hotcakes.  It’s a brooding, sometimes dark record with plenty of atmospherics and interesting turnarounds.  Probably the very things that turned off the Reprise execs are what turned on listeners.  So much for the convergence of market sense and aesthetic sensibility.  If you haven’t discovered the raw rock paradise of Jeff Tweedy and friends, this album is a good place to start.  Highlights:  “I Am Trying to Break Your Heart” and “Pot Kettle Black”

NEON BIBLE4. Neon Bible (2007) – Arcade Fire After the critical exultation over their first album, Funeral, most fans of the indie band Arcade Fire braced themselves for a let down with their follow-up.  But Neon Bible proved to be even stronger than their debut.  Both albums are melodically and emotionally rich, but Neon Bible is more mature in terms of lyrical vision.  The album’s abiding theme of spiritual angst is especially compelling, with several songs wrestling with the realities of sin, death, and redemption.  Highlights: “Intervention” and “The Well and the Lighthouse”

COOKIE3. Return to Cookie Mountain (2006) – TV on the Radio This unique outfit from Brooklyn, New York blends progressive rock, jazz, hip-hop, and electronica.  The song’s lush textures, thanks to the production wizardry of band guitarist Dave Sitek, reward repeated listening.  Layers of melodies, rhythms, and vocalisms create a unique and hypnotizing soundscape for stream of consciousness lyrical explorations.  One of the album’s standouts, “Wolf Like Me,” is quite possibly the song of the decade.  Other highlights: “Hours,” “A Method,” and “Dirthywhirl”

LOVE AND THEFT2. Love and Theft (2001) – Bob Dylan Just prior to the album’s release, the Bobster was quoted as saying Love and Theft felt like a greatest hits album.  This seemed like pre-release hype at the time, but he turned out to be correct.  Each song feels like a classic, whether the style is rockabilly, swing, bluegrass, parlor jazz, or blues.  Dylan and his band—featuring the incomparable tandem of Charlie Sexton and Larry Campbell—move effortlessly from genre to genre, humbly serving each tune.  Lyrically, Dylan is at the top of his game—which is no small boast—spinning captivating yarns, tossing off wise proverbs, telling jokes, and creating an abiding feeling of riverboat adventure and Old South nostalgia.  All in all, a flawless album.  And to think he did it as a man in his sixties.

KID A1. Kid A / Amnesiac (2000-01) – Radiohead Okay, so these are two albums rather than one, but I’m combining them because all of the music was recorded during the same sessions.  The band didn’t want to release it all on one double-length CD, so they divided the songs into two separate albums.  In actuality, it’s more like a time-released double album, with half of the songs appearing about six months after the others.  AMNESIACThe novelty of the release format only hints at the originality of the music itself, which felt at the time—and in many ways still does feel—as if it had been recorded in the year 2050 and sent back to our time to blow our minds.  Amazingly, the albums have “aged” well.  The truth is, as with all great music, it doesn’t seem to age at all.  Kid A highlights:  “Optimistic” and “Idioteque”; Amnesiac highlights:  “I Might Be Wrong” and “Knives Out”

Two Cheers for the Manhattan Declaration

If you haven’t done so yet, check out the recent Manhattan Declaration, a Christian manifesto on issues related to abortion, marriage, and religious freedom.  Co-authored by Charles Colson, Robert George, and Timothy George, the statement was initially signed by over 170 Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant religious leaders.  Since then (November 20, 2009), more than 238,000 people have signed the declaration, including Amy and me.  We agree with every word of this document and are greatly encouraged by it.

In addition to providing lucid statements about the ethics of abortion, euthanasia, and gay marriage, the Manhattan Declaration affirms the appropriateness of civil disobedience in cases where state or federal laws would compel complicity with immoral practices:  “We recognize the duty to comply with laws whether we happen to like them or not, unless the laws are gravely unjust or require those subject to them to do something unjust or otherwise immoral….  We…embrace our obligation to speak and act in defense of these truths.  We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence.”

Amen.

Plato, Calvin, and Internet Anonymity

It is a sad fact about the Internet that thoughtful news commentaries and blog posts are often appended with strings of comments that degenerate into hostility, name-calling, or obscene language.  Lately, I have encountered more of these than usual (not on this blog, thankfully), and it makes me wonder what happened to mutual respect and good manners in public debate.  Evidently, in the minds of some people these days, the Internet put an end to that.

Like many aspects of contemporary life, this got me to thinking about Plato, specifically a famous passage in his Republic.  In Book II, a character named Glaucon relates a story of a shepherd named Gyges who discovers a ring which has the power to make him invisible.  Realizing the potency of his new possession, Gyges uses it to seduce the queen and murder the king, thus establishing himself as the new ruler.  Yet, prior to discovering the ring, Gyges was a rather ordinary guy, a humble shepherd who worked hard for his pay and never hurt anyone.  Glaucon’s point is that the only reason Gyges behaved himself was to avoid reprisal.  He obeyed the laws because he feared he’d get caught and punished if he disobeyed.  So when he happened upon a means to avoid such consequences, he exploited it to the extreme.  Furthermore, Glaucon suggests that all of us are like Gyges.  The only reason we act morally—to the extent that we do so, that is—is because we are compelled by the laws governing society.  The truth is, says Glaucon, we are immoral by nature, and if any of us had the Ring of Gyges, we’d act no differently than that ordinary shepherd.  Under the cloak of invisibility, even the most righteous would prove their perversity by stealing and snooping, if not seducing and killing just like Gyges.

As a Calvinist, I wholly affirm the doctrine of total depravity, and I consider Plato’s myth to be profoundly insightful (as did J.R.R. Tolkien, whose Lord of the Ringsseries was inspired in part by Plato’s story).  Though I think Glaucon goes too far in suggesting that given the power of invisibility everyone of us would succumb to such extreme temptations, I do think many folks “fake it” and act morally only because, as Glaucon suggests, they fear the consequences of detection.  In a strange way, the internet confirms this truth, as so many people are willing to ditch all decorum when posting comments on various websites.  When I read such hostile or abusive language I think, “Who are these people?” (Naturally, they never identify themselves.)  Well, they are no doubt the same people I encounter every day—at the store, on the street, perhaps even in the classroom.  In public (presumably) they behave themselves, but on-line they acquire a limited form of Ring of Gyges.  And while invisible in that domain, they let their true moral colors show.

They say you can judge a person’s character by how they handle themselves in small matters.  If that is true, and anonymous comments on websites are any indication, then there appear to be a lot of bad characters out there.  Old Glaucon had a point.  On the other hand, lest I sound like a moral pessimist (some would say all of us Calvinists are), most people do behave themselves on-line, even while “wearing” the electronic Ring of Gyges—restraining themselves and managing a respectful tone when making comments.  Is this a falsification of Glaucon’s thesis?  Perhaps.  But then again, maybe not.  This might actually serve to further confirm Glaucon’s point, since (at least many of) these same people might behave themselves out of fear divine reprisal.  After all, the internet cloak of invisibility doesn’t obscure God’s view.

Of course, we will never know how many of us are motivated out of a desire to please (or not to displease) God.  But Scripture does clearly and emphatically teach both that God knows all things and that he will judge all of our actions, words, and even thoughts.  For example, we are told that “God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil” (Ecc. 12:13; see also 2 Cor. 5:10).

So let’s keep this in mind as we post comments on websites, particularly when we find someone’s opinion disagreeable or even repugnant.  Ultimately speaking, there is no anonymity.  And no one is ever really invisible.

Comments anyone?   🙂

Wolf at the Door

On Monday Anita Dunn stepped down from her position as White House communications director—the culmination of recent controversy over her remarks that Chairman Mao was one of her “favorite political philosophers.”  Two DUNNmonths ago, Obama’s so called “Green Jobs Czar,” Van Jones, resigned from his post following furor over his sympathies with Marxism.  Fox News, more particularly conservative JONEScommentator Glenn Beck, led the charge in exposing the Marxist stripes of these two Obama appointees.  And it has been interesting to observe how among other media sources more attention has been given to Fox’s “outing” of these two Marxist sympathizers than to the fact they were in the Obama administration in the first place. 

How many other Obama appointees have Marxist convictions?  And what are we to think of the President himself in light of this, especially given the fact that he has had numerous other Marxist associates throughout his career, including his early mentor, Frank Marshall Davis?

It wasn’t long ago that public figures avoided any linkage to Marxism, whether or not they actually subscribed to the principles of this foolish and oppressive ideology.  Even in the days of McCarthyism it was generally agreed that the Reds were evil.  The controversy concerned Joe McCarthy’s tactics, not his concern to root out communists from the U.S. Federal government.

It wasn’t long ago that nearly all U.S. citizens agreed that Marxism fundamentally opposes the American system of government and recognized that to the extent that socialist ideals are taken seriously by those in power our basic constitutional rights are threatened.  Indeed, the very fact that we have a Constitution which guarantees the freedoms it does seemed to be a reliable firewall against Marxist infiltration.

And it wasn’t long ago that the Marxist belief in the necessity of government force to institute a classless society seemed either innocuously ensconced in the pages of The Communist Manifesto or, practically speaking, restricted to distant lands from which we are safely buffered by both great oceans and great moral wisdom.

But things have changed, and a political destiny that was once so unthinkable in our country now seems a distinct possibility.  Fellow lambs of constitutional polity take note.  The Marxist wolf is at the door.

Inglourious Basterds: A Review

Since his landmark 1993 film Pulp Fiction, Quentin Tarantino has been rightly heralded as one of the finest film directors of our time.  The films he has made since, including Jackie Brown, Kill Bill, and Death Proof, have been consistently strong, but most critics agree that none of these efforts quite achieved the magic of his sophomore effort (Reservoir Dogs being Tarantino’s debut).  The pre-release hype for this year’s long-anticipated Inglourious Basterds intimated that it might be his best yet.  So being confirmed Tarantino fans, we were eager to check it out.  Was all the praise overblown?  Not at all.  Amy and I agree that the film is an instant classic.

200px-Inglourious_Basterds_posterSet in German-occupied France during World War II, Inglourious Basterds depicts two (wildly fictitious) plots to assassinate Hitler and his Nazi cronies.  One of these plots is executed by a ragtag vigilante team of Jewish-American soldiers.  Led by Aldo “The Apache” Raine (played by Brad Pitt), the group terrorizes Nazi soldiers by scalping all of their victims and disfiguring the few survivors.  The other plot is masterminded by one Shoshanna Dreyfus (Melanie Laurent).  Shoshanna and her boyfriend run a cinema in Paris.  When they learn that top Nazi officials, including the Fuhrer himself, plan to attend a premier at their theater, they concoct an assassination scheme that is as ironic as it is devastating.  Eventually, these two storylines converge, and the results are spellbinding.

Figuring prominently in both storylines is Nazi Colonel Hans Landa, a.k.a. “The Jew Hunter” (played by Christoph Waltz).  As the film follows him, we are equally appalled by his cool racism and charmed by his sophisticated wit.  The humanizing effect of developing his character in this way has caused some controversy, but viewers are nonetheless satisfied when he meets his fate—a sure sign that Tarantino did not make the Landa character too sympathetic.

So why do we love this film so?  Let us count the ways in tag-team fashion.

Amy: Let me begin by sharing a story that will hopefully shed light on my thoughts and feelings regarding Inglourious Basterds. When asked recently what I liked about the film, I was honesty puzzled by the question, first thinking “What do I like about it?” and then thinking “What do I like about it?”  This is like trying to analyze what you like about ice cream, capri pants, or sex.  It’s too basic to put into words, but you sure know you like it—a lot.  Of course, you can analyze, break down all the component that make it great but there is still that mysterious element when taken as a whole that sets it apart and makes it special.

Jim: Tarantino’s talent for blending and reinventing genres is well-known, but he out-does himself with Inglourious Basterds.  To tell a WWII story in the style of a spaghetti Western, seasoned with dashes of and comic superhero effects, is original enough, but to do so in such compelling fashion is what prevents the film from being a mere experiment.  In fact, the story is so gripping and, in its own way, realistic, that one actually forgets the genre twisting devices being used.  The (not very) secret of Tarantino’s success in this regard is his brilliance as a screenwriter.  He tells a story as well as anyone in film today, and his dialogue is consistently rich, enthralling, and believable.  Inglourious Basterds is Quentin Tarantino at his very best as a screenwriter.

Amy: Though there is a seemingly intangible magic to Inglourious Basterds, it is in fact the mundane in many ways that casts its spell.  I am a big believer in the idea that it is the little choices by filmmakers that make or break a film.  Details in casting, art direction and costume design all add or subtract layers in a way that either draw a viewer into the film as a participant or keep one at arm’s length all the while screaming “You are now watching a movie!”  It is the authentic feel of Tarantino’s settings, casting and costuming which, for me, give him greater freedom in storytelling; the atmosphere is so plausible that the sometimes absurd events seem completely natural.

Jim: When Tarantino is at his best, he manages to incorporate humor into serious, even dark and morbid plots.  Inglourious Basterds showcases his genius in this regard, featuring lots of amusing, memorable dialogue and scene premises, clever plays on language and cultural clichés, and even  physical comedy.  In most cases, the humor comes from the performances, especially by Pitt and Waltz, but many other subtleties and details, as noted by Amy, add to the film’s charm and comic qualities.

Amy: Of course, you can have amazing locations and clothing but without great acting it simply doesn’t work.  Fortunately, Inglourious Basterds is not lacking in outstanding performances.  I hesitate to even use the word “performance” because for the most part the actors were virtually flawless.  Rather than having the usual struggle to suspend your disbelief, you have to struggle to remember they are only acting.  I had bones to pick with Brad Pitt’s southern drawl, being from the area that his character claims to hail from, but other than that, the cast was remarkable.  (I feel I am quickly running out of positive adjectives:  tremendous, excellent, peachy keen?)  Even casting Pitt, along with a few other well-known actors who make surprise appearances, is perhaps all part of Tarantino’s master plan.  He has a habit of taking easily recognizable performers and casting them against type.

Jim: The performance by Christoph Waltz is one of the best of the decade.  He manages to be both endearing and sinister, which is a difficult line to walk.  Oh, and by the way, he very capably speaks four different languages in the film.  And his presence in every scene is commanding.  Tarantino has been quoted as saying that Waltz “gave me my movie back,” as he had essentially concluded that the part was “unplayable.”  It simply demanded too much of an actor.  Yet Waltz pulled it off and likely earned himself an Oscar in the process.

We’d like to conclude with some remarks about the profanity and violence in Inglourious Basterds.  Understandably, some viewers are bothered more by Tarantino films than by most in regards to these matters.  Part of the reason is the sheer volume of profanity in, say, Pulp Fiction, or the realism of the violence in most of his films.  Inglourious Basterds doesn’t have as much profanity as many popular contemporary films, and there is little sexual content and no nudity.  But there is plenty of violence, though not as much in terms of volume or realism as some other war films, such as Saving Private Ryan or To End All Wars.  For those who are sensitive to this, take warning.  But if your threshold of tolerance for violence is reasonably high, then prepare yourself for an aesthetic feast.

Darwin’s Ten Worst Nightmares

Since this year is the bicentennial of Charles Darwin’s birth (and also the sesquicentennial of his landmark book The Origin of Species) I thought I’d post something related to the modern champion of evolutionary theory.  While I do believe in natural selection and affirm the explanatory power of this mechanism when it comes to many biological adaptations and modifications, I am no Darwinist.  That is, I don’t think natural selection can explain the evolution of whole new biological families, much less new classes or phyla, of animals.  And the fallacy of the Darwinian paradigm, insofar as it affirms the common ancestry of all organisms, can be summed up in two words:  hasty generalization.  Just because variation within species (or, to be generous, new species and perhaps even new genera) can be produced through natural selection, it does not follow that all plants and animals evolved from a common ancestor.  In fact, there are many reasons to believe that common ancestry is false, even impossible.

So while many tributes to Darwin this year have celebrated the reputed fulfillment of the man’s dreams of a scientific explanation of all living things, I’d like to list some of his worst nightmares.  Here are, to my mind, some of the bigger problems with Darwinism, proceeding from particular problems to more general issues.

1. The Monotremes – These are the egg-laying mammals (including the platypus and the spiny anteater).   It’s not just these anomalous beasts that are problematic for Darwinism, but the whole step from egg-laying to live births.  One wonders how such a transition could ever take place.  Also, if it was somehow environmentally necessary, then why are there still so many thousands of species of successful egg layers?  All of these animals are doing just fine, thank you very much.

2. The Elephant – Consider the elephant’s trunk, an appendage so nimble that it basically has the functionality of both a hand and a water hose.  The trunk is, or is often called, a fusion of the “nose” and “upper lip.”  Also, the elephant appears to be the only animal with four knees.  Or, if the front knees are actually more like wrists, as some maintain, it remains the case that these joints function like knees.

3. Marsupials – In marsupials, such as kangaroos, koalas, and possums, embryos (at just 4-5 weeks!) leave the womb, crawl up the mother’s abdomen, and then crawl down into a pouch where there is a milk-producing nipple waiting for them.  Which came first, the life-sustaining pouch or the premature embryonic ex-cervical adventures?  And how to explain the embryo’s excursions in the first place?

4. Flight – Explaining the emergence of flight is not just a problem for Darwinism.  It is four separate problems, since there are (or have been) flying insects, bats, reptiles (Pterosaurs), as well as birds.

5.  The Eye — Darwinists typically point to light-sensitive spots in primitive organisms as precursors of the eye.  But such structures are so far from what we find in fish, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals as to be useless in providing a genuine account of eye evolution.  The coordination of meticulous musculature, circulatory, neurological, and anatomical structures in even the fish eye is mind-boggling.  And mere sensitivity to light is categorically different from what a true eye produces:  a mental image or a visual experience, which leads us to the next item on our list.

6. The Emergence of Consciousness – Not only is it impossible for Darwinism to explain how brains first produced awareness and cognition, but Darwinism cannot tell us why this extraordinary capacity should evolve.  Philosopher of mind David Chalmers puts it like this:  “The process of natural selection cannot distinguish between me and my zombie twin.  Evolution selects properties according to their functional role, and my zombie twin performs all the functions that I perform just as well as I do…  It follows that evolution alone cannot explain why conscious creatures rather than zombies evolved” (from The Conscious Mind [Oxford, 1996], p. 120)

7. Sexual Reproduction – The evolutionary development of reproductive organs that are morphologically and physiologically complimentary is unthinkable.  Evolutionary biologists tend to focus on the value of sexual reproduction for strengthening species.  But this is not the point at issue.  The question is how the mechanism could emerge in the first place and how such massively complex reproductive systems could change so dramatically in parallel (mutually complimentary) fashion.

8. The Cambrian Explosion – Classical Darwinism predicted that the geological strata (layers of rock in the Earth’s crust) would reveal a gradual increase of complexity in living forms.  With the advance of geology and paleontology, exactly the opposite was discovered.  The earliest strata in which multi-cellular life appears, Cambrian period, features a sudden appearance of very complex organisms.

9. The Lack of Intermediate Fossil Forms – In addition to the problem of sudden appearance of complex life, there is the stunning lack of fossil evidence for intermediate forms between the classes of animals, e.g. from reptile to bird (sorry, Archaeopteryx is a true bird), reptile to mammal, land mammal to sea mammal (cow to whale?), etc.  Darwin himself seemed to sense the seriousness of this problem:  “Why … is not every geological formation and every stratum full of… intermediate links?  Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory” (The Origin of Species [Penguin, 1968], p. 292).

10. Self-Defeating Implications – Philosopher Alvin Plantinga has brilliantly demonstrated that a naturalistic Darwinist perspective undermines itself.  If all aspects of living organisms were produced solely because of their survival value, then this means that even human cognition exists just because it is practical in this way.  But nowhere in this account is there a concern for truth as an aim of cognition.  In short, if human cognition (e.g., beliefs, reasoning, concept formation, etc.) were produced through evolution, then we have no reason to trust its capacity to produce true beliefs.  So we have no grounds for trusting any of our beliefs, including our theories about origins.  This means that if Darwinism is true then we have no reason to believe that it is true.  G.K. Chesterton seems to have glimpsed this point when he said, “Evolution is a good example of that modern intelligence which, if it destroys anything, destroys itself.  Evolution is either an innocent scientific description of how certain earthly things came about; or, if it is anything more than this, it is an attack upon thought itself” (Orthodoxy [Doubleday, 1908], 34).  Amen.