Obama’s Fading Celebrity Factor

As President Obama has been taking heat for his economic policies and health care plan, his approval ratings have plummeted.  According to the most recent Rasmussen poll, Obama’s approval index rating has now dipped to -14, as compared to his +28 rating earlier in the year.  Whereas in January 65% approved of the job he was doing, now that number is at 48%.  This is a dramatic change of national opinion since Obama took office just seven short months ago.   But no one should be surprised at this.  As American politics has morphed into a celebrity show (even as celebrities have become politicians), this has changed many aspects of our political process.  And one of the more outstanding impacts is in the turbulence of public opinion regarding those who hold public office.

ObamaCelebrities, of course, are here one day and gone the next.  Today’s most popular singers and TV stars are quickly forgotten, even reviled as passé seemingly overnight.  Once a star isn’t “cool” anymore, he or she is dismissed.  Or if, like Ozzy Osbourne or Paris Hilton, they refuse to be dismissed, they become objects of public ridicule.  So when politicians leverage the entertainment world and take their campaigns to late night TV, effectively becoming celebrities themselves, it should not come as any shock if in a short period of time the public turns on them because, well, they’re just not “cool” anymore.  And because they cannot be so easily dismissed or forgotten, since they (usually) serve their full terms, they must suffer public ridicule—almost as a matter of course, notwithstanding the merits or demerits of their policies.

Long before the 2008 election I predicted Obama would win, if only because he was the more telegenic of the two candidates.  (Since 1960 the more telegenic candidate has won in every U.S. presidential election.  So much for substance when it comes to American presidential politics….) I also expected that the Obama “cool” factor would wear off early in his term so that his policies would have to stand or fall on their own merits.  Obama’s declining approval ratings and the furor over his health care plan have confirmed this.  It appears that from here on out very little will come easy for this president, amazingly despite the Democrat majority in both houses of Congress.  It will be interesting to see how he negotiates the rough road ahead when his celebrity currency of “cool” has all been spent.

Journey to the Center of the Knot

As the mother of four, ideas of dating, commitment and marriage are often on my mind and the topic of discussion between Jim and me. True, our kids are a little young (okay, really young, since most of them still require some assistance in the bathroom).  Nevertheless, my motto, sadly, seems to be “It’s never too early to worry about future events that are just as unlikely as likely to occur.”

Perhaps my worries stem from witnessing friends and family with older kids struggling with an aversion to dating when the subject relates to their teenage children. Of course, our oldest boys are developmentally at the stage where they are still quite certain that girls have cooties and would rather die than do anything other than pull their hair and run the other way. And our five-year-old daughter is at that glorious stage where she is torn between marrying her daddy and one of our college student friends. But I feel I can see just around the bend of the road ahead and anticipate the day when girls will suddenly be cured of their cooties and daddy won’t seem quite so appealing. So in the spirit of an ounce of prevention, I must confess to having fostered, especially in my boys, the idea that dating is for the birds and marriage is something to be put off like going to the dentist—you have to do it sometime, but there’s no need to be in a hurry about it.

tying the knotAn article in the latest issue of Christianity Today has me rethinking my assumptions, however. The article by Mark Regnerus, entitled “The Case for Early Marriage,” challenges conventional wisdom with regard to marrying at an early age. I am not sure what I think of the article’s argument but it has me wondering if there are some contradictions between my strong views on the importance of family and my discouragement of dating. When I think of any of my kids dating seriously in high school or early college, I am filled with trepidation. I have often told them that every commitment you make narrows your possibilities, so you have to think very carefully before committing to a relationship. Once you are in, you have certain obligations to that person that shouldn’t be neglected, a none-of-the-guys-go-steady-‘cause-it-wouldn’t-be-right-to-leave-your-best-girl-home-on-a-Saturday-night sort of approach. I want them to experience “life” before settling down, but what am I teaching them about the meaning of that life if I am saying “life” means freedom, lack of commitment and pleasure while family, responsibility and obligation are the anti-climax.

Jim and I recently had an enlightening discussion over dinner with a student friend—the one Maggie is determined to marry—and talked about the generational differences and how they contribute to widely differing approaches to vocation. Our young friend talked a lot about finding meaning in the journey rather than it all being about the destination. While I resonated with much of what he expressed, I couldn’t help but ask myself, if it is all about the journey, how does that reflect on my current location? As a stay-at-home mom, my journey is far from picturesque. Without a meaningful destination, most of the mundane things I spend my time accomplishing are without purpose. I should be really depressed, but I’m not. Far from it, I take pride in the fact that my hard work is a service to those I love most. I may not be “free” to see the world but my responsibilities bring a deeper meaning to my life that I wouldn’t trade for all the frequent flyer miles in North America. Of course, getting married isn’t the only type of commitment you can make. (One only has to join a church, commit to a deep friendship or volunteer for ministry to discover that.)

Now this doesn’t mean I am ready to start double dating with any of my kids this weekend, but it has informed my perspective on what I used to see as the impending doom of watching my kids discover love of the romantic variety. And hopefully, some day—many, many years from now—they will find true freedom in tying the knot.

Midlife, Mortality, and Faith

I recently turned 46, which happens to be the average age of onset of midlife crises for American men.  As for signs of this event in my own life, so far so good.  I haven’t experienced any sudden impulses to change my career, purchase a yacht, get a tattoo, or skip out on my wife for a younger woman.  But I must admit that the last five years or so I’ve found myself doing more assessment of my life to this point and my goals for whatever time I have left on this planet.  And being a philosopher, of course, I’ve also been reflecting on just what a midlife crisis is

The phrase “midlife crisis” was first used by psychologist Elliott Jaques in 1965 to describe that phase of psychological and behavioral turmoil which is experienced by about 15% of middle-aged adults in Western societies.  (Interestingly, some Eastern cultures, such as in Japan and India, show no evidence of midlife crises.)  Classic psychological symptoms include feelings of self-doubt, disappointment over goals not achieved, and obsessive preoccupation with staying young.  Such feelings sometimes prompt extreme behaviors, from extravagant purchases to adulterous liaisons.

Psychologists have proposed a variety of theories as to the ultimate causes of midlife crisis, regarding everything from Jungian self-actualization to the “sandwiched caregiver” effect of having to simultaneously care for children and aging parents.  But from what I’ve seen there is insufficient attention paid to the simple fact that it is often during midlife—in one’s 40s and 50s—that one is first acutely struck with the fact of his or her own mortality.  Whether it is hair loss, menopause, loss of youthful appearance, decline of athletic ability or, most likely, some combination of such factors, the imminence of one’s earthly demise becomes increasingly apparent during this period.

So how does one respond?  Obviously, some folks do not respond very well at all—essentially resisting the inevitable in a pathetic, vain, and sometimes laughable or even tragic attempt to hold on to one’s youth (or the Western accoutrements of youth) as long as one can.  As I see it, this is nothing other than a refusal to accept one’s mortality.  It is as if one’s body is declaring “Take note: I am approaching death—very slowly, perhaps, but quite assuredly,” and the midlife crisis prototype replies, “Don’t be silly.  You’ll be young forever.  Come on, body, let’s prove it by doing X, Y, and Z.” 

Other people, for whatever reason, respond very well to midlife physical decline.  They are able to “age gracefully,” allowing their youth to pass without desperately resisting the cosmetic symptoms of the aging process.  Nor, however, do they give up on healthy living.  They practice dietary discipline and get regular exercise but do so more for the sake of maintaining productivity and because they see their body as the sacred gift that it is.

These are, of course, extremes on the spectrum of responses to the midlife symptoms of mortality.  Perhaps most people fall somewhere in the middle, struggling to resist aspects of the aging process without denying it altogether.  One thing that has helped me is the realization that midlife is, like every other stage of life, essentially a moral trial.  Sudden or unexpected physical decline of any kind, whether due to disease or injury, has a way of bringing character issues into sharp relief.  And one can either respond with acceptance or resistance.  The physical decline of midlife just happens to be natural and gradual, but the response options are the same.  The way of wisdom is that of accepting one’s lot while working hard to make the best of it, and the way of the fool is that of resisting it to the point of preoccupying oneself with the impossible task of avoiding it.  So midlife decline presents two basic paths:  1) moral growth and maturing in virtue or 2) moral degeneration and reversion to immaturity and vice.  The classic midlife crisis could be simply defined in terms of the latter, at least from the standpoint of moral development.

Another way of analyzing midlife challenges is as a trial of faith.  Physical decline tends to prompt one to look heavenward or to become obsessed with preserving one’s earthly existence.  Yes, some folks do seem to blithely accept their physical fate, at least for a while.  But this is really just a form of denial.  I have seen such people fall very clearly into one of the other categories—heavenly-mindedness or earthly obsession—with the near approach of the angel of death.  And I suppose it is this way with nearly everyone.

As I see it, the physical decline of midlife is in many ways a gift, a blessed admonition that this world is, as Bob Dylan says, “a passing through place.”  God grants us many signs along life’s road to remind us that we are approaching that final turn, so to speak.  Even the most morally and spiritually devout among us can benefit from these reminders.

Space Travel and Snobbery, the Final Frontier

It is the rare breed that will voluntarily invite our large (not to mention boisterous) family over to socialize. It is truly exceptional that an overnight invitation is extended to the whole brood. But this summer, we received such an invitation from some dear friends in Texas, and we jumped at the chance. Their hospitality exceeded even the high standards of the South and we all savored our long weekend together.

140px-NASA_logo_svgSince our hosts live in Houston, we got the opportunity to visit the NASA Space Center. The kids were blown away by all the exhibits which were very interactive, though I am not sure how much knowledge regarding our space program they actually gleaned. I mostly counted heads and distributed snacks but toward the end of our visit, I had to acknowledge a certain vague skepticism on my part that surprised me. It wasn’t of the conspiracy theory, moon-landing-hoax variety but more along the lines of philosophical disagreement.

As I sat in the “Blast Off” theater trying to convince Andrew that, sadly, no, we weren’t really getting ready to head to the moon, I noticed a certain lack of patriotic ownership, so to speak, on the part of the NASA tour guide. One would think that throughout this tribute to the technological advances in the area of space exploration, the country that is achieving the most (not to mention footing the enormous bill) would be praised or even mentioned now and again. I guess in the end I felt a bit cheated. Okay, so I haven’t done much in the field of aeronautics, and our contribution to the overall federal budget is on the small side.  Nonetheless, there was an international flavor to this nationally funded program that made me feel a bit like someone going into a burger joint only to find they only had pad thai noodles on the menu. Nothing wrong with pad thai; I probably prefer it to a burger. But it’s the principle of the thing.

This disassociation with the United States reminded me of other programs that receive a great deal of money from the government (remember, the government is “We the People”) and yet seem to prefer to receive their payment under the table rather than acknowledge themselves as truly and exclusively American. NPR, PBS and our entire public educational system from kindergarten to state universities come to mind. They all too often remind me of sulky teenagers walking a few feet behind their parents in the mall, who desperately hope no one will see the family resemblance but have no problem with someone else paying the bill at the food court so long as they don’t have to sit at the same table.

Int'l space stationNow I have no problem with organizations speaking their mind, promoting their own agenda. If the people over at NASA want to form a circle around the International Space Station and sing “It’s a Small World After All,” they have my blessing. I just don’t particularly want to pay for it. Or if I do, I wouldn’t mind them waving a flag or two while doing so. Not to say “Hey, look at us—our country rocks and you don’t” but just as a ‘thank you’ to all those who work hard to support those programs. And if NPR wants to look down their noses at those of us who don’t fall into their political niche, that’s fine too. I just would rather not fund their snobbery.

A Defense of Conditional Immortalism

Conditional immortalism is the view that human beings are not naturally immortal but are only granted immortality (eternal life) by God as part of our salvation.  In other words, immortality is conditional upon divine grace.  Thus, those who are saved in Christ live forever with him, while those who are damned suffer in hell for some finite period and are eventually annihilated.

Conditional immortalism should not be confused with other versions of annihilationism which say that the damned are immediately destroyed upon death and do not suffer in hell.  And conditional immortalism contrasts with the traditional view (since Augustine) that the damned suffer eternal conscious torment.

Six Arguments for Conditional Immortalism

1. The Language of Destruction — Numerous biblical passages refer to the wicked and the damned being destroyed or perishing (Ps. 37:38, Ps. 68:2, Ps. 145:20, John 3:16, Phil. 3:19, etc.).  But if the damned live forever, then they are never destroyed.  Also, the biblical imagery of fire  (Isa. 34:10-11, Ezek. 20:47-48; Amos 5:6, Mt. 3:12, Mt. 13:49-50, Rev. 20, etc.) suggests obliteration of the wicked, since fire consumes what it burns.

2. The Opposing Concepts of Damnation and Eternal Life — In Scripture the eternal life promised to Christians is opposed to the damnation of the wicked.  But if the damned live eternally in hell, then their fate also is eternal life.  After all, they never die.  Theirs is a painful eternal life, but it is still eternal life.  The conditional immortalist view makes much better sense of the biblical contrast between damnation and eternal life.

3. Reconciliation of All Things to God — The Bible says that God will reconcile all things to himself (Col. 1:20).  If the damned live forever in hell, then they are not reconciled to God.

4. Matthew 10:28 — In this passage Jesus says that God can “destroy both body and soul in hell.”  This suggests that hell is indeed a place where souls are destroyed.

5. The “Second Death” — Conditional immortalism makes the best sense of the concept of the “second death” referred to in Rev. 20:14-15 and Rev. 21:8.  If the damned soul lives forever in hell, then there is no second death, thus contradicting Scripture.

6. The Argument from Justice — If all of the damned suffer in hell eternally, then this constitutes an infinite penalty for finite sins, which is profoundly unjust.  Some traditionalists insist that sins against an infinite and holy God require a temporally infinite penalty.  But this is a non-sequitur.  It does not follow from the fact that God is infinite and morally perfect that punishment of those who sin against him must be infinite in duration.

So where did the doctrine of eternal conscious torment come from, if not Scripture?  It appears that the culprit is the Platonic concept of natural immortality.  Socrates and Plato affirmed the notion that the human soul is naturally immortal.  This idea found its way into Christian theology in the late second century and later through Augustine.  It should be noted that while Augustine had most things right, he was not infallible.  He read the Platonic doctrine of the soul’s indestructibility into Scripture, and the church followed his cue.

Replies to Counter-arguments

1. Matthew 25:46 — In this passage Jesus says the wicked “will go away to eternal punishment” which suggests eternal conscious torment.

Reply:  The word translated here as “eternal” is aionias, which literally means “of the ages” (cf. Rom. 16:25).  However, even if aionias is taken to imply an everlasting state, conditional immortalism is not contradicted in this verse.  Those who go to hell are eventually annihilated and they remain destroyed forever.  This is a perfectly natural understanding of “eternal punishment” in this verse.

2. Revelation 20:10 — As commonly translated, this passage declares that the devil, the beast, and false prophet “will be tormented day and night forever and ever” (NIV).

Reply:  These are special cases and should not be taken to represent the fate of all of the damned, particularly human beings.  More importantly, the phrase often translated “forever and ever” (again involving aionias) is better translated “for ages upon ages,” as it is in some Bible translations.  This signifies a much longer torment but hardly that which is everlasting.

For an extensive discussion and defense of conditional immortalism, see Edward Fudge’s classic work The Fire that Consumes.  And for an informative scholarly dialogue between proponents of the traditional and conditional immoralist views, see Two Views of Hell, co-authored by Edward Fudge and Robert Peterson.  Also, check out this interview with Fudge about his view.  Lastly, the eminent evangelical biblical scholar John Stott defends conditional immortalism view in his Evangelical Essentials.  In fact, it was Stott’s arguments that finally persuaded me to embrace conditional immortalism.

Thoughts on Providence and Hell

I hold to a high view of providence—what is sometimes called the “Augustinian” perspective.  This is essentially the view that God actively governs the entire cosmos, including human beings.  The Augustinian view jives well with the Calvinist doctrine of salvation, which I also espouse, but it is much broader than this, affirming that everything that happens in history is somehow part of the divine plan.  The Augustinian view of providence is strongly affirmed in the Westminster Confession of Faith, which declares that God ordains all things that come to pass.

This is a hard teaching, and frankly I can see why many Christians reject it.  The two principal objections to the Augustinian view appeal to human freedom and the problem of evil.  And between these two, the latter seems to me to be the stronger objection by far.  How could God ordain such terrible evils as the Holocaust or that a small child should suffer from a brain tumor?  Good questions indeed, and I certainly feel their force.

My wife, Amy, is also an Augustinian when it comes to providence.  (I distinctly recall when I first learned that this was her view.  It was early in our dating relationship, and this revelation, combined with her usual thoughtful articulation of her perspective, floored me.  Like so many other issues, she arrived at the same conclusion as I, but via a more intuitive path than my more logical-theoretical approach.  This was probably the clincher for me—when I knew I was falling for her.  Or was it when she turned me on to the band Cake?  Hmm…  Anyway, I digress.)  Recently, Amy had a long discussion with a friend about providence, and naturally, her friend posed the objection from evil, specifically challenging Amy to explain why God would allow a little child to have cancer.  Amy responded by noting that God does everything he does for greater goods, such as to glorify himself and bless others.  And sometimes this involves or even requires intense suffering.  And if God can bring greater goods through the crucifixion of Jesus, which is the worst evil in history, then why can’t he bring greater goods through lesser, though still horrific, evils, such as cancer?  Amy’s friend was not convinced, and they went on to discuss other things.

Later, when recounting their conversation, Amy noted how this same friend of hers affirms the traditional view of hell, known as the doctrine of “eternal conscious torment.”  This is the view that those who are condemned to hell suffer eternally.  Not only are the pains of hell unspeakably intense, but they last forever, according to this view.  One of the many reasons that Amy and I reject this doctrine (in addition to the fact that it is not biblical) is that such endless suffering constitutes infiniteevil for which there is no redemption or sufficiently greater good.  (Traditionalists, of course, argue that the greater good is that it demonstrates the justice of God.  But how can infinite punishment for finite sins be just?  In case you were wondering, we affirm “conditional immortalism,” the view that the damned are eventually annihilated in hell and that only those in Christ live eternally.)  Ironically, many of these traditionalists who believe God tortures the damned forever in hell are the same people who reject the high view of providence because it implicates God in our finite suffering here on Earth.  As Amy put it, some people can’t accept a God who allows cancer but they glibly confess that he allows infinite suffering in hell. 

I suppose part of the explanation for this inconsistency lies in the fact that all (or most) of us have known cancer victims and have witnessed its awful ravages.  None of us, however, have personally witnessed the horrors of hell.  So, in the end, the problem is that of an existential gap.  It’s easier to understand or appreciate what one has experienced than what one has not experienced.  And it often takes tremendous effort to close this gap.  When it comes to comparing the sufferings of the damned and suffering in this life, I suppose that gap could never truly be closed.  We just can’t imagine the pains of hell, while the suffering we witness here among friends and family is all too real and, at times, overwhelming.  But we can always do better to put these things into proper perspective, and if we do so, I believe it will help us to better formulate our views on the doctrines of providence and hell, among other issues.

Living in the Twilight

The DVD selection at our small local library isn’t what you’d call expansive and leans more to the popular than the classic. A few nights back, I was heading home to face a mountain of laundry screaming for my attention and decided that I was okay with popular. I had heard a great deal about Twilight, both the book and the film, and decided it couldn’t be any worse than The Princess Protection Program which I had watched early in the week with the kids. Relative to its genre, the movie was more than half bad— interesting storyline and a plot that keeps you (or at least me) hooked till the end. I did, however, feel more than slightly self-conscious when explaining to Jim what I was watching. In an attempt to keep myself from looking like a total loser who sits around folding laundry and watching teenie bopper flicks, I decided to call it “cultural observation” and make a post out of it. Therefore, you the reader can benefit from my wisdom (or suffer through my folly).

twilightIf you don’t have any teens in your life and haven’t heard of the Twilight series, the basic premise is this: Bella, a young woman who has recently moved to live with her father in Washington state, becomes intrigued by and then falls madly in love with Edward, an aloof outsider who initially repels Bella’s attempts to befriend him but continues to pop up just in time to come to her rescue. Eventually it is revealed that Edward as well as his “foster” parents and siblings are vampires. Edward desires to save Bella from the monster within him and thus tries (and fails) to prevent her from getting too close. Now I realize that this sounds like the plot of myriad love stories, and in many ways it is just a new spin on an old tale. But isn’t that what draws us to so many narratives? We identify with the thread of narrative that runs through these stories, which also often runs through our own lives.

Whenever I have a strong emotional response to a film, which was certainly true in the case of Twilight, I become very suspicious of that film. The female heart is so susceptible to manipulation, I must keep my guard up lest I find myself in the garden taking a big bite of something that Forked Tongue over there said would do me some good. There is definitely some heart string pulling in Twilight and if Maggie was old enough to watch it (or read it) I would want to have some long talks about what true love means. We see Bella wanting to give up the very essence of who she is, a human, in order to be with Edward. Certainly I have experienced to varying degrees that feminine tendency to lose perspective in my relationships, both romantic and otherwise. There is something seductive in the idea of submerging to the point of drowning. Ironically, as soon as we have finished plunging head first, we seem just as likely to deeply resent any call to submission and spend the rest of our lives trying to fight our way to the surface or get out of the pool all together.

Back to the point at hand, my head is still aswirl from trying to dissect this movie. Whatever it is selling, it has certainly inspired a great deal of head scratching on my part. Head scratching is a good thing, right? Despite our desire (or at least my annoyingly predominant desire) to categorize everything into neatly assigned species and subspecies, there is something to the postmodern idea of gray areas and ambiguity. In the end the most compelling part of the story isn’t the love story but Edward’s inner battle. Something in his struggle against his very nature resonates with my own grappling against the flesh. I have faith that in the end, the monster won’t win out and that all will be made as it should be, including my heart. But there are many days when it feels as though the beast in me has been unleashed, as Johnny Cash would say. All I can do is hold on tight and hold out for dawn. I suppose we all have hearts that are living in the twilight, waiting for the dawn.

Lagidorp’s Playbook

There once was a football player named Lagidorp who deeply loved his team’s playbook.  He not only studied it diligently but encouraged his teammates to do the same.  Lagidorp—or “Lag,” as he came to be called—was a running back, and his many duties included blocking and short receiving routes as well as carrying the ball.  His first year with the team, Lag worked enthusiastically to fulfill his responsibilities.  But during his second year, the difficulty of some aspects of his job began to get to him.  While he loved carrying the ball, he found route running to be tiresome and blocking for the quarterback to be downright unpleasant.  “Why should I be stuck with picking up defenders that get past our offensive line?” he thought to himself.  “I’m a running back, not a blocker.”  Soon Lag found that some of his teammates had misgivings of their own about the duties laid out for them in the playbook.  And they would sometimes share their criticisms with one another.  So Lag’s love for the playbook waned, as did his respect for Coach, who devised the playbook.  Whereas earlier in his career Lag could trust Coach about the demands the playbook placed on him, now he found it very difficult to do so.

Eventually, Lag decided to ignore or de-emphasize some of the more demanding or “unreasonable” plays—those which required him to block for the quarterback.  “This is just too ‘old school,'” he would say.  “Today everyone should know that running backs shouldn’t have to block huge defensive lineman.”  Predictably, however, Lag’s approach resulted in some quarterback sacks, including one that cost his team a game and another that injured the quarterback.  Naturally, several teammates and assistant coaches chided Lag for his poor play.  While he  publicly acknowledged his mistakes, Lag privately resented their “arrogance” in correcting him.

As time went on, Lag found others outside the organization who shared his resentment toward his coaching staff, teammates, and especially Coach, for their unreasonable expectations.  Lag would often consider ways the playbook could be improved and how, if he were Coach, he would do things very differently.  By the end of his fourth year Lag had had enough, and he quit the team.  The last straw came when several teammates confronted him about his refusal to “play by the book.”  “You guys are part of the problem,” he told them.  “If you want to blame me for thinking for myself, then so be it.”

So Lagidorp joined another team—a team in a different kind of league where players wrote their own playbooks.  By some strange coincidence, though, all of the players’ playbooks ended up looking very much the same in this league—with very few responsibilities for helping teammates and where most plays emphasized “doing what comes naturally on the field.”  However, while the players claimed to enjoy this freedom, they did not improve as players but deteriorated in their skills.  Nor did they work well as teammates—if you could call them such—especially since they had no Coach.

There were also many more injuries in this alternative league.  This did not bother Lag much at first, but as the casualties mounted, he began to recognize that something was wrong.  Still he continued to play for his new team—until he had an injury of his own.  In the middle of his second season on the new team, Lag blew out his knee.  The injury called for reconstructive surgery, which meant a long rehabilitation.  During this time away from the game, Lag reflected on the previous five years.  He realized how foolish he had been in questioning his Coach and the playbook.  He also saw how unfair he had been to his teammates who, for all their flaws, were really doing the right thing in admonishing him. 

So as Lag did his rehab he resolved to return to his original team.  He contacted one of his former teammates, who was thrilled to hear this.  Eventually, Lag humbly approached Coach, apologizing for his irresponsible behavior and asking if he could try out for the team again.  “I was very foolish in the way I behaved,” he said.  “I’m ready to be a good teammate and play by the book.  In fact, at this point, I think I’d rather be a water boy than play in that other league.”  Coach forgave him, saying “We’d love to have you back on the team, assuming you really are ready to do all of the work.  It’s too bad it took an injury to get you to see the light.  But, in the end, you’ll probably be better for it.”

So Lagidorp tried out for his former team and made it back on the roster.  This time he didn’t seek the limelight, but he played a crucial role on the team and was especially pleased to block for his quarterback.  “Anything to help the team,” he would often say—and not just in public but even privately to himself.

Snapshots

Brief comments on film by Amy.
Some old, some new.  Domestic films and foreign too.

200px-gran_torino_posterGran Torino — I can’t remember the last time I saw a film I liked as much as I like Gran Torino which was surprising to me. I was pretty sure it would be well done but I had braced myself for the racially charged theme and overall dark atmosphere that often accompanies a Clint Eastwood movie. Though the film was by no means a tip-toe- through-the-tulips kind of experience, it felt a lot like life—ordinary days made up of seemingly ordinary moments punctuated by life-changing moments of drama. I must admit to having a bit of a crush on Eastwood’s character, Walt Kowalski, despite his crusty outer shell. I could even tolerate the less than heroic token Christian. If you have an above average tolerance for bad language, this is a must-see.

200px-henry_poole_is_hereHenry Poole Is Here — It was a slow night at the Spiegel household and I thought I would check out this Luke Wilson flick. I really didn’t have any expectations for a dark comedy about the face of Jesus appearing on the side of a suicidal man’s house. I am not sure that the filmmakers themselves knew exactly what they wanted to convey or, if they did, they weren’t entirely successful at conveying their message. I appreciated their openness to the supernatural but hated that they couldn’t bring themselves to draw conclusions or make a more explicit statement about faith. Still, good performances and an uplifting theme make it a great slow night movie.

200px-reader_ver2The Reader Okay, I don’t care if she played a great Elinor Dashwood (Sense and Sensibilty) or not, Kate Winslet is no longer invited to my first slumber party in heaven. (This is a game I play with myself when feeling like all my heroes predate me by a couple hundred years. I imagine sitting around eating cheese puffs and drinking beer with Charlotte Bronte, Jane Austen and Elizabeth Gaskell. Sad, but true.) Jim tells me this story represents nihilism, the complete meaninglessness of human history. It was maddening because since there is no meaning, there can be no villains, no heroes, no redemption—something this movie greatly needed. Winslet is a talented actress who delivers a stellar performance (most of which she gives in some state of undress), but nothing could redeem this film’s harsh take on the choices we make.

Mentionables: Children of Heaven — I don’t know how they make films in Iran but I loved the first eighty-two minutes of this movie and hated the last minute. If only I could wave my magic movie wand and change it to suit, this would be an all-time favorite).   I Capture the Castle — Still thinking about this one but I am a sucker for period clothing and a great British Isles setting.  The Proposal — Pure fluff, but one of the funniest romantic comedies to come down the pike in quite a while.

Hodgepodge

We just returned from our family vacation down South.  There and back, amidst the chaos that is our family life, Amy and I had some good conversations about art, culture, and theology.  We also talked a bit about film, and if our discussions are any indication, you’ll definitely enjoy her next installment of Snapshots.  Until then, here are some assorted thoughts of my own on random topics:

1. Counting the Cost—I recently heard that the interest on the last stimulus package is costing us (you, me, and other American taxpayers) $100,000,000 per day (assuming a 5% interest rate).  That’s right—one hundred million bucks every day.  That wouldn’t hurt so bad if it appeared the stimulus package was doing some good.  Supporters caution against pessimism at this stage, since less than 10% of the stimulus money has actually been spent.  But then why are members of Obama’s economic advisory team talking about the possibility of yet another stimulus package totaling hundreds of billions of dollars?  Five months into this mess, I am even more firmly convinced of Veronique de Rugy’s simple but insightful analysis.

2. Prehistoric?—When my son asked me the other day if a particular animal about which he was reading was “prehistoric,” it suddenly struck me what an anthropocentric word that is.  Since God knows (and is the author of) all of human history, something cannot be pre-historic in any ultimate sense but only relative to human knowledge of historical events.  So it is more accurate to say, as some folks do, that an event occurred before recorded history.  Splitting hairs?  Dwelling on the obvious?  Perhaps, but it’s still a good reminder of the eternal expanse of providence.

3. Robert McNamara, R.I.P.— The passing of Robert McNamara last week reminded me how deep an impact on world history one man can have, even when that individual is not a head of state.  McNamara served as defense secretary in the Kennedy and Johnson cabinets, and he was President of the World Bank for 13 years.  In addition to being the mastermind behind U.S. involvement in Vietnam, he is essentially the father of public policy systems analysis.  For a fascinating documentary on the former, check out The Fog of War.

4. Hail to the Kings of Leon—Lately I’ve been exploring the musical riches of Kings of Leon.  This foursome from Nashville Tennessee is comprised of three brothers and a cousin, all bearing the surname Followill—which, for my money, would be an even better name for the band, but I digress.  Their music is cleverly crafted, fully of melodies and energy, sometimes brooding, sometimes funny, but always good.  For a quick taste, check out this video of their song “King of the Rodeo“—2.5 minutes of rock n’ roll bliss (and a rather tastefully erotic video narrative—if only more video directors could be so creative and restrained).