Movie Write-Up (Loosely-Speaking): Solo

We went to see Solo during the Memorial Day Weekend.  My custom has been to write about all of the Star Wars movies that I see in the theater.  I’ve been stalling on this one.  For the others, there were profound elements that I felt I could blog about.  For Solo, there is nothing like that.  And yet, Solo was my favorite of the newly-released Star Wars movies.  I mean, above The Force Awakens, Rogue One, and The Last Jedi.

What did I like about Solo?  That’s a good question.  The plot was fairly easy to follow.  Rogue One, I thought, was more convoluted.  The characters in Solo were better.  I found them more likable.  The Han character: well, I cannot say that he was totally like Harrison Ford, but he was cool and confident, in his own way.  His girlfriend Qi’ra: she was physically attractive, certainly, but she was also a power-broker, carrying herself with authority wherever she went.  Lando: a cheat, yet a charming cheat.  But he loved his robot, who crusaded for robot rights. He probably did not love her in a romantic sense, as she thought, but he cared for her.  It was funny when Lando narrated the Carlissian Chronicles, and when he flew the Millennium Falcon away when Han was in trouble (poor Han)!  The Woody Harrelson character: mistrustful, yet he loved someone on his team.  Then there was another character on his team who loved to be alone and unattached, or so he thought.

Then there were the cool scenes.  Some spoilers here.  We learn how Han gets the name “Solo.”  That scene was pretty intense, as he was trying to escape Imperial detection.  Han is thrown into a pit with a hungry monster, and the monster turns out to be….Aaaarrhlll!  Is that how you spell the sounds he makes?  Lando says that he hopes he will never see Han again, and Han takes that in stride.  Han at the end is about to work for a gangster on Tatooine, who the Woody Harrelson character was about to work for.  The criminal powerhouse who was ultimately in charge of Qi’ra and her husband turned out to be…Darth Maul!

In the end, Han helps out people we thought were bandits but turned out to be the precursors of the Rebellion.  One of them is the actor who played Wicket in Return of the Jedi!  Han declines to join the Rebellion, preferring instead to smuggle.  I wondered if this Han was a bit more idealistic than the crusty Harrison Ford one.  Or maybe Han’s natural character is to look out for number one, and yet to end up doing the right thing, every now and then.

There were a lot of kids watching the movie.  Is it good for them to watch a movie in which the hero is a thief and a smuggler?  I don’t want to be prudish here, but it’s something I wonder.

Anyway, I’ll leave the comments open, but snarky comments about my post will not be published.

Church Write-Up: Resolution, Mystery, or Both?

On Thanksgiving, I went to the Missouri Synod church’s Thanksgiving service.

The pastor talked about a movie from the 1980’s entitled The Big Chill.  The pastor was saying that it is about University of Michigan students, and, while he himself liked the movie, he could see Roger Ebert’s point that the movie had no resolution.  It was aimless.  The pastor cited this as a movie that asks the right questions, but does not quite get to the correct destination.

I read up on the movie when I got home.  It is about people who were college students, but they got older and reached middle age, dealing with the problems and the challenges of that.  One of them (played by Kevin Costner) had committed suicide, and that drew the former classmates together.  From the wikipedia description, it appeared that the movie had a lot of sex: looking to sex to find fulfillment.  This may be part of what the pastor meant when he said that the movie asked right questions but fell short in its answers.

The movie may not arrive at a resolution, but I doubt that it is like some comedies I have seen: going nowhere, such that I could not care less about where they go.  They’re just a bunch of silliness!  An existential piece about people coping with challenges, like Sisyphus rolling that stone endlessly uphill, sounds interesting to me.  I hope, though, that the movie is not just about sex.

Do movies or TV shows need resolution to be any good?  I think of the show Touched by an Angel.  There was a time when I absolutely loved that show.  Nowadays, while I still like it, I like it less than I did (and I mean at least a year ago).  You have people with these agonizing problems, and a minute-long speech by Monica, Tess, or Andrew changes their perspective and solves their problem.  Maybe I am selling that short: if I absolutely knew that God existed, and that an angel was offering encouraging, consoling, loving words from God that I could trust as true, then perhaps that would change my perspective.  Some may not be satisfied, though.  I think of some characters in the show who say, “You think I feel better now that I know that God exists?”  But Monica’s speech changes their mind, in the end.

I recently watched a movie that I really liked.  I saw Tess Harper in a Touched by an Angel episode, and, while I had seen her in a variety of things (i.e., Christy, Breaking Bad, No Country for Old Men), I wondered what it was that she was especially known for.  I found a movie from the 1980’s entitled Tender Mercies, which received Academy Award nominations and victories.  Robert Duvall plays a washed-up country-music writer named Mac.  Mac was an alcoholic, had been abusive to his first wife, and had not seen his daughter in over a decade.  He meets a woman (played by Tess Harper), and he attends church.  Still, even after his conversion to Christianity, his life is not rosy.  I liked this part of the wikipedia article about the movie:

“However, in the face of the loss of his daughter, Mac learns, in Briley’s words, that ‘his life as a Christian is no more sheltered from this world’s tragedies than it was before.’ Before finding redemption, Sledge questions why God has allowed his life to take the path it has and, in particular, why his daughter was killed instead of him. Commentators have described this as a prime example of theodicy, the question of why evil exists that is commonly faced by Christians.  Scholar Richard Leonard writes, ‘For all believers, the meaning of suffering is the universal question. … No answer is completely satisfying, least of all the idea that God sends bad events to teach us something.’ Following the death of his daughter, Mac moves forward with uncertainty as the film ends. Jewett writes of this conclusion, ‘The message of this film is that we have no final assurances, any more than Abraham did. But we can respond in faith to the tender mercies we have received.'”

This movie ends on some note of resolution, since Mac found some constructive way to approach life.  But it also ends on a note of mystery and bafflement.

Church Write-Up: The Sin Unto Death

Last Sunday, at one of the church services that I attended, the pastor was attempting to explain I John 5:16, which states (in the KJV):

“If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.”

What is the sin that is unto death?  The pastor defined that in a variety of ways.  First, he said that it was apostasy, or leaving the Christian faith.  That is interesting, considering that he was defending the eternal security of the believer on the basis of John 10:28-29, where Jesus affirms that nobody shall take his sheep from his or his Father’s hand.  Second, the pastor defined the sin unto death as blasphemy, which is unforgivable.  The pastor said that this is why we should be careful about what we say when we are angry, particularly when we are angry with God: we do not want to blaspheme and commit a sin that is unforgivable.  Third, the pastor conceptualized the sin unto death as willful, defiant unbelief: refusing to believe in Jesus (as the New Testament defines him) or in the existence of an afterlife with rewards and punishments.  The pastor said that we should not waste our time praying for people who have sinned unto death: their mind is made up, and they cannot be helped.  Rather, we should spend time helping and praying for believers who struggle: Christians whose marriage is on the rocks, for example.

I am in between computers right now, so I do not have access to my Word Biblical Commentary.  But, just looking at the verse, I wonder how it can be rehabilitated, or interpreted in a less-than-dire light.  The verse seems to be saying that there are some people for whom we should not pray, presumably for restoration from sin.  That is a difficult saying.  Can we, with our own limited perspectives, judge anyone as beyond hope?

Here are some thoughts—-not necessarily answers, but thoughts:

A.  Last week, I was reading blog posts by a husband and a wife, both of whom are Christians.  The wife was praising her husband on her blog, and the husband then praised his wife on his blog.  The wife said on her blog that there was a time in which she left the faith, but her husband kept praying for her, and she returned.  I think that the husband did the right thing, but does it gel with I John 5:16?  We can say that she obviously had not committed the sin unto death because she returned to the faith: there must have been some desire for or adherence to the Christian faith deep down inside of her, for she did return.  How, though, can we judge anyone as having committed the sin unto death, when we do not know everything that is going on in a person’s mind?  I John 5:16 seems to assume that we can know who has committed the sin that is unto death, and that we should not pray for that person.

B.  There may be some kernel of wisdom in I John 5:16, assuming I am understanding it correctly.  In a Bible study that I attended in college, we were going through the Gospel of Luke.  We were discussing Luke 9-10, in which Jesus offers instructions to his disciples about preaching in towns.  Someone in the group, in response to this passage, asked if Christians should spend their time witnessing to a person who is unreceptive, or if they should move on to another person, as the disciples moved on from town to town and shook the dust off their feet at towns that were unreceptive.  The leader thought that was a valid question: so many people need to hear the Gospel, he reasoned, so perhaps we should not spend a lot of time on people who are not interested.  There may be wisdom to that, yet I have known of Christian wives who have prayed for non-Christian husbands for decades before their husbands finally believed.  They did not give up hope.

C.  The web site where I looked up I John 5:16 also lists Jeremiah 7:17; 11:14; and Jeremiah 14:11, in which God exhorts the prophet Jeremiah not to pray for the people of Judah.  It must either be hopeless at that point, or God does not mean what God says there but is using hyperbole to express how frustrated God really is.  Prophets did intercede for Israel when it was especially bad.  When does one move from being simply bad, to having committed a sin unto death (and I am not asking this in search of a loophole)?  Plus, had Israel committed the sin unto death, since Jeremiah prophesied that God would restore Israel, showing Israel still had a positive future in store?  Or did that specific generation of Israelites—-the one in Jeremiah’s day—-commit the sin unto death?

D.  Paul (or the character of Paul, for liberal scholars) says he used to be a blasphemer in I Timothy 1:13, so, obviously, blasphemy is forgivable.  In Matthew 12:32, Mark 3:28, and Luke 12:10, Jesus says that there are blasphemies, such as speaking against the Son, which can be forgiven, but that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven in this age or the age to come.  That said, like the pastor (I gather), I have been slightly dissatisfied with the typical evangelical claim that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is merely an attitude rather than an act of speech.  There may be something to that, but Jesus, after discussing the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, criticizes careless words and affirms that people will be judged over their words (Matthew 12:36-37).  I definitely do not want to go so far as to say that spurting out careless words against God in a state of rage (even a continuous state of anger) is unforgivable, but I do think that Jesus’ emphasis on words needs to be addressed.

E.  After hearing the sermon, a lady I know, who seems to consider herself a non-believer, was talking about the afterlife.  She expressed dismay that so many people get away with evil in this life, and she hoped that there was karma in the afterlife.  Shortly thereafter, she saw the movie Hacksaw Ridge, and she respected and admired the humility and love for others (even his persecutors) of the movie’s Christian protagonist, Desmond Doss.  I do not want to write myself into a pit, trying to qualify everything that I say, but there are non-believers who are open to ideas that Christians claim as their own, or as from God in origin.  (There are non-believers, of course, who would dispute that those ideas are distinctly or uniquely Christian.)  But some are not open to those ideas (or some of them).  Should we really maintain that God gives up on them, and that it is hopeless to pray for them?

I’ll stop here.  Remember, if you choose to respond (here or by e-mail), I am in between computers, so it may take me a while to read what you have to say.  Thanks!

Church Write-Up: Encouragement and Moving On from Misfit Status

I went to two church services this last Sunday morning.  The first was an African-American Baptist church, and the second was an evangelical church, which I call the “pen church” because I get a new pen there every time that I attend.

Here are some items:

A.  Both pastors made a similar point about encouragement.  The topic of the first pastor’s sermon actually was encouragement.  He was saying that church should be a place where people encourage and express concern for one another, for there are not too many places in the world where people can receive encouragement.  The topic of the second pastor’s sermon was not encouragement, per se, but it talked more about finding one’s calling.  Still, the second pastor was saying that people who find their calling encourage others.  The second pastor went on to talk about how there is so much negativity in the world.

A while back, a preacher wrote to me that I should spend my time and energy encouraging people in the body of Christ rather than nitpicking sermons.  I think that he misunderstood my purpose in writing these Church Write-Ups (see here for my post on that), but his comment did make me think some about Christian encouragement.  How do I do it?  And what exactly am I supposed to say to people?

A lot of times, Christian encouragement comes across as phony and artificial: as saying nice things to people in order to fulfill some divine command.  The pastor at the first service that I attended Sunday morning touched on that.  If memory serves me correctly, he was saying that he would like encouragement, but he does not want fifty people lining up to tell him that he preached a nice sermon.  For one, he said, his number one critic was sitting in the front row, and that is his wife.  His wife and God will tell him if he was too prideful in giving the sermon.  (On a side note, back when I was listening to his sermons on the Internet, he said in one message that his mom, when she was alive, rebuked him for being too prideful and showing off when giving a particular sermon.)  Second, he said that many people will probably tell him that they liked his sermon because they have nothing else to say!

One thing that I can say about negativity is that at least it’s authentic: when people are saying something negative, they are usually saying what they actually think!  While I struggle myself with how to “encourage” people in the body of Christ, though, I would rather deal with fake positivity from others than negativity.  A person I know posted a status that asked if we prefer affability or authenticity.  I said affability: if someone does not like me, that is his or her business, but I want to be able to interact with that person comfortably.  I can do so when the person is affable.

I am not sure how to encourage people in a church setting when I do not know them.  The pastor at the first service gave some examples, such as telling a person he or she looks good this morning, or that it is good to see him or her.  I do not quite have the social courage right now to do that!  (Plus, I do not want to come across like I am hitting on someone!)  His sermon did sensitize me, a bit more, to the importance of showing concern for people, of caring about what they are going through and rooting for them.  I can do this online and in more personal settings, with people I know.  I struggle with the Christian teaching, or the implication that some Christians make, that Christians are supposed to be friends with everyone.  At the same time, I do remember that even those from whom I am alienated, for whatever reason, are human beings, in need (or at least in want) of encouragement.

Of course, one struggle that I had when walking from one church to the next was with the tension between focusing on giving (which is good) and self-pity over not receiving.  “I don’t get much encouragement from people,” I thought.  “Why should others’ experience be any different?  It’s a cold world.  We all must learn to deal with that!”  I have to fight against this.  The pastor at the first service talked about finding encouragement from God through spirituality: prayer and Bible reading.  He said that Satan tries to discourage us by telling us that God does not love us, that we are not as good as so-and-so.  Reading the Bible does not always make me feel good about myself and about God, and the pastor may have been acknowledging that there are helpful and unhelpful ways to read the Bible, spiritually-speaking, when he suggested that, rather than focusing on how bad the Bible characters were, we try to find what God is trying to teach us.

B.  The pastor at the second service raised a very poignant question.  He was talking about Tim Ferriss, a successful author and entrepreneur.  According to the pastor, Ferriss used to be a misfit: he was the last picked in gym class for teams, he did not have too many friends, etc.  Yet, Ferriss became successful later on.  The pastor inquired what exactly moved Ferriss from being a misfit to finding his niche in life.

The myth that I often heard growing up was that nerds may be disliked now, but they will be successful when they grow up and make lots of money.  “You better be nice to nerds,” one adage goes, “since you may end up working for one.”  Meanwhile, I heard that the popular, attractive girls will grow up to be fat and ugly.

Well, life sometimes does work out that way, but it does not necessarily, or even often.  Maybe the STEM nerds did go off to become successful engineers and made lots of money.  But, just speaking for myself, I still feel like a misfit.  And, by the way, the girls who were attractive in high school are still attractive as adults.

The pastor was presenting answers to his question.  People move from being a misfit when they find God’s calling for their lives.  They do so when they are supported and mentored by others.  The pastor referred to two examples.  First, since he is preaching a series on movies (as he astutely said, Christians should engage pop culture), he talked about the recent Wonder Woman movie: Diana was forbidden by her mother, a queen, to fight, but Diana’s aunt saw potential in Diana as a warrior, so the aunt trained Diana.  During a battle, the aunt died to save Diana, and in her last breath she encouraged Diana to fight.  I was crying (not in an overly obvious sense) when I heard this story, and I want to see the movie when it comes out on Netflix.  Second, the pastor relayed a story from a woman in the church.  The woman was not close to her mother and her sister when she was growing up, and she wanted female friends.  Eventually, she found the friendship that she was seeking in a women’s group.

Nowadays, I try to cope with my feelings of being a “misfit” by focusing on my dissertation work.  I do not always enjoy doing it, but, when I do it, I feel as if I am doing what I am supposed to do at this stage in my life.

That’s all for today.

Book Write-Up: The Tao Te Ching

I recently read the Tao Te Ching.  The version that I read was Dr. Wayne W. Dyer’s Living the Wisdom of the Tao: The Complete Tao Te Ching and Affirmations. Dyer draws from a variety of English translations.

The book is like a daily devotional.  You read a verse of the Tao Te Ching on one side of the page, and Dyer offers a take-home application point on the other side.  I decided to read this version because I expected the Tao Te Ching to be very abstruse and complicated, so I figured that it would help me if someone provided a concise take-home point, and Dyer seemed well-read on Taoism.

In this post, I will talk about my exposure to Taoism prior to reading this book, then I will list some of my reactions to the Tao Te Ching.

I first learned about the Tao Te Ching in college.  I was a Christian fundamentalist at the time, and a fellow student wanted to enlighten me about another religion, namely Taoism.  I was not as backward as he thought, though, since I was asking him questions about Taoism, and I observed common ground between Taoism and Christianity.  The theme of the Tao Te Ching that he emphasized was that of observing the natural order and gaining wisdom from that.  He said that he read the Bible and it never made a connection with him, but the Tao Te Ching made a connection.  When I asked him what a particular line of the first verse of the Tao Te Ching meant, he responded that he thought about that, and he shared with me his conclusion.  That reminded me of how Christians read and meditate on verses in the Bible.

My second exposure to Taoism was in a college philosophy class.  We were reading Lao-zu, and some of the students in the class were baffled.  Some thought that the reading was rambling.  Another student believed that it addressed an obvious and unnecessary question: Would you prefer a long life without fear or pain, or a short life with fear or pain?  “Of course I would prefer a long life without fear or pain!”, he said.  “A better dilemma would be whether you would choose a long life with fear or pain, or a short life without it!”  The question in the reading indeed looked obvious, and yet it reflects central themes of Taoism: going with the flow, not stressing out, and partaking of a lifestyle that can lengthen life and lessen pain, even if that lifestyle may look counter-intuitive to possessive, accumulating people like us.  The readings also shared a scenario of what one can do when one is experiencing illness and death: simply take a step back and say, “This looks interesting!”

My third exposure to Taoism was during my first year of divinity school.  One of my roommates had a copy of Benjamin Hoff’s The Tao of Pooh.  Another roommate shared that he struggled to read the Tao Te Ching, so he fell back on The Tao of Pooh.  I borrowed The Tao of Pooh out of curiosity.  I wondered if Christianity was a better religion than Taoism, or if there were overlapping themes between Taoism and Christianity.  Hoff in the book treats Winnie the Pooh as a Taoist.  Whereas Tigger is high energy, Eyore complains, and Rabbit intensely calculates, Pooh just is.  Pooh is relaxed and has no pretense, and things usually fall into place when he is the protagonist.

This background equipped me to read the Tao Te Ching, without being utterly confused by what I was reading.  At least it provided me with an idea of some of Taoism’s basic beliefs.  Some passages still perplexed me, though, and I am sure that there are still gaps in my understanding.

That said, here are some of my reactions to the Tao Te Ching:

A.  According to the Tao Te Ching, where was the Tao, and the material world is a manifestation of the Tao.  That made me wonder if Taoism is panentheistic or pantheistic.  In reading the Tao Te Ching, I was reminded of Proverbs 8, which presents wisdom as a key figure in God’s creation of all things; wisdom, in a sense, is like the Tao: both are orderly, both bring shalom, both are moral, both relate to the natural order, etc.  The Tao Te Ching does not explicitly say that the Tao created the cosmos, however, but rather that the cosmos came from the Tao.  That could be consistent with emanationism: the idea that the cosmos is an emanation from God, rather than God’s creation.

B.  In reading the Tao Te Ching, I had “problem of evil” questions.  If Taoism regards the natural order as good, I inquired, how would it account for the apparent evils of nature: animal violence, sickness, earthquakes, hurricanes, etc.?  On one occasion, the Tao Te Ching seemed to regard vicious elements of nature (i.e., storms) as a brief gliche, as if the overall tone of the cosmos is one of peace and order and the violent elements are mere interruptions.  On another occasion, it said that humans interfere with the Tao and bring havoc as a result.  The Tao Te Ching has a clear answer for why there is human evil: humans disregard the Tao, with its path of peace, virtue, generosity, and humility, and they choose greed, violence, pride, and stress instead.  It was a little more obscure in accounting for natural evil.

C.  That said, there was an indication that people who are especially in touch with the Tao can manipulate nature.  Verse 50 says that, with respect to such a person, “tigers and bulls keep clear[,] weapons turn from him on the battlefield, rhinoceroses have no place to horn him, tigers find no place for claws, and soldiers have no place to thrust their blades.”  Dyer’s take-home application point is that “I am an immortal spiritual being having a temporary human experience.”  He may be interpreting this passage to mean that, when we do not fear death, we are invulnerable to threats: even if a tiger mangles us to death, so what?  We live forever anyway!  Indeed, eternal life and not being afraid of death are significant themes in the Tao Te Ching.  But, in my mind, verse 50 seemed to be saying more than that: that people can be so in touch with the Tao, that nothing in this life can hurt them.  They can be bullet-proof!  I thought of different things in reading this verse: the movie The Matrix (with the invulnerable Neo), the Star Trek episode “Spectre of the Gun” (bullets went right through the Enterprise crew at the OK Corral!), Psalm 91’s affirmation that God will preserve God’s people from destruction and pestilence, and a statement I once heard from a pastor that, when you serve God, all of creation will serve you.

D.  The Tao Te Ching exhorts people to look within.  A number of conservative Christians recoil from such advice.  Look within?  Does not the author know that the human heart is deceitful and desperately wicked (Jeremiah 17:9), that from it proceed all manners of sinful propensities and actions (Mark 7:21-23)?  Maybe, but the Bible also says that humans are made in God’s image (Genesis 1:27), and that the requirements of God’s law are written on people’s hearts and in their consciences (Romans 2:15).  In light of that, should we treat looking within as an utterly fruitless exercise?  In any case, in reading the Tao Te Ching’s exhortations to look within, I thought of the Hellenistic distinction between the logos within and the logos without: there is an order to the universe, but there is also an order inside of us that coincides with the order in the universe.

E.  Related to (D.), verse 67 has a puzzling statement: “The Tao is not something found at the marketplace or passed on from father to son.  It is not something gained by knowing or lost by forgetting.  If the Tao were like this, it would have been lost and forgotten long ago.”  I contrasted this passage with the Book of Proverbs, in which wisdom cries out in the marketplace and is passed down from parents to child.  There are some passages in the Tao Te Ching that reminded me of Proverbs—-verse 6, for example, presents the Tao as a female to which one should listen, which is similar to Proverbs’ portrayal of Lady Wisdom.  But verse 67 appeared different from Proverbs.  The Tao Te Ching may have a problem with wisdom being conceptualized as a path that is taught through tradition and family, seeing it instead as something that is inside of us and all around us.  At the same time, it does value teachers: humble people who highlight the way, often through their demeanor and their lives more than their words.

F.  The Tao Te Ching is critical of trying to become virtuous through rigorous obedience to rules.  It wants for people to yield to the Tao, which has a moral/ethical component, but it seems to believe that, if people have to obey rules to be moral, then something is wrong.  Virtue should flow more naturally than that.  There are verses that are rather explicit about this (i.e., 18, 67), but I think that this concept sheds light on an odd statement in verse 38: “When the Tao is lost, there is goodness.  When goodness is lost, there is morality.  When morality is lost, there is ritual.  Ritual is the husk of true faith, the beginning of chaos.”  In reading these passages, Pauline concepts come to mind: the idea that the law was a temporary measure to respond to, expose, and restrain sin.  The law could not cure sin, in Paul’s mind, but now believers have the Holy Spirit, who enables them to conform to God’s righteous requirements through a transformed nature.

G.  The Tao Te Ching struck me as politically libertarian.  I do not want to go so far as to suggest that it would support the government eviscerating the social safety net and allowing social Darwinism to take its course.  But it is critical of government intrusion.  To quote verse 75: “When taxes are too high, people go hungry.  When the government is too intrusive, people lose their spirit.  Act for the people’s benefit; trust them, leave them alone.”  Incidentally, the college student who exposed me to the Tao Te Ching was a libertarian Republican.

H.  That said, I have read concerns that Taoism slows economic progress and is incompatible with capitalism.  Taoism supports a relaxed attitude, which lets things happen rather than making things happen, and which is contrary to greed and ambition.  These attitudes arguably run counter to the rushed pace of dog-eat-dog capitalism.  In reading the Tao Te Ching, I wondered how practical it was.  It advocated keeping a low profile, painting a picture of the humble being exalted.  Can people truly succeed in this world without promoting themselves?  And do things really happen without us working and trying to influence them to happen?

There is overlap between Taoism and the Bible.  Proverbs 27:2 says that we should let others praise us and not our own mouth, and the Book of Proverbs often extols the virtue of silence.  Jesus in Matthew 6:34 says that we should not be worried about tomorrow, for tomorrow will take care of itself.  At the same time, the Book of Proverbs also stresses the work ethic, which can be reconciled with Western capitalism.

I think that there is some wisdom to the Tao Te Ching and the Bible, on these issues.  Humility can be attractive, for people may trust those who humbly desire to be of service rather than seeking their own exaltation.  I just wonder if such a path should be absolutized.  In this world, people who express and promote themselves are often the ones who advance.  And things do not always work well on their own, without some effort to influence things to happen through action.

I.    There is a lot of emphasis in the Tao Te Ching on emptiness.  A number of conservative Christians criticize Eastern religions for this.  “Eastern religion says that we should empty our minds, whereas the Bible says that we should fill our minds—-with God’s word.”  Some conservative Christians go so far as to suggest that emptying one’s mind creates a void that demons will be happy to inhabit!  The Tao Te Ching stresses positive concepts, such as virtue, generosity, and love for enemies.  It also suggests that people can enjoy the Tao, whatever their station is in life.  That sounds like something positive, not nothingness or emptiness.  Why, then, does the Tao Te Ching advocate emptiness?  I do not entirely understand this, but it may be using the concept of emptiness to highlight certain values: there is a value to clearing one’s mind every so often, for that can encourage relaxation; there is also the value of emptying oneself of pride.

J.  Verse 41 took me aback.  The first paragraph states: “A great scholar hears of the Tao and begins diligent practice.  A middling scholar hears of the Tao and retains some and loses some.  An inferior scholar hears of the Tao and roars with ridicule.  Without that laugh, it would not be the Tao.”

This may conflict with some of what I said in (E.), assuming I knew what I was talking about in (E.), which is not a guarantee!

This passage took me aback because it seemed to be criticizing the inferior scholar who laughs at the Tao, and yet it appeared to see value even in that laughter!  When a person laughs at the message of the Tao, then you know that you have the genuine article!  The reason may be that the Tao does advocate a counter-intuitive life, one of humility, generosity, and love for enemies.  Moreover, it maintains that such a path benefits the person who practices it.  A domesticated version of the Tao, which does not draw laughter or inspire a response of perplexity, is not the genuine article.  There are Christians who claim that the same can be said of Christianity.

K.  Verse 70 had some odd lines: “My words have an ancestor; my deeds have a lord.  The people have no knowledge of this, therefore they have no knowledge of me.  This is why the sage dresses plainly, even though his interior is filled with precious gems.”

How does the sage’s modest apparel relate to people’s lack of knowledge about the antiquity and majesty of the Tao?  If the sage wanted people to see the Tao as majestic, would he not wear fancy clothes rather than modest apparel?  Perhaps the passage is saying that the sage is approaching people where they are rather than attempting to dazzle them.  Dazzling them, when they are in no position to be dazzled, would be like throwing pearls before swine (Matthew 7:6).  Jesus himself came to the world as a humble human being, rather than parading his exalted status.  People could relate to that and be more open to his teaching.

Book Write-Up (Loosely-Speaking): The Teaching of the Buddha

Teaching of the Buddha.  Tokyo: Bukkyo Dendo Kyokai, 1966, 1991.  Printed by Toppan Printing Co.

I got this book at the Goodwill.  It contains Buddhist sayings from various Buddhist writings.

I have long known about Buddhism.  I may have first learned about it when I visited a museum as a child and saw a giant statue of the Buddha, or when I saw a picture of the Buddha in an encyclopedia.

There were three milestones that actually informed me about the religion.

The first milestone was when I watched the 1993 movie Little Buddha, starring Keanu Reeves.  I was in high school at the time.  Maybe it was my decision to watch the movie because it would teach me about another religion, or maybe it was my sister’s decision because she thought that Keanu Reeves was cute.  (The movie Speed was popular at this time.)  In any case, we checked out the movie from the video store and watched it.

The movie covered some of the basics of Buddhism.  Reeves plays Siddhartha Gautama, the rich prince who leaves behind his life of comfort to become an itinerant.  He is exposed to the ills and terrors of life outside the palace, and he advocates a path of moderation, in between asceticism and over-indulgence.  Eventually, he is tempted by demons while sitting under a tree, and he learns that salvation comes through compassion.  “Well, that’s different from Christianity!”, I thought at the time.  “It teaches salvation by works, whereas Christianity teaches salvation by grace through faith!”  And, of course, I believed that Christianity had a better analysis of the human condition and offered a better solution: that we were inherently sinful and needed God’s grace and transformation of us in order to become righteous people.

The second milestone was when I was as an undergraduate in college.  I took an Introduction to Religions course, which covered Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam.  Theravada Buddhism, I learned, was atheistic or at least agnostic about the existence of a deity.  Mahayana Buddhism, by contrast, had divine-like beings who were believed to assist people.  The common ground between these Buddhisms was a belief in non-attachment: that things in this world are continually changing, so we set ourselves up for disappointment when we desire or become attached to anyone or anything.  The best posture is non-attachment.  There were other aspects of Buddhism that the class covered: reincarnation (as in Hinduism), the noble path, and the need to concentrate in meditation, otherwise the teacher may whack you on the head with a stick (or so we saw in a video)!  But non-attachment was the main theme that stood out in my mind.  My assessment at the time was that Buddhism identified a real problem—-disappointment that flowed from desire and fluctuation in the world—-but that Christianity had a more fulfilling solution to this problem.  Rather than putting a lid on our enjoyment of the world, why not keep enjoying it?  Even if things change, God does not change, and God promises an eternal bliss for those who love God!

The third milestone was when I was a student at divinity school, and a Zen monk was my roommate.  We discussed religion, and he mentioned certain themes in our conversations.  One theme was that all is one, and all is God.  Meditation is a way by which one can arrive at a sense of that oneness.  The monk also mentioned times that Buddhists demonstrated a social conscience, as when a monk stood in front of an army to stop a war.  I especially identified with a story that my roommate told me, about a monk who spent a lot of time on the mountain meditating, then he came down to the market and got upset at someone.  This monk then realized that he had to go back up the mountain and meditate some more!  Walking the walk of what we believe can be difficult!

In reading The Teaching of the Buddha, a lot of these themes appeared: compassion for others, non-attachment, moderation, and the oneness of all people and things.  Giving to the poor was a recurrent theme, and so was equality.  Men and women can both become enlightened, the text affirmed, and yet homeless monks were warned to stay away from women, lest they violate their own chastity (sort of like the Billy Graham rule, but not entirely).  The book also had political theory: What is a just ruler?  What does a just ruler do?  It discussed how a ruler can approach war, in light of Buddhist principles: he should try to be peaceful but may realize that war is the only option, in certain cases.  The book also contained household codes, like Ephesians 5, Colossians 3, etc.  There was also a sense of mission: that spreading the message of Buddhism will encourage more people to become compassionate and less greedy and hateful, thereby improving society.  There are Christians who approach the Gospel this way, but the Buddhism in this book seemed to lack the pessimistic eschatology that characterizes much of Christianity.  The book did value this world, and yet it also seemed to maintain that this world is not entirely real.  I was unclear if it was disputing the world’s ontological reality in these cases, or was merely reaffirming its belief that things are continually changing and so we should not become attached.

On God, the book was rather variegated.  It occasionally expressed agnosticism about the existence of a god, and yet gods appeared in some of the Buddhist tales.  The Buddha was also depicted as an eternal, heavenly, cosmic figure, almost like God, who manifested himself as the human Siddhartha.  People need the assistance of the Buddha to become enlightened, and the Buddha is compassionate towards all.  On the one hand, the book asserted that Enlightenment is deep inside of everyone, even those who are greedy and selfish.  On the other hand, the book asserted that Buddha must plant the seeds of Enlightenment inside of a person.  The latter view is similar to Christianity, which stresses the role of God’s grace in enabling people to come to God and become virtuous.

Regarding the afterlife, there were occasional references to reincarnation, as far as I can remember.  But there were many references to hell or long-lasting or eternal punishment, as well as to the Pure Land.  Is the path away from hell and towards the Pure Land easy or difficult?  Some passages suggest that faith in the Buddha is sufficient for salvation, even on one’s deathbed.  Orientation towards the Buddha is powerful and life-changing, according to this view.  On the other hand, there is an acknowledgement that some may talk the talk without walking the walk, resulting in fruitlessness.  Certain sins, such as dishonoring parents, can also land one in hell.  The New Testament explores similar themes of faith, works, and the afterlife.

There are passages in this book that appear relativistic—-that assert or promote a state that is beyond right and wrong.  This is odd, since so much of the book clearly maintains that there are right actions and wrong actions, sometimes articulating “Thou shalt nots” that sound similar to the second table of the Ten Commandments.  What are the relativistic passages about, then?  I can only guess, based on themes that appear in the book.  The book encourages people to get beyond evaluating people and situations according to their likes and dislikes, for this is part of becoming un-attached, suppressing desire, recognizing the oneness of all, and becoming compassionate.  On the other hand, the book also encourages monks and devout Buddhists to avoid the greedy.  Christianity, too, attempts to navigate between love and protecting oneself from negative influences.

The book also seemed to suggest that evil has a role: for example, Enlightenment can grow from the soil of ignorance, and ignorance is a foil for Enlightenment.  This reminds me of the saying that “Without darkness, there is no light.”  That is somewhat consistent with Christianity, but not entirely.  Many Christians have asserted that God permits evil for a righteous purpose, as if evil has some role or value in God’s plans.  At the same time, Christianity teaches that good came first, that evil was a fall from the good, and that God one day will eliminate evil, leaving only good to remain.  Ultimately, for Christianity, light can exist without darkness.  Maybe Buddhism, too, has a similar notion: Is not the Pure Land free from corrupting desires?

An appendix to the book dates a lot of these Scriptures after Christ, while believing that they contain teachings of Siddhartha, who predated Christ.  That makes me wonder: Could these Scriptures have been influenced by Christianity?  The similarities seem so salient: incarnation (sort of), grace, faith, and relying on a higher power.  In one case, though, I wondered if the text was arguing against the New Testament.  On page 120, we read: “But it would be foolish for a man to put out his eyes for fear of being tempted by beautiful forms.”  Is this a response to Matthew 5:29: “If your right eye offend thee, pluck it out” (KJV)?  Is this a coincidence?

On whether I identified with the spirituality in this book, I identified with the theme of relying on a compassionate higher power to become virtuous.  I also liked the theme of being instructed by everyday life (nature, experience, and everyday tasks) about Enlightenment.  I had difficulty with the Buddhist teaching that we should avoid desires.  If things are changing, why not enjoy what we can when we can?  At the same time, I realize that becoming overly attached can result in greed, covetousness, jealousy, and hate.

Church Write-Up: Ripping Out Sins

Last Sunday, I visited what I call the "Word of Faith" church.  The label fits in some areas but not in others, but I don't want to identify the church by name, so that is the label that I will use.

The pastor was speaking about Jesus' exorcisms and the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.  The pastor was discussing Jesus' exorcisms within the context of God delivering people from sin.

The pastor said that he believes that God will be ripping sins out of people's lives.  He gave some examples: deliverance from adultery, deliverance from pornography, deliverance from that glass of wine that one drinks before going to bed.  I thought of the Christian movie War Room, in which a woman is praying for her husband, who is having an intimate dinner with another woman.  Right when the woman is praying for him, the man gets sick and has to leave the date!  To quote Mr. Keating on Dead Poet's Society, "All I want to hear is RIP!"

Were Jesus' exorcisms about delivering people from sins?

There are indications in Scripture that Satan influences people to sin.  Ephesians 2:2 states: "Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience" (KJV).  Acts 5:3 has: "But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?"

Is that the same as demon possession, though?  A person sinning is not the same as being inhabited and taken over by a foreign entity, as seems to be the case in the Gospels.

But then there is Matthew 12:42-45: "When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none. Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished. Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation."

That is parabolic, so one should be careful to avoid dogmatism.  But I have read commentators who interpret this passage in light of the sins of Jesus' generation: Jesus' generation largely rejected Jesus, and that made its spiritual condition worse than before, leading to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E.  If that interpretation is correct, then Jesus is saying that sin can relate to demon possession, or at least Jesus is making an analogy between the two.

The pastor wrestled briefly with the issue of human responsibility.  On the one hand, he said, our sins are due to things that we did not ask for and that load the dice against us: our sinful human nature, the demonic, etc.  On the other hand, the Bible treats us as responsible for our actions.

The pastor eventually got to blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.  He said that we should focus on the positive in that passage: Jesus said that all sins can be forgiven.  The pastor interpreted "forgiven" there to mean that sins are leaving a person.  Indeed, the Greek word translated as "forgiven" in Matthew 12:31, "aphiemi," can mean leaving, departing, or sending away.  But the passage uses the passive of aphiemi with the dative, "to the men," instead of having "from the men."  Had the verse been making the pastor's point, my suspicion is that it would have had "from the men"----every manner of sin will be removed from the men.  Notwithstanding my disagreement here, I can, in a big picture sense, identify with what the pastor was saying: Jesus does not just want to save us from the penalty for sin, but from sin itself.

Regarding blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, the pastor said that, when a person considers God's compassion towards people and deliverance of them to be evil, that is a spirit that God cannot remove.  He said that he doubts that anyone at the church has arrived at that point.  I had a variety of questions when he shared that interpretation.  First of all, does anyone really consider compassion and deliverance to be evil?  Maybe Jesus' critics prioritized other things above compassion and deliverance (i.e., their power), and such a stance can contribute to a spiritual deadness or hardness, but is that the same as deeming compassion and deliverance to be evil?  Second, why couldn't God cast out such a spirit?  Can't God soften people's hearts (i.e., Romans 11)?

Movie Write-Up: The Unauthorized Full House Story

I recently watched the 2015 Lifetime movie, The Unauthorized Full House Story, which was about the actors in the hit ABC sitcom Full House.  The movie went from the actors’ rise from obscurity and disappointments to Candace Cameron’s wedding to Russian hockey player Valeri Bure.

I liked how the movie depicted the actors as tight-knit, in good times and bad. Another interesting detail was how the actors shaped their characters.  Bob Saget had the idea of making Danny Tanner a neat freak, and John Stamos proposed that Uncle Jesse be an Elvis fan.

In terms of negatives, the movie tried to cover too much, so pieces were left unresolved.  For example, in the movie, Jodie Sweetin was upset because Candace was becoming close to Andrea Barner (who played Kimmy Gibler) and felt left out, but that was never revisited.  As this Rolling Stone article notes, the movie lacked notorious Full House catch-phrases, such as “Have mercy!” and “You got it, dude!”  (I think it did have “You’re in big trouble, mister!”)  The movie also had a lot of silliness.  Some of that was necessary to show that Bob Saget was raunchier than his TV dad character, but there was just too much of that.

The movie still had its share of serious scenes, though, and that enhanced the movie.  Bob Saget and Dave Coulier were coping with the deaths of their sisters.  And Bob Saget worked a lot on Full House and America’s Funniest Home Videos, and that cost him his marriage.

Like The Unauthorized Saved by the Bell movie, The Unauthorized Full House Story touched on religion.  In my favorite scene in the movie, Candace Cameron and John Stamos are talking.  Candace is upset because a magazine called her chubby, and John laments that the tabloids portray him as a big-time partier, leading his dad to think that he is immature.  Candace says that her brother, Kirk (Kirk Cameron from Growing Pains), tells her that things will be become clearer when she has a relationship with God.  John replies that it’s good for people to find ways to keep their head straight—-Kirk has religion, John has his music—-and Candace needs to find what works for her.

Many Christians may disagree with John’s characterization of religion as one of many ways to keep one’s head straight, saying it is much more than that.  They would have a point, and yet I agree that religion is a way to keep one’s head straight, and that religion is a personal decision.  I also appreciate that John did not denigrate Kirk Cameron.  And the scene struck me as an Uncle Jesse moment, as if Stamos were like Uncle Jesse even off-screen!

Movie Write-Up: Rogue One

I saw Star Wars: Rogue One this weekend.

Jyn Erso’s father, Galen, helped to design and construct the Death Star for the Empire.  Because he hates the Empire, he placed a design flaw within the Death Star.  The Rebel Alliance rescues Jyn from the Empire so that she can bring her father to the Alliance.  A hologram of her father tells Jyn that he put a design flaw in the Death Star and informs her where to get the plans for it.  The Rebels are hesitant to go get the plans because they fear war, so Jyn and others form Rogue One to do so.  Rogue One includes the rebel Cassian, the robot K-2SO, the blind monk Chirrut Imwe, and the mercenary Baze Malbus, who looks out for Chirrut.  The Rebels eventually help out Rogue One, and Rogue One delivers the plans to them.  Barely escaping the pursuing Darth Vader, the Rebels get the plans to Princess Leia, who says that the plans contain “hope.”

Here are my reactions to the movie:

A.  In Rogue One, both the rebels and the Empire seem fully aware that the Death Star has a design flaw, and this is why the Empire does not want the rebels to get a hold of the plans.  That appears to contradict what we see in Episode IV: A New Hope.  Two quotes indicate that the Empire was unaware of a design flaw, or at least it did not think it was a sure thing.

Tagge, an officer for the Empire, states: “And what of the Rebellion? If the Rebels have obtained a complete technical readout of this station, it is possible, however unlikely, that they might find a weakness and exploit it.”

Tagge says “possible, however unlikely.”  That’s different from both sides knowing for certain that there is a deliberate design flaw in the Death Star, which seemed to be the case in Rogue One.

General Dodonna of the Rebellion is presenting the plans of the Death Star to the Rebel pilots, and he says: “Well, the Empire doesn’t consider a small one-man fighter to be any  threat, or they’d have a tighter defense. An analysis of the plans provided by Princess Leia has demonstrated a weakness in the battle station.”

That is different from saying that a renegade scientist deliberately placed a design flaw in the Death Star.  Here, the design flaw is attributed to an oversight, or the Empire not considering a small one-man fighter to be a threat.  Yet, if I recall correctly, Dodonna in the movie attended meetings where there was discussion about the Death Star containing a deliberate design flaw.

B.  While I did not feel attached to many of the characters, the characters did say things that I found interesting.  Chirrut Imwe walks into a squad of storm-troopers and boldly says, “I fear nothing.  All is as the Force wills it.”  That reminds me of Christians who fear nothing because of their strong belief in the sovereignty of God.  Chirrut also frequently recited the mantra, “I am one with the Force, and the Force is with me,” even as he lays down his life for the Rebellion.  And his faith inspires his friend, the mercenary Baze Malbus.

Galen and Jyn were separated from each other when Jyn was a little girl, as the Empire took Galen away so he could work for it.  Galen, via the hologram that was shown to Jyn years later, said that he could only think about Jyn when he was strong enough.  If he thought about her when he was weak and discouraged, that would only amplify his discouragement.  I can identify with that: I prefer to think about certain things only when I am strong enough.

Jyn’s father was just shot by a Rebel, and Jyn is upset with Cassian.  Cassian says that Jyn has just recently come to hate the Empire, but he has been a victim of the Empire since he was six years old, and he has had to make sacrifices and moral compromises for the cause of the Rebellion.  That was a poignant scene.

C.  There were pieces of the movie that I found difficult to follow.  It was unclear if the Rebellion regarded Galen as a secret sympathizer for the Rebellion or as one working willingly for the Empire.  Right after many in the Rebellion expressed unwillingness to go get the plans for the Death Star, Bail Organa (father of Princess Leia) and Mon Mothma, a leader of the Rebellion, discussed getting the plans to Princess Leia, so that she could get them to Obi-Wan Kenobi.  Was Rogue One not so rogue, after all, since the leadership of the Rebellion wanted to get the plans?  Or perhaps I misunderstood the scene and Bail and Mon Mothma merely wanted Princess Leia to enlist Obi-Wan’s help in the coming war against the Empire.

D.  The scene at the end in which Darth Vader single-handedly takes on a Rebel army with his light-saber and Force-powers was powerful.  Wow!  Yet, as this article points out, that is rather incongruous with the beginning of Episode IV, which takes place soon after the end of Rogue One.  If Darth Vader could take on a group of Rebel soldiers by himself, why did he send storm-troopers ahead of him at the beginning of Episode IV?  On the question of how Darth Vader could be so adept with a light-saber in Rogue One yet slow with it in Episode IV, see this YouTube video.

Current Events Write-Up: Trump, Trump's Appointees, Star Wars, Introverts, and Nixon

Time for this week’s Current Events Write-Up, where I link to news and opinion pieces and comment about them.

Trump, Trump’s Appointees, Etc.

Christianity Today magazine had a status above its article, “Here’s Who Will Pray at Trump’s Inauguration.”  The status states: “Trump’s inauguration will be the first in decades to include Jewish and Catholic clergy.”  It’s times like this that I love that man!

Jia Jiang at Fox News Opinion had an article, “How Trump Used the Incredible Power of Rejection to Win the White House.”  Trump was rejected, yet he used rejection to his advantage and never gave up.  That has distinguished him from previous, traditional candidates.

Washington Post: “I’m a Muslim, a Woman, and an Immigrant. I Voted for Trump,” by Asra Q. Nomani.
No comment here, except “I liked this article.”  Of course, it got nitpicked.  But guess what?  I still like this article.

Polizette: “Trump Should Never Stop Tweeting: President-elect Has Hamstrung a Hostile Press by Tapping a Direct Line to the American People,” by Eddie Zipperer. 

Not only that, but Trump’s tweets get results.  For example: Republicans on the Hill plan to gut an ethics office, Trump tweets, and the Republicans abandon their plan.  Maybe Trump’s tweet was not a resounding opposition to their plan, but his tweet still got results!

Robert Reich is no fan of Trump, even in the status that I am about to quote.  Still, I liked this part of the status: “Ford has come under heavy criticism from Trump for its plan to build a $1.6 billion plant in Mexico. Today, Ford CEO Mark Fields said the company had canceled the plan and would instead invest $700 million to increase production of electric and hybrid cars at its plant in Flat Rock, Michigan.”  Reich goes on to criticize Trump, for understandable reasons, but isn’t it cool that Ford will be making more electric and hybrid cars?  Isn’t that what we want: clean energy?

Forbes: “Pickens is Right about Trump’s Energy Priorities—-and Here’s Why,” by David Blackmon.
Technically, this is advice from T. Boone Pickens to Trump.  Pickens makes good points about how the government can coordinate energy policy more effectively.

I liked this line from Clarissa’s Blog: “Trump is defending Assange and soon probably Snowden. Cognitive dissonance is awaiting many liberals.”   That’s what I like about Trump.  He doesn’t follow the party line!

Speaking of Assange, Politico had this status: “A former CIA analyst writes: ‘The next president of the United States is siding with Julian Assange…over the U.S. intelligence community – thousands of smart, patriotic people who work long hours for middling pay, some risking their lives to keep the rest of us safe.'”  Here’s a question: Why aren’t more progressives applauding Trump on this?  Haven’t they been fierce critics of the CIA and the national security state?

Moving on to Trump appointees.  Julia Hahn at Breitbart writes about Richard Lighthizer, Trump’s choice for U.S. Trade Representatives.  She looks at Lighthizer’s writings that lean towards protectionism.

Dan Rather is no fan of the President-elect, but Rather states that “the selection of retired Marine Corps General James Mattis as Donald Trump’s Secretary of Defense strikes me as one of the most sober-minded choices in his cabinet” (after offering reservations about “recent military men and women heading the civilian control of the Department of Defense”).  Rather links to a New York Times article about Mattis’ opposition to torture.

Omarosa Manigault was appointed Trump’s Director of the White House Office of Public Liaison.  She is known as a contestant on The Apprentice, and, according to this article, she has worked for Gore and Clinton in the past.  But she became a Trump supporter, and she says that other African-Americans are moving towards the Republican Party.  I remember her saying on the Frontline profile of the two candidates, “The Choice: 2016,” that every critic will bow down to President Trump (see the trailer here).  I saw that before Election Day, and my reaction was “President Trump?  Dream on!”  But Trump went on to win the election!

Star Wars

Jonathan V. Last of The Weekly Standard (often associated with neoconservatism) defends the Empire.  My reaction was “Typical neocon!”, but the article was still an enjoyable read, for this Star Wars geek.

Marc Barnes at First Things has an article entitled “Rogue One and the Return of Reverence.”  Barnes praises Rogue One for having a more religious conception of the Force.

Introverts

The Atlantic had a slightly depressing article about how the teaching profession caters to extroverts, when introverts can be fine teachers.  It said academia is better for introverts.  I remember one professor saying, though, that having students do private research does not completely equip them for academia, in which they will have to interact and work with surly personalities.  He may be right.  Still, academia does involve a lot of private research.

Historical Interest

I wrote about Richard Nixon on my blog for a whole year, 2013.  I should probably mention the latest findings that seem to indicate that Nixon tried to sabotage Lyndon Johnson’s Vietnam talks.

Lessons on Love from The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies

I was watching The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies last night.  I found one scene especially interesting.

The dwarves, the men, the elves, and the orcs are all gathered for battle.  The elf Tauriel wants to go help the dwarves, and one reason is that she feels affection for one of the dwarves, Kili, who loves her.  The elf-king, Thranduil, however, is baffled that Tauriel wants to help the dwarves.  Thranduil says that, even if she rescues the dwarves, the dwarves will live for a hundred more years, or so, and will die.  Thranduil wondered what the point was of rescuing the dwarves, if they would soon die, anyway.  The dwarves are not immortal like the elves, after all!

Tauriel is outraged by Thranduil’s remarks.  She accuses Thranduil of thinking that his life is of more value than the lives of others, including the dwarves.  She also asks what the value is of living for a long time if that life lacks love.  As far as she can see, Thranduil lacks love.  She resolves to go to the dwarves to help them, and the elf Legolas volunteers to accompany her.  Legolas himself loves Tauriel, and he does not care for Kili’s affection for her.  Still, out of love for Tauriel, Legolas goes with her to rescue the dwarves, Kili included.

We see later in the movie that Thranduil is not entirely cold or bereft of love.  After Kili is killed, Tauriel weeps over his dead body, and she wonders what the point of love is if it is so painful.  Thranduil offers her words of comfort and assures her that love is worthwhile, whatever pain it may bring.  Thranduil later tells Legolas about the love that Legolas’ mother had for Legolas, and he tells Legolas about Strider, who will be a significant character in the Lord of the Rings.  Thranduil regards Strider as a man of goodness and integrity.  This indicates that even Thranduil values goodness and integrity in the brief lives that mortals live.  Ultimately, for Thranduil, it is not longevity that matters, but the quality and content of a life.

The interaction between Thranduil and Tauriel when Tauriel was about to help the dwarves stood out to me, since I have sometimes had similar thoughts to those of Thranduil.  Why should I give to charities that prolong people’s lives, when everyone will die sooner or later, anyway?  I one time read an account of an evangelical Christian who became an agnostic, and, for a time, he felt the same way: why do all this charity work when none of it matters in the end?  Everyone will die, anyway!

Many theists will argue that this is precisely why we need God as a foundation for morality: God values human beings, our character matters because it will be eternal, and God will reward our good deeds in the afterlife.  Our good deeds in this life matter within a theistic worldview, in short.  Yet, one can also take the eternity of life in another direction and end up devaluing this life, on some level.  That was my impression of the Bhagavad Gita, As It Is.  Krishna told Arjuna that he should feel free to kill in battle, since those whom he kills will live forever, anyway.  The Bhagavad Gita, As It Is encouraged charity, on some level, albeit not as much as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam do.  But it preferred causes that spread Krishna-consciousness to causes that help the poor, for the former relate to eternity, not just this brief time on earth.

What Tauriel said to Thranduil is thought-provoking.  Her point was that it’s not enough simply to live, but the life needs to be a life of quality, one that contains love.  She loves Kili and will act on that love, even though Kili’s lifespan is significantly shorter than her own.  Why should I give to charities that prolong human lives, when people will die anyway?  Because I want my life here on earth to be characterized by love, not contempt, hate, or passive indifference towards others.  Plus, Tauriel’s question of whether Thranduil thinks his life is more valuable is relevant to my motivation: I am no more important than another human being, and, if I were hungry, I hope that someone would help me.  Why should I not do the same for another human being?  My love for recipients of charity is not as fervent as Tauriel’s love for Kili, but this is where theism enters the picture, for me: recipients of charity are loved by God, and so God cares whether I help them or not.  Theism also teaches me that my character in this life has eternal consequences, and that is why I should prefer to cultivate a loving, giving character.

Legolas’ act stands out to me because it is an act of selfless love.  Legolas will go with Tauriel to rescue the dwarves, even though he is upset that Tauriel loves one of them, and even though Legolas may get killed in the process.  Legolas is doing this because he loves Tauriel, period, and so what matters to Tauriel matters to him.  I will admit that I admire this picture of love, but I fall short dramatically from it.  Detachment can lessen pain, which is what Tauriel thinks after Kili dies.  I have no plans to give up detachment altogether, for it helps me a great deal when people reject me!  Yet, I should try to make Legolas’ approach a greater part of my life: to love others because I love them, not on account of anything they can do for me in return.

Movie Write-Up: Revelation Road (2013)

Revelation Road is a 2013 Christian movie.

David A.R. White plays Josh McManus, a traveling salesman with a violent past.  Josh has a couple of tussles with a biker gang, and, in one tussle, he fights and kills assailants with unusual speed.  The local sheriff, played by Eric Roberts, wonders if Josh used to work for the CIA.

Josh meets Frank and Frank’s granddaughter Beth, as Josh defended the two from the biker gang at Frank’s store.  At a barbecue, Frank shares with Josh that he himself served in war and did things of which he was not proud, but he found a new beginning by embracing Jesus, and Josh can, too.  Josh responds that he is not religious, and Josh shares that he found salvation in his wife, a Christian woman who loves Josh.

Throughout the movie, there are earthquakes and flashes in the sky.  At some point late in the movie, there is a bright blue light in the heavens, shining on the people of earth.  This is Jesus, who is about to take the saints to heaven in the rapture.  As Jesus is about to do so, he gives some unsaved people a chance to receive him, in a deep voice.  The saints then turn into little blue lights and rapidly ascend to heaven.

After the rapture, Frank’s granddaughter Beth sees a stranger by the road.  This stranger is played by Bruce Marchiano, who has played Jesus in at least three Christian films (and maybe this is a fourth!).  The stranger supernaturally hides Beth while the biker gang rides by.  The head biker senses something is amiss, but he cannot see the stranger or Beth, so he rides on.

Here are some points about the movie:

A.  Frank, the devout Christian and former military man, was played by Ray Wise, who played the anti-Christian ACLU attorney in God’s Not Dead 2.  That was a change of character, especially since his ACLU character wanted to exclude a former marine from sitting on the jury, fearing that the marine would bring his “God, country, family” values to the court case.

B.  A theme that appears more than once in this film is whether people can change.  Josh is earnestly trying to change but finds himself falling back into old patterns.  Josh seeks to avoid conflict with bullies, not because he is a wimp, but because he knows that he can seriously hurt, or even kill, them.  When Josh hears domestic violence in the next apartment and attempts to help the woman, he ends up seriously hurting the husband and father of the family.  It is when Josh is talking to the abused woman that they discuss the question of whether people can change what they are.

C.  The rapture scene was well-executed.  The light blue lights and the soft, eerie music enhanced the scene.  I also like that Jesus was gently and lovingly reaching out to the unsaved during, and after, the rapture.

The movie has sequels.  While I enjoyed this first movie, I will probably wait a while before I watch the next ones.  I don’t want to spend too much money on Amazon, and these $2.99 movies can add up!

Movie Write-Up: God's Not Dead 2

I watched the 2016 Christian movie, God’s Not Dead 2, on Amazon last night.  God’s Not Dead 2 is the sequel to the 2014 movie God’s Not Dead.

Here are some items.  In the course of my commentary, I will share aspects of the movie’s plot.

A.  Martin Yip was in God’s Not Dead.  He was from the People’s Republic of China, and he was a student in Professor Radisson’s philosophy class, along with Christian Josh Wheaton.  In God’s Not Dead 2, Martin approaches Pastor Dave with 147 questions about the Bible and Christianity!  Martin tells Pastor Dave that Josh told him that Pastor Dave might have answers to his questions.

One of Martin’s questions was especially good.  Martin referred to the Golden Rule in Luke 6:31, and Martin questioned whether it was possible for him to care about other people and their needs in the exact same way, or to the exact same extent, that he cares about his own.  I find that to be an excellent point.  I support caring for others and their well-being, and even doing things concretely to help them.  I also realize that, for the sake of peace and the well-being of others, I cannot always get what I want.  But seriously: of course I will prioritize my own needs over the needs of others’!  And, before you criticize me for saying this, here’s a newsflash: you do too!  For example, you work to earn money for yourself and your family.  You do not give your entire income away to another family!

Martin also said to Pastor Dave that, for every one of Pastor Dave’s answers, Martin had three more questions!  Pastor Dave likened this to a candle: the brighter the flame, the greater is the darkness around it.  I do not know how accurate that is, but I do like the concept of answers generating more questions, and answers to those questions generating more questions.  Wouldn’t one expect that, when it comes to an infinite, deep God?  How different this is from the situation in which evangelicals give pat answers to questions and expect that to close the door on the subject!

B.  In the first movie, Amy Ryan was a left-wing atheist blogger.  Then she learned that she was dying of cancer, and the Christian band, the Newsboys, prayed with her.  She became receptive to faith at that point.  In God’s Not Dead 2, Amy learns that her cancer is in remission, and the Newboys attribute that to divine healing.  But Amy is unsure about what she should do with her faith after this.  When she had cancer, she was clinging to Jesus for dear life, for that got her through her time of uncertainty.  Now that her time of uncertainty has passed, she does not know why she should have faith, or even if she wants to have faith.

I appreciated this part of the movie, since I deal with similar questions.  I have clinged to God for years because there has been a lack in my life.  Because I have Asperger’s, I do not have too many friends, and I have felt alone.  Also, I am not where I would like to be professionally.  I have wondered: suppose that I were liked by more people and were prospering financially?  Would I maintain my relationship with God, or would I leave God, becoming an atheist or a-religious agnostic?

Amy has a conversation with Pastor Jude, who is Pastor Dave’s friend from Africa.  Pastor Jude speculates that Amy still feels drawn to Jesus, on some level, and this is why she is still thinking about faith, even after her cancer remission.  And yet, he says that part of Amy doesn’t want anything to do with Jesus.  Amy could identify with that.  So can I!

C.  Brooke Thawly is a high-school student, and her brother was recently killed in an accident.  She is having difficulty moving on from that.  She meets with her history teacher, Grace Wesley, outside of school and the two of them have a discussion about faith.  Grace goes home that night to her grandfather, Walter (played by Pat Boone), and Walter says, “Atheism doesn’t take away the pain, only the hope!”

Is that true?  I can envision Christianity adding more pain rather than taking pain away!  If conservative Christians are correct that God damns to hell those who failed to accept Jesus in this life, would that make people feel better?  Fortunately, Brooke’s brother accepted Jesus before his death, but suppose he hadn’t?  Many people don’t!  Christian doctrines about heaven and hell would not comfort Brooke, in that case.  Plus, there is the problem of evil: if God could have saved the life of Brooke’s brother, why didn’t God do so?

At the same time, I can also envision Christianity adding a sliver of hope.  God is a personal being, not an inflexible doctrine, so who is to say that God absolutely, positively cannot save people who failed to commit to Jesus in this life?  That doesn’t mean that we should test God, but there is a sliver of hope, to which even some evangelicals appeal when discussing the issue of hell.

D.  The movie revolves around a court case.  Grace in a class lecture is asked a question by Brooke, and Grace answers Brooke’s question by talking about the role of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount in Martin Luther King, Jr.’s philosophy of non-violence.  Grace specifically cites and quotes Matthew 5:39.

Grace gets in trouble for that, as her superiors claim that she was teaching religion in a public school, which is unconstitutional.  The ACLU, representing Brooke, brings a lawsuit against Grace.

You would think that this sort of case would be absurd: Grace was not promoting Christianity by telling her students about the role of the Sermon on the Mount in American history!  She was making a historical point, not a religious point!

To my surprise, though, the ACLU attorney, Pete Kane, actually made some fairly decent points, which is not to say that a real ACLU attorney would make those arguments.  Kane said that Grace, by citing chapter and verse, was showing her class that she knew the Scriptures well and was a devout Christian, and thus was promoting religion as a teacher.  (One could counter that Grace, in citing chapter and verse, was showing that she was literate rather than religious, but I can still see Kane’s point, at least somewhat.)  Kane also attempted to establish a record of Grace proselytizing on school grounds: Grace invited teachers and staff to an activity at her church, Grace collected funds at school for a religious charity, and Grace broached the subject of religion to Brooke.

Grace’s union-appointed lawyer, Tom Endler, also made some decent points, but his points contradicted each other.  On the one hand, he wanted to deny that Grace was teaching religion in school.  He argued that Grace was simply making a historical point in response to a student’s question, rather than promoting Christianity.  In the course of the movie, he attempts to establish that Jesus was a historical figure, in order to argue that Grace has a right to talk about the teachings of Jesus in a classroom history course, as she would have a right to talk about the teachings of any other historical person.  On the other hand, Tom made the usual right-wing talking-point that separation of church and state is nowhere in the Constitution, and he seemed to argue that, in a diverse society, Grace shouldn’t be required to leave her faith at the door when she enters a public setting.

Grace herself had a contradictory attitude.  She maintained that she was simply making a historical point in class, but she also framed her perils in religious terms: she needs to be faithful to God, rather than the world!

E.  Sheila O’Malley at Roger Ebert’s site, not surprisingly, gives the movie a low grade.  Yet, she still praises the performance of Christian apologist J. Warner Wallace: “The only really good scene in the movie features real-life cold case homicide detective, J. Warner Wallace, who used his forensic statement analysis skills on the gospels, resulting in a book called ‘Cold Case Christianity.’ He’s put on the stand in defense of poor, wronged Grace Wesley, and his testimony is simply delivered and thought-provoking.”

Regarding J. Warner Wallace, I somewhat identify with what blogger DagoodS said in a comment on his blog, particularly when Dagood criticized Wallace for “treat[ing] 1st Century documents like 21st Century police-reports…”  One can legitimately argue that the two are apples and oranges!

Still, I appreciated Sheila O’Malley doing the unexpected and praising an aspect of the movie.

Scattered Ramblings on Contentment and Hope

A few weeks ago, I watched the 1955 movie, A Man Called Peter, which was about Peter Marshall, a preacher and Senate chaplain.  I did not know much about Peter Marshall himself, but I enjoyed his wife Catherine’s book, Christy, along with the TV series and the movies that were inspired by it.  And, a decade ago, I listened to a cassette tape in which his son, Peter, Jr., was vigorously arguing that America was a Christian nation.

But let’s not get on that controversial tangent!  In this post, I want to use as a starting-point a story-line in the movie.  Catherine in the movie gets tuberculosis and is bedridden.  She and her husband pray continually for her to be healed, but to no avail.  Peter wonders if God is punishing him for being prideful, on account of his numerous followers and his prestigious contacts.  At one point, though, Catherine simply accepts her condition.  She tells God that, if she is to remain an invalid for the rest of her natural life, then so be it.  It is at that point that she is healed.  She and Peter both agree that God decided to heal her after she finally accepted her condition.  It’s as if God was waiting for her to stop striving, to make peace with her lot, and to let go.

The theme that I want to highlight is the tension between contentment and persevering in faith.  Both themes are found in Scripture.  On contentment, the apostle Paul says in Philippians 4:11-13:

11 Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content.
12 I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound: every where and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need.
13 I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.  (KJV)

To quote the old hymn, “Whatever my lot, thou hast taught me to say, It is well, it is well, with my soul!”

And yet, there are also Scriptural passages about persevering in prayer and in faith, which implies not accepting the status quo.  Luke 18:1 introduces a parable by saying: “And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint” (KJV).  The parable is about an unjust judge who finally gives a woman justice after she has repeatedly asked him for it.  Similarly, in Luke 11, Jesus teaches his disciples to seek and to ask, and he tells them a story about a person who begged his friend at night to give him three loaves.  He got what he wanted, after his frequent requests.

Many Christians apply the theme of perseverance in prayer and faith to their own desires.  They are believing God for a good job, or a spouse, or healing.  Whether they are justified to apply these passages to these kinds of desires is a good question.  The passages themselves relate to something rather specific.  The story in Luke 18 is about God coming to avenge God’s elect, presumably for the persecution that they have received (Luke 18:7).  Essentially, the afflicted Christians are to pray continually for the coming of the Son of Man, to hold on in faith that the Son of Man will come and bring justice.  In Luke 11:13, Jesus says that God will give the Holy Spirit to those who ask.  What are people supposed to seek, knock, and ask for, in Luke 11?  The Holy Spirit.  Within Luke-Acts, that was probably fulfilled in Acts 2, when God poured out the Holy Spirit onto the Jewish Christians on the day of Pentecost.

But can one believe God for other things?  There are passages in the Bible about God providing for people, or God blessing people with good things.  Who is to say that this cannot include a job, or healing?  So often in the Gospels, sick people are healed according to their faith.  One should not condemn people who remain sick or who die in sickness by telling them that their faith was not strong enough.  Bad fruit has come from that approach.  But why can’t people continually hold on to God in faith, keeping hope alive that God may heal them, or grant them the longings and desires of their heart?

In the 1990’s, there was a television show, Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman.  In a very depressing plot-line, the town’s pastor, Timothy Johnson, was going blind.  The Christians of the town continued to pray for God to heal him, and Timothy was trying to hold on to some hope that this healing would occur.  But Sully wanted Timothy to prepare for his coming blindness, and he made Timothy a cane so that Timothy could get around once he became blind.  Dr. Quinn transformed something that she heard from her Native American friend Cloud Dancing into a Christian message for Timothy: that trials occur because God is preparing us for a new stage in life.  (Cloud Dancing said “the spirits” did this.)  The show presented a question: Should Timothy hold out hope and continually pray for God to heal him, or should he simply accept his condition and try to cope with it?  The show supported the second option.

Accepting one’s condition and trying to be happy or content with it can make one feel better.  Being consumed with continuous, unmet desires can lead to feelings of restlessness, discontent, and unfulfillment.  Acceptance, by contrast, can bring a person inner peace.  At the same time, do we truly want to say that God is against us dreaming and hoping?  Life would be boring without our dreams to keep us going.

I was listening to a sermon yesterday.  This was from the prosperity church that I occasionally attend.  The pastor in that particular sermon, however, was preaching contentment rather than hoping for prosperity or increase.  He was saying that, if we find that Jesus is not enough for us, then we are making that something else that we “have” to have into an idol.  He was saying that we should find our contentment and joy in our personal relationship with Jesus.  We should have contentment, because Jesus should be enough.

In terms of my own personal journey, in some areas I have accepted my situation, and in some areas I have not.  I am content with remaining single for the rest of my life.  Maybe there is some hope for a romantic relationship somewhere in my mind, but it is not as consuming as it was back when I was in my twenties.  I have more contentment and acceptance now, in that area of my life.  At the same time, as my student loans loom in the background, I am trying to believe God that, at some point, God will provide for me financially, through employment.  (Of course, I have to do my part, too.)  In some cases, the status quo is tolerable.  In other cases, change is necessary.

On finding contentment in Jesus, that is something I struggle to do, from my Christian agnostic perspective.  I was reading an article yesterday, though, about academic envy, and it sensitized me to how even secular people need something to hold onto for their feelings of self-worth, apart from the vicissitudes of feast and famine, success and failure.  To quote from the article:

“Another friend and colleague said she relies on work-life balance to avoid feelings of envy in the first place. From her perspective, it’s far easier to avoid the traps of professional envy if you don’t rely on your academic successes to define who you are as a person. ‘My self-worth isn’t defined by how many articles I’ve published,’ she told me.”

Contentment.  Dreams.  Holding on to something larger or broader than success or failure.  All of these are important for a healthy outlook.

Movie Write-Up (Sort Of): The Keys of the Kingdom

I mentioned yesterday that I watched some faith-affirming films last week.  I watched three of them that I want to discuss on this blog.  The first one was the 2014 romantic comedy Christian Mingle, which I wrote about yesterday.  The second is the 1944 movie The Keys of the Kingdom, starring Gregory Peck as a progressive priest.  I will write about that movie today, in this post.  The third is A Man Called Peter, a 1955 film about the preacher Peter Marshall.  I will probably write about that movie next week.  I have a book review to write tomorrow, my church write-up to write on Friday, and another book review to write on Monday, so I will most likely write my post on A Man Called Peter on Tuesday.

The Keys of the Kingdom!  Like I said, Gregory Peck plays a progressive priest, Father Francis Chisholm.  The movie had familiar faces: Sir Cedric Hardwicke, who was on the Ten Commandments; Vincent Price, who was also on the Ten Commandments, and many horror movies; Thomas Mitchell, who played Uncle Billy on It’s a Wonderful Life (but he was without the pet bird in Keys of the Kingdom).

Francis Chisholm was a progressive priest.  What’s that mean, exactly?  Well, he was somewhat of an inclusivist when it came to salvation.  In a comical scene, he asks if God really values believing in doctrines, when such a belief is largely a matter of where a person was born.  The priest sternly retorts, “The answer to your question is ‘Yes!'”

Father Chisholm wonders if he can find a place to fit in, and he goes to China to minister there.  There are many events in this movie, and I won’t discuss all of them here.  In this post, I want to focus on Father Chisholm’s relationship with the Reverend Mother Maria-Veronica.  I will use that as a starting-point for further discussion.

Father Chisholm and the Reverend Mother did not get along at first.  A significant factor was that she and her fellow nuns arrived in China before Father Chisholm was even expecting them, so Father Chisholm was greeting them in his dirty clothes!  He didn’t make a very good first impression! They started their relationship off on the wrong foot!

Father Chisholm offers to help the nuns, but the Reverend Mother continually spurns his offers of help.  She and her fellow nuns want to keep to themselves and contemplate.  When Father Chisholm’s atheist doctor friend Willie Tulloch (Uncle Billy) is on his deathbed and Father Chisholm refuses to shove religion down his friend’s throat, the Reverend Mother leaves the room in disgust.

In the course of the movie, we learn of the roots of the Reverend Mother’s disdain for Father Chisholm.  Essentially, she envies him spiritually.  She grew up in a privileged background and was somewhat of an elitist, so she looked down on the economically impoverished Chinese.  But she hated her elitist attitude, for she thought that she as a Christian should be better than that.  She envied how easy humility and service came to Father Chisholm.  She believed that he was closer to God than she was, and she resented him for that.

Father Chisholm’s old friend Monsignor Angus (played by Vincent Price) comes to visit Father Chisholm in China.  Angus is rising quite well in the Catholic hierarchy, and Father Chisholm feels a bit inadequate in comparison to his friend on account of that.  Angus downgrades the lowly Chinese and suggests that Father Chisholm befriend the wealthier Chinese, since they can benefit Father Chisholm and the church.  Father Chisholm refuses to do so and criticizes Angus’ attitude.

After this encounter, the Reverend Mother confesses and apologizes to Father Chisholm about her elitism and her resentment of him.  Perhaps Monsignor Angus’ attitude reminded her of the attitude that she was fighting within herself!  She tells Father Chisholm that Monsignor Angus is not worthy to kiss Father Chisholm’s shoes!  Father Chisholm tells her that there is no need for her to apologize.  Later in the movie, Father Chisholm and the Reverend Mother are old, and Father Chisholm is jealous about Angus becoming a bishop.  He feels that Angus has accomplished something with his life, whereas he has not.  The Reverend Mother replies that Father Chisholm is closer to God than Angus is.

I could identify with the Reverend Mother, in the sense that she was trying to be a good Christian but realized that she fell short, and she resented someone because she thought that Christianity came so easy to him.  Later in the movie, she arrives at a greater sense of peace with herself and with Father Chisholm: she serves however she can, and her admiration of Father Chisholm no longer entails her beating herself up for falling short.  Father Chisholm’s acceptance of her most likely played a role in her growth.  He did not berate her for her spiritual shortcomings but was an accepting presence in her life.

Do we see something similar in Christian communities today, or in the world in general?  There are many Christians who look down on others for their shortcomings, when they themselves have their own share of shortcomings.  The reason for their attitude may be that they try so hard to be righteous, to walk on the straight and narrow, so they have disdain for those who do not seem to try as hard, or who fall short.  They are not like Father Chisholm, loving and accepting people where they are.

Conversely, when someone tries to manifest a Father Chisholm-like attitude, many people may not feel that the person is being real or authentic.  No one is that good, right?  There must be some resentment underneath that Pollyannish attitude!  And, in many cases, there may be!  The person is trying his best to manifest a proper attitude, against emotions inside of himself that rush in the opposite direction.

Hopefully, we can become more loving and accepting of others, where they are.  May God grant me the strength to have that kind of attitude!