Youth of Our Last Epoch

"He entered upon this path only because, at that time, it alone struck his imagination and presented itself to him as offering an ideal means of escape for his soul from darkness to light. Add to that that he was to some extent a youth of our last epoch -- that is, honest in nature, desiring the truth, seeking for it and believing in it, and seeking to serve it at once with all the strength of his soul, seeking for immediate action, and ready to sacrifice everything, life itself, for it. Though these young men unhappily fail to understand that the sacrifice of life is, in many cases, the easiest of all sacrifices, and that to sacrifice, for instance, five or six years of their seething youth to hard and tedious study, if only to multiply tenfold their powers of serving the truth and the cause they have set before them as their goal such a sacrifice is utterly beyond the strength of many."  - The Brothers Karamazov, Part I, Book I, Chapter 5

Chesterton on Courage

Courage is almost a contradiction in terms. It means a strong desire to live taking the form of a readiness to die. “He that will lose his life, the same shall save it,” is not a piece of mysticism for saints and heroes. It is a piece of everyday advice for sailors or mountaineers. It might be printed in an Alpine guide or a drill book. This paradox is the whole principle of courage; even of quite earthly or quite brutal courage. A man cut off by the sea may save his life if he will risk it on the precipice. He can only get away from death by continually stepping within an inch of it. A soldier surrounded by enemies, if he is to cut his way out, needs to combine a strong desire for living with a strange carelessness about dying. He must not merely cling to life, for then he will be a coward, and will not escape. He must not merely wait for death, for then he will be a suicide, and will not escape. He must seek his life in a spirit of furious indifference to it; he must desire life like water and yet drink death like wine. - G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 91-92

The Sleepy Citizenry

If there is one fact we really can prove, from the history that we really do know, it is that despotism can be a development, often a late development and very often indeed the end of societies that have been highly democratic. A despotism may almost be defined as a tired democracy. As fatigue falls on a community, the citizens are less inclined for that eternal vigilance which has truly been called the price of liberty; and they prefer to arm only one single sentinel to watch the city while they sleep. - G.K Chesterton, The Everlasting Man, The Antiquity of Civilization

Christianity and Culture

So long as we consider finance, industry, trade, agriculture merely as competing interests to be reconciled from time to time as best they may, so long as we consider “education” as a good in itself of which everyone has a right to the utmost, without any ideal of the good life for society or for the individual, we shall move from one uneasy compromise to another. To the quick and simple organization of society for ends which, being only material and worldly, must be as ephemeral as worldly success, there is only one alternative. As political philosophy derives its sanction from ethics, and ethics from the truth of religion, it is only by returning to the eternal source of truth that we can hope for any social organization which will not, to its ultimate destruction, ignore some essential aspect of reality. The term “democracy,” as I have said again and again, does not contain enough positive content to stand alone against the forces that you dislike––it can easily be transformed by them. If you will not have God (and He is a jealous God) you should pay your respects to Hitler or Stalin.- Christianity and Culture, T.S. Eliot p. 50

Unrighteous Indignation

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/04/obama-to-reporter-let-me-finish-my-answers-next-time-/1

"Obama to reporter: Let me finish my answers next time."

Does liberal mass media pitch soft balls to President Obama during interviews? Yes. Does this mean that those on the right should counterattack by not only challenging President Obama during interviews, but being disrespectful as well? No. This kind of behavior demonstrates two things. First, the interviewer has very limited experience in executive positions of authority. Anyone who has not been in a leadership position like President Obama cannot even begin to grasp the difficulty of decisions he has to make. Second, the interviewer is not serious about being Christian, if a Christian at all. And in this case, he is from Texas, so I think we can safely assume he is Christian by name at least. But perhaps he is not. If this is the case, who am I to judge an outsider?

Either way, I think the interview is a microcosm of right leaning Christians in their disposition towards President Obama. They are carried away by passions that more often than not result in vitriolic and disrespectful speech of the President. They are not led by the Spirit. If they were, then it would be evidenced by the fruit of self-control. Christians are right for speaking out and taking action against bad policy. Christ challenged the hypocrites and bad leadership of his day, even choosing to call them a "brood of vipers" and "evil". The error that followers of Christ make is in their haste to criticize, the unwarranted disrespect, condescension, and lack of control over their emotions and speech. Followers of Christ are held to a higher standard. Which means Christians need to be accurate, justified, and righteous in their indignation. It's a delicate balance for sure, but it can be found. You can challenge bad policy and bad men righteously.

Here are a few verses to consider before setting fires with your tongue:

Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. - Romans 13:7

I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. - I Timothy 2:1-3

Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king. - 1 Peter 2:17

The Adjustment Bureau: Inoculation Complete

I just returned from seeing The Adjustment Bureau. At face value I liked it. The acting was good. The idea was somewhat novel. And it had a happy ending. However, the subtleties did not sit well with me. Like most things in popular culture, there are subtle inoculations and messages that are instilled into the consumer. Movies, music and television programs do a good job of playing to emotions in order to get the viewer to sympathize with a certain belief, morality or axiom. The viewer doesn't realize it, but over time these simple movies, songs and programs begin to infect the consumer with the conveyed worldview. It causes the viewer to take a certain side in a controversy later on in life without even realizing it. In the Abolition of Man, Lewis writes about the effects that a simple literary lesson, written by authors he dubbed Gaius and Titius, has on a child.

"The very power of Gaius and Titius depends on the fact that they are dealing with a boy: a boy who thinks he is 'doing' his 'English prep' and has no notion that ethics, theology, and politics are all at stake. It is not a theory they put into his mind, but an assumption, which ten years hence, its origin forgotten and its presence unconscious, will condition him to take one side in a controversy which he has never recognized as a controversy at all. The authors themselves, I suspect, hardly know what they are doing to the boy, and he cannot know what is being done to him."(C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man, Ch. 1 Men Without Chests)

Popular entertainment can do the same thing to the viewer. At least it can do the same thing to a viewer who has no notion that ethics, theology, and politics are all at stake. It's just a song, right? Most people, especially youth, who gobble up popular culture are as fictile as the little boy in Lewis' example. Of course, they would deny this, but where else are they forming their worldview? Home? Church? Yeah right. They're being inoculated with false assumptions by the popular culture with which they surround themselves. And The Adjustment Bureau conveys a scathing deviation from Truth. Namely, that your plan is better than God's plan. This can be stated many different ways, but if I had to boil it down to one assumption, it would be that. To better understand this, let's look at the storyline.


The Adjustment Bureau is about David Norris (Matt Damon), the authentic, ambitious and young congressman who cannot help but fall head over heals for the beautiful Elise Sellas (Emily Blunt). Elise is captivating, a dancer, has a witty sense of humor and a dash of spontaneity. Elise and David are perfect for each other. Their conversations are filled with playful, witty banter. They keep running into each other serendipitously. And they kissed the very first time they met. The chemistry between the two is undeniable. They're meant to be together. However, the Adjustment Bureau does not plan for them to be together. They have a different plan. David is supposed to become the President of The United States and Elise is supposed to become one of the world's greatest dancers. If they stay together these plans will not unfold. This plan is written out by the Chairman. "Humans have many different names for him," says Harry Mitchell (Anthony Mackie), Damon's assigned adjuster who keeps him on track with the plan. Mackie's statement about the Chairman is an allusion to God, Providence, the Supreme Being...what have you. The adjusters are alluded to as angels. These angels all carry around little books and everything has to go according to the plan in the book. No allusion is made about the book being the Bible, but for the sake of my argument, let's say the subtlety is there.


The problem comes in with the subtleties. On the surface, there is really nothing wrong with the film. But we know, from Lewis' observation that these things teach. And they teach things that will put us on one side of a controversy somewhere later on down the road. So what is under the surface? During the climactic chase towards the end of the film, Matt Damon declares in a tone of revelatory conviction, "this can't be wrong."


"Why is it wrong for us to be together?" Blunt asks.


"Because their book says it's wrong!" Damon replies.


BAM! That's it. Inoculation complete. This won't hurt at all. Just look away and you'll feel a little discomfort. There, it's all over.


And what exactly is being inoculated against? Truth. Here's where I place my cards on the table and bring out the issue that I annoyingly will not let die. A certain battle is being fought in the spiritual realm, which spills out into every area of our lives, to include movies at the theater. Most of us have been hoodwinked into falling onto the wrong side of this controversy. Any reasonable person who reads The Bible will logically conclude that "anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.” (Mark 10:11-12) And "Christians" do not want to commit adultery. Or do they? They do. One out of every two "Christian" marriages are not really marriages, but adulterous affairs. Why this contradiction? Setting weak leadership and outright disobedience aside, it's because we have been conditioned to go with our emotions and not our reason. The Book says we can't be together? Well my heart says this is right, so let's make our own destiny. Let's  fulfill our own plan. The Adjustment Bureau is just one example of inoculation or conditioning. The message becomes tiresome and is seen over and over in everything from Full House to Fireproof to the endless amount of popular songs telling us to listen to our hearts. Well guess what, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17:9) And so-called believers will claim that the Holy Spirit has led them into their second, third, fourth marriage. Sorry guys, Scripture trumps what you call the Holy Spirit and what I call your unrestrained emotional passions. Stop co-opting something beautiful for your deceitful heart's wicked desires. I digress (or do I?). Back to the film.


The movie is resolved by Matt Damon committing to the relationship and going over the top to find God in order to allow the two to be together. His incessant devotion to his significant other and his pursuit of God results in Damon's salvation. God sees his devotion and decides to rewrite the plan so that they can be together. Go Matt Damon! What a great picture of what we see in church. I'm sure this is the plan that all of the so called believers who are living in adultery have decided to pursue. Hey God, I didn't really like your way so I decided to do my own thing. I'm also pursuing You by being involved in every ministry, Bible study, and social event my church has to offer. And my unfettered devotion to my second wife will result in salvation right? As Rob Bell puts it, love wins. I hope that works out for you on Judgment Day. 

"Just remember, we tried to reason with you." 

Hayek on Responsibility and Freedom

It is doubtful that democracy could survive in a society organized on the principle of therapy rather than judgment, error rather than sin. If men are free and equal, they must be judged rather than hospitalized.         - F. D. Wormuth

Liberty not only means that the individual has both the opportunity and the burden of choice; it also means that he must bear the consequences of his actions and will receive praise or blame for them. Liberty and responsibility are inseparable. A free society will not function or maintain itself unless its members regard it as right that each individual occupy the position that results from his action and accept it as due to his own action. Though it can offer to the individual only chances and though the outcome of his effort will depend on innumerable accidents, it forcefully directs his attention to those circumstances that he can control as if they were the only ones that mattered. Since the individual is to be given the opportunity to make use of the circumstances that may be known only to him and since, as a rule, nobody else can know whether he has made the best use of them or not, the presumption is that the outcome of his actions is determined by them, unless the contrary is quite obvious. 

This belief in individual responsibility, which has always been strong when people firmly believed in individual freedom, has markedly declined, together with the esteem for freedom. Responsibility has become an unpopular concept, a word that experienced speakers or writers avoid because of the obvious boredom or animosity with which it is received by a generation that dislikes all moralizing. It often evokes the outright hostility of men who have been taught that it is nothing but circumstances over which they have no control that has determined their position in life or even their actions. This denial of responsibility is, however, commonly due to a fear of responsibility, a fear of that necessarily becomes also a fear of freedom. It is doubtless because the opportunity to build one's own life also means an unceasing task, a discipline that man must impose upon himself if he is to achieve his aims, that many people are afraid of liberty.

 - Friedrich A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty, Chapter Five : Responsibility and Freedom, Page 71-72.