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."
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Hayek on Responsibility and Freedom
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.
Friday, December 24, 2010
The Abolition of Man
I just finished reading The Abolition of Man by C.S. Lewis for the second time. I enjoyed reading it both times and even more the second. Here are the closing words to the last chapter:
The kind of explanation which explains things away may give us something, though at a heavy cost. But you cannot go on 'explaining away' for ever: you will find that you have explained explanation itself away. You cannot go on 'seeing through' things for ever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it. It is good that the window should be transparent, because the street or garden beyond it is opaque. How if you saw through the garden too? It is no use trying to 'see through' first principles. If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To 'see through' all things is the same as not to see.
The kind of explanation which explains things away may give us something, though at a heavy cost. But you cannot go on 'explaining away' for ever: you will find that you have explained explanation itself away. You cannot go on 'seeing through' things for ever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it. It is good that the window should be transparent, because the street or garden beyond it is opaque. How if you saw through the garden too? It is no use trying to 'see through' first principles. If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To 'see through' all things is the same as not to see.
Monday, December 20, 2010
The Slovenliness of Our Language
Most people who bother with the matter at all would admit that the
English language is in a bad way, but it is generally assumed that we
cannot by conscious action do anything about it. Our civilization is
decadent, and our language--so the argument runs--must inevitably share
in the general collapse. It follows that any struggle against the abuse
of language is a sentimental archaism, like preferring candles to
electric light or hansom cabs to aeroplanes. Underneath this lies the
half-conscious belief that language is a natural growth and not an
instrument which we shape for our own purposes.
Now, it is clear that the decline of a language must ultimately have
political and economic causes: it is not due simply to the bad influence
of this or that individual writer. But an effect can become a cause,
reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an
intensified form, and so on indefinitely. A man may take to drink because
he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely
because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the
English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are
foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to
have foolish thoughts. The point is that the process is reversible.
Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which
spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take
the necessary trouble. If one gets rid of these habits one can think more
clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step towards political
regeneration: so that the fight against bad English is not frivolous and
is not the exclusive concern of professional writers.
- George Orwell, Politics and the English Language, 1946
English language is in a bad way, but it is generally assumed that we
cannot by conscious action do anything about it. Our civilization is
decadent, and our language--so the argument runs--must inevitably share
in the general collapse. It follows that any struggle against the abuse
of language is a sentimental archaism, like preferring candles to
electric light or hansom cabs to aeroplanes. Underneath this lies the
half-conscious belief that language is a natural growth and not an
instrument which we shape for our own purposes.
Now, it is clear that the decline of a language must ultimately have
political and economic causes: it is not due simply to the bad influence
of this or that individual writer. But an effect can become a cause,
reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an
intensified form, and so on indefinitely. A man may take to drink because
he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely
because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the
English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are
foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to
have foolish thoughts. The point is that the process is reversible.
Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which
spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take
the necessary trouble. If one gets rid of these habits one can think more
clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step towards political
regeneration: so that the fight against bad English is not frivolous and
is not the exclusive concern of professional writers.
- George Orwell, Politics and the English Language, 1946
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Dostoevsky on Beauty and Happiness
"The horror of it is that beauty is not only a terrifying thing - it
is also a mysterious one. In it the Devil struggles with God, and the
field of battle is the hearts of men."
- Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov, Part I, Book III: Voluptuaries, Chapter 3: The Confessions of an Ardent Heart. In Verse
is also a mysterious one. In it the Devil struggles with God, and the
field of battle is the hearts of men."
- Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov, Part I, Book III: Voluptuaries, Chapter 3: The Confessions of an Ardent Heart. In Verse
- Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov, Part I,
Book II: An Unfortunate Gathering, Chapter 4: A Lady of Little Faith
Possessor
The Hebrew word "ba'al" means master or possessor. Ba'al worship was often in contention with Yahweh throughout Israel's history.
When a rich ruler inquired about eternal life, Jesus mentions the commandments then He tells him to sell his possessions:
"He said to him, 'You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.'” (Luke 18:22)
When talking to His disciples, Jesus says, "Sell your possessions and give to the poor." (Luke 12:32)
The good Samaritan gave away his possessions, to include his time, oil, wine, transportation, housing and money to help his naked, beaten and needy neighbor:
"A Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper. 'Look after him,' he said, 'and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.'" (Luke 10:33-35)
The early Church was quite selfless with their possessions:
"No one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common." (Acts 4:32)
In Canto VII of the Divine Comedy, the fourth circle of Hell was reserved for the avaricious and prodigal. Dante observes as each group pushed weights opposite directions in a ringed ditch until crashing into each other, turning around and repeating the process for eternity:
"They clashed together, and then at that point
Each one turned backward, rolling retrograde,
Crying, 'Why keepest?' and, 'Why squanderest thou?'"
Even the nature of color and light can teach us something about possessions. With light, black absorbs all colors and white reflects all colors. White is selfless, giving away all colors and it is seen as white. Black hoards all colors. It possesses. It is a selfish thing. And it is black.
The Christmas season and spirit of giving that accompanies this time of year is upon us. I think this is good, but it should be a year round lifestyle for those who claim the name of Christ. There is a common thread that runs throughout all of the things mentioned above and it is selflessness and a spirit of giving. Jesus said, that He had come to give us life and to give it abundantly, but first we have to give away our lives. "Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:39)
"Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of Mine, you did for Me." (Matthew 25:40)
When a rich ruler inquired about eternal life, Jesus mentions the commandments then He tells him to sell his possessions:
"He said to him, 'You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.'” (Luke 18:22)
When talking to His disciples, Jesus says, "Sell your possessions and give to the poor." (Luke 12:32)
The good Samaritan gave away his possessions, to include his time, oil, wine, transportation, housing and money to help his naked, beaten and needy neighbor:
"A Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper. 'Look after him,' he said, 'and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.'" (Luke 10:33-35)
The early Church was quite selfless with their possessions:
"No one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common." (Acts 4:32)
In Canto VII of the Divine Comedy, the fourth circle of Hell was reserved for the avaricious and prodigal. Dante observes as each group pushed weights opposite directions in a ringed ditch until crashing into each other, turning around and repeating the process for eternity:
"They clashed together, and then at that point
Each one turned backward, rolling retrograde,
Crying, 'Why keepest?' and, 'Why squanderest thou?'"
Even the nature of color and light can teach us something about possessions. With light, black absorbs all colors and white reflects all colors. White is selfless, giving away all colors and it is seen as white. Black hoards all colors. It possesses. It is a selfish thing. And it is black.
The Christmas season and spirit of giving that accompanies this time of year is upon us. I think this is good, but it should be a year round lifestyle for those who claim the name of Christ. There is a common thread that runs throughout all of the things mentioned above and it is selflessness and a spirit of giving. Jesus said, that He had come to give us life and to give it abundantly, but first we have to give away our lives. "Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:39)
"Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of Mine, you did for Me." (Matthew 25:40)
Tocqueville's Prophecy
In 1840, the second volume of Democracy in America was published. The following is Tocqueville's vision of soft despotism that could take hold in America.
"I want to imagine with what new features despotism could be produced in the world: I see an innumerable crowd of like and equal men who revolve on themselves without repose, procuring the small and vulgar pleasures with which they fill their souls. Each of them, withdrawn and apart, is like a stranger to the destiny of all the others: his children and his particular friends form the whole human species for him; as for dwelling with his fellow citizens, he is beside them, but he does not see them; he touches them and does not feel them; he exists only in himself and for himself alone, and if a family still remains for him, one can at least say that he no longer has a native country.
Above these an immense tutelary power is elevated, which alone takes charge of assuring their enjoyments and watching over their fate. It is absolute, detailed, regular, far-seeing, and mild. It would resemble paternal power if, like that, it had for its object to prepare men for manhood; but on the contrary it seeks only to keep them fixed irrevocably in childhood; it likes citizens to enjoy themselves. It willingly works for their happiness; but it wants to be the unique agent and sole arbiter of that; it provides for their security, foresees and secures their needs, facilitates their pleasures, conducts their principal affairs, directs their industry, regulates their estates, divides their inheritances; can it not take away from them entirely the trouble of thinking and the pain of living?"
- Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Volume II, Part 4, Chapter VI: What Kind of Despotism Democratic Nations Have to Fear
"I want to imagine with what new features despotism could be produced in the world: I see an innumerable crowd of like and equal men who revolve on themselves without repose, procuring the small and vulgar pleasures with which they fill their souls. Each of them, withdrawn and apart, is like a stranger to the destiny of all the others: his children and his particular friends form the whole human species for him; as for dwelling with his fellow citizens, he is beside them, but he does not see them; he touches them and does not feel them; he exists only in himself and for himself alone, and if a family still remains for him, one can at least say that he no longer has a native country.
Above these an immense tutelary power is elevated, which alone takes charge of assuring their enjoyments and watching over their fate. It is absolute, detailed, regular, far-seeing, and mild. It would resemble paternal power if, like that, it had for its object to prepare men for manhood; but on the contrary it seeks only to keep them fixed irrevocably in childhood; it likes citizens to enjoy themselves. It willingly works for their happiness; but it wants to be the unique agent and sole arbiter of that; it provides for their security, foresees and secures their needs, facilitates their pleasures, conducts their principal affairs, directs their industry, regulates their estates, divides their inheritances; can it not take away from them entirely the trouble of thinking and the pain of living?"
- Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Volume II, Part 4, Chapter VI: What Kind of Despotism Democratic Nations Have to Fear
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)