May the 4th, 2019 Be With You

Outside of the current Marvel series, no other franchise has entered the public and world consciousness like Star Wars (sorry Star Trek).  Thus, it was inevitable that the May the 4th be with you trend is stronger than ever as the franchise has created it's own holiday of sort (which isn't saying much when we have PB&J day or Administrative appreciation day etc).  Nevertheless, it makes one think about the franchise and of course Luke, the "Christ-like" figure whose last film appearance was "controversial" to say the least when Ryan Johnson was the iconoclast to burst our collective bubbles on his return but maybe in a good way because Luke was "Christ-like" and not Christ who is perfect and a savior.  He was human, like we who seek to be Christ-like are human.  And he ultimately sacrificed himself for others as we who seek to be Christ like should sacrifice ourselves for others.  

While this silly holiday among other silly holidays is not one for deep reflection or time with family, the fun of it still hearkens to something deep within others, the desire for a hero, the fight of good against evil, and the battles where sometimes evil wins against good and others die in the war.  Most people whether they admit it or not desire for someone to be a hero and savior in this life and next.  

Serendipity: Magnolia & Radiohead

I have been chippin' away watching Paul Thomas Anderson's classic Magnolia as I saw it listed on HBO Go.  Such a great film and one of those films with a Christian theme and symbolism that one could overlook if they either aren't Christian or aren't looking for it. That was the case for me when this film came out about the time right before or maybe right after I came to Christ.  This is my first time watching it fully after all these years. Such a great film.

Right after watching the film I do a google search on Paul Thomas Anderson and realize the new Radiohead video Daydreaming that came out yesterday was directed by him.  After just watching the film you can see some similar distinctive Paul Thomas Anderson shots in the music video that I had just watched in the film.

Is Potential and Actual Violence a Lifestyle Choice?

I received a text at 1:30AM in the morning, but I didn't see it until later that morning at 10:00AM.  The text read something to the fact that her fiance had choked her and threw her around.  A close friend of mine who was dating a guy I was already skeptical about had just attacked her during an argument and violently choked her and violently threw her around.  This was only a week ago.  She is rare as she is one of the few who got away and is currently safe and away from him.  Someone who had been verbally abusive and now took it to a level of physical abuse.

The picture above shows a screen capture of the recent release by TMZ of the elevator camera showing Ray Rice punching his then fiance twice and her falling and hitting her head on the rail and was knocked out cold. The whole ferver of what he did, his fiances defense of her abuser (while seeming to blame herself), the criticism of the NFL, and the commissioner seems to be overlooking a lot of the calls I seem to hear in sports radio and talk radio of guys defending Ray Rice.  It sickens me.  Ray Rices' fiance's defense of her abuser, later marriage of her abuser, and hiding the evidence of the abuse sickens me as well (but I know it is common place).

This made me think that it is possible and without knowing it the culture is both rebuking domestic violence and promoting films like Fifty Shades of Grey which promote sexual violence in a relationship as something that is ok and acceptable.  Outside of the American pop cultural hypocrisy, there seems to be an underlying current that domestic violence is a lifestyle choice and what happens behind close doors of two consenting adults is none of our business.  Even if it is abuse.  Some women take on a slave to master relationship which on some level seems to have restrictions on physical harm or being directed to do anything criminal, but even then the lines seem blurred in these shades of grey.

The linked article points to a Journal of Women's Health study, points out that women who read 50 Shades of Grey are more likely to have abusive partners who are abusive beyond what the book describes.  

While Christianity's recent past and English Common law has a history of allowing and even institutionalizing abuse against women as twisting the marriage relationship and scripture to allow a man to be "Lord" of his house and marriage.  While there is much more to be written on that subject, it is clear to understand that the role of the man to be like Christ and the woman to be like the church is not an abusive love but a love of self-sacrifice.  Again much can also be written on this subject and the Theology of Marriage but that isn't my main focus in this blog post.  What my concern is that there is at some level an acceptance and a popularization of abuse in relationships that seems innocent and "exciting" on a sexual level, but leaves huge blurred lines allowing abuse to be dismissed, hidden, popular, excused, deemed a "lifestyle," and given cultural relevance as an accepted form of a healthy relationship.  It seems that the psychosis in abused women to excuse, love their abuser to the end, and defend him was bad enough, but to now give moral and legal/lifestyle/cultural relevance seems to harken to a time when twisted scripture and courts gave the same moral and legal/cultural relevance of abuse then.  

I happened to run by this video today and I thought it was ironic in terms of all that seems to have happened in my life recently and with the national conversation on domestic abuse.

 

What Happens When Laughter Isn't The Best Medicine?

There are and there will be millions of words written and said about Robin Williams.  Words of praise, sorrow and some of scorn or even indifference.  To start out, I was a fan of Williams for the most part. Enjoyed his films both comedy and drama.  Even if I didn't agree with everything he said or stood for, I appreciated his comedic and acting talent.  I also can't say I know much about his mental condition specifically.  I can't speak to his mindset.  Nobody can really.  At least not specifically up to the point where he took a very real step of suicide. This isn't a post to condemn him or analyze him specifically.

What I've noticed on the news coverage is the praise of his talent and his ability to deal with his depression with comedy.  This is what it appears many comics do and probably many people who are not by profession a comedian.  However, nobody seems to point out that the comedy may have dealt with or covered his depression, but it ultimately did not save him from himself.  

This is not some criticism of comedy like some curmudgeon monk like in The Name of the Rose who tries to destroy Aristotle's' Book on Comedy. I think one of God's attributes is that of humor and one attribute rarely examined. However, even if God and scripture uses humor, it is not God's primary way of either expressing himself or saving mankind.  Love, faithfulness, grace, mercy, patience, forgiveness and sacrifice are ways in which God seeks to save humanity. 

So then a few questions:  What good is comedy to humanity and the Christian?  Could faith and God save those who suffer from depression from taking their lives?

As Bob Deffinbaugh answers in the article/question titled, "Does God Have a Sense of Humor?", comedy is a tool used by God (and used as a literary and teaching device in scripture). Thus, since God created things to be funny, God must have a sense of humor.  Comedy is good for people generally and Christians specifically to be used as a tool in life and teaching.  Comedy is disarming and disarms skeptical people who would otherwise ignore anything anyone says no matter how logical or inspired. Comedy has physical benefits of the body and mind which are the temple of the Holy Spirit.  Comedy is helpful in drawing close family and friends and building the community and Body of Christ.  These are just some of the many benefits of comedy.  However, it is only a tool toward a greater goal of the ongoing salvation of man which include things such as unity, community, and taking care of the body and life God has given us.  

Could faith in Christ have saved Robin Williams or anyone suffering from depression?  Well it all depends on how you define "saved."  Could faith in Christ save anyone suffering from depression?  Absolutely if that saving means salvation from ultimately spiritual death. However, there are Christians who suffer from depression and have killed themselves.  Without getting into the debate about suicide, sin and salvation, I will say that faith and salvation in Christ will not necessarily heal everyone of their physical and mental maladies.  While God can and does heal people physically and mentally, it is never a guarantee that God will restore us whole this side of heaven or His second coming.  As Paul can testify, physical maladies may even come after one comes to faith in Christ and salvation through Him.  We will still struggle with certain temptations, certain thoughts, certain pains, and certain mental conditions.  Many times these conditions will also be tools and teaching aids God uses to teach and guide us and/or others.  It is a tool towards salvation.  Many times it is difficult to see how a malady or condition will ultimately lead toward salvation, but God uses everything in His time and His way if we believe he uses all things for our good who are in Him (Romans 8:28).

It seems like Robin Williams even said it himself that comedy can be a front not only to deal with pain and depression, but as a wall keep people away or not reveal the true person who is in pain.  This would seem to show that comedy was at times counter-productive.  If you make someone laugh maybe that person will not ask what made you cry. 

An additional and very insightful article: Robin Williams's Laughter Masked A Deadly Disease  

  

I Don't Like Bullies

Who is the bigger bully? That is the question.  Life is not cut across simple lines that separate good and evil or bully and victim.  It is not that good or evil doesn't exist nor is it true that a bully or a victim does not exist in pure form.  However, human nature corrupted as it is can at one moment make the victim into the bully.  

Thus, in self reflecting upon the world news and national and international stories I often wonder why I pick one side over the other.  It's not always clear cut.  For example, the recent stories about the protests in Turkey.  You have the ruling prime minister of Turkey, Erdogan who at once is a very conservative Muslim and free market capitalist.  As Doug Saunders states in his opinion article, "A New Middle East Can be Seen Through the Tear Gas of Istanbul," that Erdogan and his supporters are "Islamic Calvinists" in the sense of being deeply conservative, but very capitalist as well.  The old opposition being both nationalist, ethnocentric and supporters of the military.  The new opposition is a mishmash of smaller groups from anarchists, but also includes a new middle class that is protesting against new laws that are masked sharia and authoritarian actions against the freedom of the press.  So just by my writing you can see I lean more in support of the protest movement which looks a bit more like the "U.S. Occupy Movement" and stand against a capitalist like Erdogan who has helped Turkey's economy open up and grow.  Why is this so? 

On a basic level, the protesters in Turkey are not like the Occupy movement in the sense that they are fighting for basic rights of life and liberty.  For freedom of speech and press.  Additionally, Edrogan's Islamic conservatism is parallel, but not the same as Christian or Republican conservatism as it's basis is Sharia Law. 

However, deeper than this for myself is the core of my Libertarian and Natural Law ideology where I see bullies.  So lets define a bully at least what I define as a bully. Bully generally defined is the use of force or coercion to physically hurt or intimidate one person or a group by one person, small group or mob through harassment, threat, assault, or coercion. I will add that it's goal is to impose power to gain influence, to obtain something, to control others, and/or to gain a strategic advantage that hinders a persons  or a groups God given basic rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Without my additional definition you could almost make any group a bully.  You could make the 1960 Civil Rights Movement bullies or the U.S. during the Revolutionary War.    Those sought to gain the freedom natural to them of religious and human rights and not to gain or create more rights.  To decrees the abuse of government on peoples lives.  To stop one bully from controlling the life of another or basically taking that life away at whim.

This doesn't mean that today's victim cannot become tomorrows bully.  The U.S. of today is not innocent and has trampled on peoples rights since the Revolutionary War and the Civil Rights Movement has indirectly created reverse discrimination.  This also does not mean that it will always be clear cut who is the bully and who is the victim in any one situation.  Communists fighting against fascists means the winner is a lose, lose situation for those who fall under the control of the winner.  Also a state of nature or anarchy is not the answer toward authoritarianism or bullies.  Humans, while made in the image of God and exhibits those attributes, is also inherently a bully.  As the Stanford Prison Experiment, Abu Ghraib,  and the Rwandan Genocide has shown that men and women can be corrupted by power, control and violence. Human's sin and act like bullies.

Thus, watching the movie Captain America a few years ago, the young Steve Rogers played by Chris Evans said something that hit home with me, "I don't like bullies.  I don't care where they're from."  This simple quote from a film helped me understand and explain my world view better than just saying I'm a libertarian, I'm an American, I'm a Republican, or even saying I'm a Christian as all of those mean so many different things to so many different people.  Not that those things don't define me and my views, but just adding those adjectives to myself does not explain or define why I tend to support one group over another or have mixed feelings about some stories or situations.

So then the next question becomes, "Is God a cosmic bully and if so why am I a Christian?"  That is a question best looked at by another blog post on another day.