"Honor your father and mother" vs Going no-contact with parents

There is a trend being promoted by some psychologists for young adults to cut all contact with parents: don't visit, don't call, don't text, don't respond. This is not general advice for all young adults, but for those whose parents are labeled as toxic, immature, or narcissistic. A few months ago a video from Oprah gave space to one of the psychologists leading the charge for children to go no-contact with their aging parents. A counter-argument in Psychology Today pointed out that what was being welcomed as growth was estrangement, and that it denied the idea of an obligatory parent/child relationship. 

I don't believe that "Honor your father and mother" came up in discussion when I watched the Oprah video. Likewise "Honor your father and mother" was not mentioned in the response in Psychology Today. On the one hand, why would psychologists bring up the Ten Commandments and enter into the realm of spirituality and faith? But here we can see true advantages in religion -- yes, organized religion, complete with shared expectations that are not optional. Religion brings a social contract, an essential element of a functioning society. 

The social fabric is messy, complicated, and built one relationship at a time. It takes work. The social fabric is also necessary even at the psychological level. People who lack a sense of belonging tend to have serious struggles with life happiness. When psychologists normalize breaking off key relationships, it is not always to the benefit of the client that they would help. 

What about those parents who actually are immature, narcissistic, or toxic? There are a number of us whose childhoods were marred by parenting that was worse than indifferent. Labeling the parents as a problem is not always too hasty or too convenient; it can also be too true. I speak as someone with experience dealing with parents who had more than the typical faults. I had a brother who went no-contact with the harsher parent, to the extent possible. The result was not his growth and peace but empowering the unhealed wounds to isolate him still. 

The premise of much popular psychology is that a person's primary duty is to their own personal happiness and well-being. Even if we allow that premise for this conversation, the "cut and run" approach can deprive the adult children of learning how to stand up for themselves, learning to define and redefine relationships to insist on the healthy respect due to an adult. It cuts off opportunities to learn and practice a relationship of equals, and to gain that necessary adult skill of insisting on fairness and respect in mature relationships. 

It can be tricky to rebuild the adult-child relationship when both parties are adults. The habit of power with the parent may show up as disrespect for the adult children when the now-adult children need to claim responsibility over their own lives. But this transition to full adults is not optional, and claiming agency in the relationship is not a developmental milestone we can afford to skip. 

For those of us with challenging parents, going no-contact can deprive us of learning how to find our voice and redefine the relationship, and the related practice of steering a relationship onto a healthier course. The lack of those relationship skills can take a toll on those who go no-contact. 

There may be a time and a place to take a break from a family relationship. But a permanent rupture has its own price tag of leaving the wounds unhealed, the skills unlearned, the power to redefine it unclaimed. 

"Honor your father and mother" may not be easy. And it does not mean tolerating abuse. But there is a place in the conversation for leveling up our own skills so that each side is treated with honor and respect. 

Scott Adams' deathbed profession of faith

On the day of Scott Adams' death, he had arranged for a video to be released in which he professed his faith in Christ. 

From one perspective it was surprising: someone who for years had made no secret of his disbelief (antagonism?) toward faith was at the last minute saying that he accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord, at the urging of Christian friends to accept Christ before his death, and so he did. From another perspective it was calculated, and Adams gave voice to that: with a cost/benefit analysis like that, with such a risk/return ratio, it seemed to him worthwhile to profess faith at that time. It was a no-loss proposition. From another angle, it left the appearance of an investor timing his trade: sell stock in 'earth', buy stock in 'heaven'. What's a rational observer to make of all this? 

Minding our own business is a guideline that's worthwhile to keep. I won't be judging his actions, claiming to know his motives, or presuming to gauge his level of sincerity. Likewise, I think we have no business speculating on whether God accepted his profession of faith. God knows his heart and we don't. Neither is there any gain in pointing out sins; Adams has 100% of humanity for company there, and Christ teaches us to go easy on pointing out the sins of others unless we want to find ourselves similarly judged. My part is to bless God's name for creating Scott Adams, and to thank Scott Adams' memory for a career that was characterized by humor and insight. 

The thing that interests me is the timing of the profession of faith -- not because it's unique to Scott Adams' death, but because it's not. This is hardly the first deathbed conversion in history; I've met someone who has that in his pocket as a bucket-list plan. And to some extent the timing makes worldly sense: it's natural to value earthly things less when we can no longer hold onto them, and to value things of the spirit more when they're all we have left. 

And yet that's not quite the calculation we see in many deathbed conversions, Adams' included. Part of the reason people make that calculation on their deathbed is not simply that its urgency is undeniable; there can also be an assessment that we are unwilling to commit while we still have time left on earth. We see it even in professed Christians delaying when they are willing to give up a pet sin. We can postpone the moment when our faith affects our lives until it affects as little as possible. 

When we commit to Jesus as our Lord, we have to change. Humor has to lose its meanness. Sex has to be re-united with love and faithfulness. Affection has to be freed from self-interest. Service has to separate from self-promotion or influence-seeking. Achievement has to lose its one-upmanship. All kinds of things have to become more wholesome versions of themselves, but oh do we enjoy the alloys. And some things like fault-finding have to be given up altogether. We hesitate to commit because we love our sins, and would gladly postpone the moment when we admit what they are. So we convince ourselves that it's fine to be mean, unloving, self-seeking, self-promoting, and so forth, and the actual problem is that God wants us to love our neighbors. That can wait, we persuade ourselves. 

Is there any down-side risk to waiting to convert at the last minute? I believe that's the wrong ultimate question, but I'll mention my thoughts on it before moving on. Many people die unexpectedly; even a sincerely-planned future repentance might become a missed opportunity. And then, if the repentance is intentionally postponed for love of the sin, there is some risk that we aren't quite sincere, if we postpone until there is no earthly test remaining precisely because we would prefer to keep the fault. Best to admit that we're fond of -- even dependent on -- the faults that we use to make our lives more bearable, even if they tend to backfire. 

There is another cost of waiting til death is imminent to take hold of faith, which is walking through the whole of life without it. Postponing faith assumes it interferes with life instead of enriching it. But those who live most deeply in their faith find peace that passes understanding, and the unexpected gift of insight into the mind of God -- and the heart of God. The supposed burden that we avoid by waiting turns out to be loving God with heart, soul, mind, and strength, and loving our neighbors as ourselves. That is a goal that we could rationally, eagerly take up, worthy of a life-long pursuit. It is compatible with any honest and useful vocation. And it makes our lives more genuinely cherishable and worthy of savoring. 

If a deathbed conversion is the plan, if a deathbed confession is worthwhile, then a lifelong confession brings those blessings forward to redeem more of our lives. 

"I've been selling my soul ..."

I usually take a pass on whatever is currently trending in pop culture*. It's generally not of much interest to me, and often feels marketed, contrived, manipulated. And for purposes of this blog, I don't expect much spiritual relevance to the latest thing. So when the current viral song "Rich Men North of Richmond" came out, I took a pass. Based on the thumbnail view, I had no expectations that I would like it; it looked like I lived in a different world than he did. (I didn't notice that my attitude there was part of the problem.) But after some time as the view statistics ramped up high enough, curiosity got the better of me and I decided to give it a listen. As many reviewers of the song have said, "I did not expect that ... "

From the first line ("I've been selling my soul ...") I heard someone being honest about his struggles at a depth that is rare. I've heard all those Faust stories about someone who sells their soul, and it sounds like a crazy-outlandish premise but anyway who would ever do that? He calls himself out from the very first measure: he does it every day, and doesn't see a better choice. It's something we don't often admit to ourselves in private, much less say out loud. So the singer launches his song by voicing his own doubts and fears about whether he is selling his soul and wasting his life (with a nod to his own previous tendency to numb out with alcohol after a day like that). I watched many reactions to the song where once-skeptical listeners found themselves relating, pausing to say that was their own life too, and continuing to nod along, on the chorus even sing along. I have never seen so many people of so many different backgrounds relate to a single song. In reaction videos, as the singer continues I have seen rappers drying their eyes and metal-heads with tears streaming down their cheeks, all deeply moved that someone would honestly discuss struggles that they share. The singer's own "clearly country" appearance strengthens his point: the dawning realization of how many different people from how many different backgrounds share that struggle, that we're more alike than we are different. It's been a rare unifying moment, not just in the U.S. about around the world for the working class. As testament to its broad appeal, various fans have now made subtitles available in Spanish, French, German, and Korean. There are reaction videos available from all over the English-speaking world -- not just the usual suspects (Canada, Australia, UK) but the Caribbean and even the English-capable world with some reactions from India. 

While part of the song is a lament, the song comes with a strong voice for justice for the forgotten, the marginalized. (Had I really judged the singer before I heard him, just because of his looks and my preconceptions about someone "like that"? Yep, to be honest, I had.) The singer picks up steam as he pivots from his struggles to the system at the root of those struggles, starting with what it's like to go to a low-paying job and watch helplessly as political and corporate manipulators take away or devalue those earnings or savings. For a three-minute song it has a surprisingly wide range. He places his own despair in the context of politicians' indifference to the workers, of how the rich can get away with anything, of how the homeless are overlooked while tax money he can scarcely afford is funding excesses which he resents, to the epidemic of deaths of despair, to the totalitarian ambitions of the ruling class and the accompanying surveillance state, to the insulting condescension of those managing the system (the "rich men north of Richmond", which is to say D.C.). It's surprising that he can fit so much into such a short and relatable song; I expect that's part of why people watch it again and again. 

As I watched a good collection of reaction videos, a few things stood out. The first was how many people shared the same journey I had: at first skeptical that this fellow could say anything that I could relate to, then my breath taken away at the raw honesty with his struggles and how accurately he was articulating some of my own private thoughts, then stunned again at how fearlessly he called out the greed and corruption which put "people like me, people like you" in a situation like this. Another element was disturbingly common in the reactions: a voiced fear of saying something that would bring down the cens0rs. Apparently YouTubers can't say certain things or they will be dem0netized, losing their income for speaking their minds. It could not have been clearer to me that their lives were lived under the constant surveillance mentioned in the song's chorus. 

For my own part, if the song were mine I'd have left out the part about welfare abuse, that "taxes ought not to pay" for things that are unnecessary and make health problems worse. To be clear, I'm not ok with welfare abuse, but that topic is easily misconstrued by the well-practiced on that point. I recognize the injustice in taking someone who is struggling and coercing them to pay for someone else, particularly when we can see the system being abused. Still, the main beneficiaries of the political system are in a certain wealthy district just north of Virginia. 

The song ends where it began: back to the singer's line about selling his soul (etc, with saltier language than I use on this blog). It's a well-crafted song which makes its point that we're still back where we started. But we're less alone. We've gotten so used to staying within insulated camps, distrusting each other; this song took tens of millions of people past that. I took one look at the thumbnail for that video, thought "he's not like me", and decided not to listen to him. I was part of the problem. Once I got curious enough it turns out he is like me, and I'm glad he gave me a voice too. The divisions between us don't belong there, and accepting those divisions is a problem in itself. 

If there is anyone who hasn't seen reactions to the song yet, I'm linking a video someone has made which is a mash-up of various different reaction videos, edited to show a single play-through of the song (3 minutes 17 seconds). 

---

* On usually taking a pass on pop culture: I've made occasional exceptions for Harry Potter, Twilight, etc when I see pop culture striking a relevant note. I think this also deserves one of those rare exceptions for something that is clearly resonating with a lot of people. 

Think on these things

Whatever is lovely, excellent, or praiseworthy, think on these things ... 

"The Good Place" v The Good News

I've held off on posting this during the solemn season of Lent. Now that we have entered the festive season of the resurrection it's a more fitting time. This discusses the sitcom/drama The Good Place, and contrasts it with what Christians would consider to be the good news. For those not familiar with the show, the premise is that several people find themselves in the afterlife where their host informs them that they have died, this is the afterlife, and they are now in "the good place".

The Good Place reflects the socially acceptable agnostic spirituality of our times. Without spoiling the various plot twists of the series, we'll just say that "the good place" is not necessarily as good as anyone might hope. After some time the focus of the series pivots to the question: If we were to create our own afterlife, what would we want it to be? In one man's vision of what the afterlife should be, we would choose to perfect ourselves -- perfect our skills, complete our bucket lists, attain self-fulfillment or enlightenment -- then let go of our existence and return our energy to the cosmos. Every story must end; this one ended with an embrace of a return to non-existence.

The show had some good moments, some fun plot twists, and some endearing characters. What it didn't have was a belief that life is intrinsically good and that a love of life would endure. In some scenes, the afterlife was an endless party that had overstayed its welcome. The show's last reconstruction of the afterlife was one in which people pursued pet projects and self-actualization. In that vision of the afterlife love was not forever. The residents, either self-absorbed or isolated, eventually saw that there was nothing more for them, and left. In some cases, they left others grieving; it was not a place where there was no more mourning or death. There was little to distinguish the afterlife from this life except greater power (or accommodation from the existing powers) and more time.

The good news paints a different picture, and I will note some of the differences that struck me most clearly. The good news pictures our own creator who loves us dearly welcoming us to a place he has prepared for us. The good news pictures love and beauty that do not fade or wear thin in our renewed hearts and minds. In the good news, we are no longer world-weary. Our relationships are no longer strained, our souls are no longer stained. Fear of death and of loss are gone. Instead of "the good place" with its escalating series of entertainments or achievements that at some point can no longer be topped, the good news gives us a river that restores our soul, and the warmth and connection that make life desirable. 

People willingly step out of "the good place" because it's not the kingdom of God; it's just an epilogue where people can fix their lives and characters if they choose. But the kingdom of heaven is like a wedding feast. Or like baking bread. Or like going fishing. Or like a family that is finally re-united with a long-lost son.

50th Anniversary: The Trouble With Tribbles

It was 50 years ago today that "The Trouble With Tribbles" -- an episode of Star Trek -- first aired. In honor of that, I hope I can be forgiven for putting a limerick in the mouth of Montgomery Scott:  

There once were wee creatures called tribbles

That wreaked havoc with endless nibbles

  They ate triticale

  And gorged themselves daily

And turned the seed grain into kibbles

Here's to Classic Trek!

Another Celebrity Self-Destructs .. Can We Re-Think Celebrity Culture?

This last week saw another celebrity suicide with Chester Bennington of Linkin Park. And it has become disturbingly routine for the rich and famous to take themselves out of the game before their time, either on purpose or with an accidental self-destruction through an overdose on drugs and alcohol.

I'm not sure when idolizing the famous became such a large part of our culture. I suspect the seeds were always there, and grew along with the reach of fame as world-wide audiences were possible. The loss of life is tragic. How much of the problem traces to celebrity-culture with its impossible demands for performance, beauty, energy and perfection? How much of it is the fleeting nature of fame, where the size of the talent pool results in so many "flash-in-the-pan" careers? (How many articles feature less-than-kind follow-ups on ex-celebrities: "Where are they now?" "You won't believe what they look like these days!" "Why won't anyone hire them anymore?") Some of it is the entertainment industry's pursuit of novelty and edginess, and as the frontier of edginess is pushed ever farther, some people selected for celebrity may be less grounded or stable, less able to deal with the stress, scrutiny, and instability of the industry.

And it can't be healthy for the consumers of the culture, when the culture is produced by -- and built on the lives of -- people who ultimately reject the worth of life itself. A few haunting times since the death of Amy Winehouse from alcohol poisoning, I've heard the song in which she sang about turning down rehab. Given what happened to the artist, why are we still playing that song? And part of the problem is that we've become consumers of culture, not so much participants in it. It's too easy to live vicariously through performers, too easy to go along with unreasonable expectations being placed on a performer, or finding someone who will voice our brokenness and at what point does it become taking advantage of them?

I've been mulling over whether there is anything we can do. The ideas below are tentative as I struggle with what we can do; there are ideas both what we can do to help celebrities and to help with the impact on the rest of us. I wonder whether it would help to:

• Not buy tabloids that exploit the stress or misery of performers
• Not follow click-bait links to articles that are vulture-like in dealing with lost careers
• Call for ethical standards for media coverage of public figures
• Call for better working conditions (hours/schedules) for performers
• Encourage everyday people to have more real friends than imaginary ones, which should be a healthy step even if every celebrity were mentally-healthy and a good role model

Taking a stand against hatred in the public square

Remember that 'art' exhibit of Christ submerged in urine?

If works of art in general are free speech, this is hate speech.

Resisting Hate-bait: Guarding against the tendency to dehumanize "the enemy"

I've seen it -- and have been appalled by it -- in political rhetoric, where opponents are said to "slither" (snakes aren't human, and are venomous into the bargain), or speakers to opponents' groups are portrayed as "throwing red meat" (as if to dangerous animals, again: not human, and dangerous). I've seen it in certain groups' rhetoric against Jews, teaching their children to regard them as "pigs" (again not human, and filthy). It's interesting that the animals to which "the enemy" is compared tend to be cold-blooded, or dangerous, or filthy. Not every animal comparison is meant as an insult; someone might be compared to an animal that is majestic or loyal or cute with no insult intended. But if the comparison is to an animal perceived as ugly, stupid, dangerous, or dirty, it is likely that the comparison is intended to dehumanize.

Why dehumanize the enemy? In the political realm it's not just cruelty, it's strategy for marginalizing individuals or groups. Animals aren't smart or rational enough to have considered opinions; they don't deserve the dignity of conversation. You don't have to justify why you won't listen to an animal. It's a waste of time, and dangerous, too. You don't have to justify the fact that animals don't have rights. And, more darkly, you don't have to justify killing animals; they aren't human. That has happened now and then in human history. And it begins with treating people like dangerous, stupid, or dirty animals.

Here I want to talk about how our culture starts very young, in teaching children to dehumanize others. It flies under the radar too often, and here I want to start simply by making people aware of the problem. Notice how a famous children's author cues her readers which characters they are supposed to hate by referring to the characters in sub-human terms -- that, is, by dehumanizing them. The animal comments are often even less subtle than having them perform animal actions like slither or snarl or waddle.

Some early introductions from book 2 of a series:

• Aunt Petunia was horse-faced and bony.
• Dudley was blond, pink, and porky. 
• Uncle Vernon sat back down, breathing like a winded rhinoceros ...

From book 3:

• Aunt Petunia, who was bony and horse-faced
• Uncle Vernon snarled
• Dudley came waddling down the hall

From book 4:

• her lips pursed over her horse-like teeth 
• ."You," he barked at Harry. [Vernon again]
• Dudley was crammed into an armchair, his porky hands beneath him

In book 5, I expect we could look up the introductions of Harry's relatives again, though the new villain of the book might add some insight as to how an author dehumanizes a character, and does it in a way calculated to cause revulsion:

He thought she looked just like a large, pale toad. She was rather squat, with a broad, flabby face, as little neck as Uncle Vernon, and a very wide, slack mouth. Her eyes were large, round, and slightly bulging. Even the little black velvet bow perched on top of her short curly hair put him in mind of a large fly she was about to catch on a long sticky tongue. 

The character of Dolores Umbridge is almost entirely hate-bait, one of the characters introduced in order for the audience to despise them, and to be glad when something bad happens to them. Even Voldemort is given a more sympathetic backstory than Vernon Dursley or Dolores Umbridge.

An author can tempt -- or manipulate -- hatred from her audience. One of the standard tools for doing that is to dehumanize a character. And of course it's just fiction. That doesn't make it one bit smarter to accept hatred as part of how we react to people.

Just for fun: Gracepoint versus Broadchurch

I made a few predictions before Harry Potter book 7 was released, and I got more right than wrong. So I'll try again here.

I am an unapologetic devotee of the groundbreaking, profoundly moving British crime drama series Broadchurch. It is the mostly deeply and thoroughly human crime drama I've ever seen. As Fox kicks off the official first episode of the American remake this week, I plan on watching that as well. (David Tennant is reprising the lead, though without his usual Scottish accent. The rest of the characters have been recast.) They say there's a different ending, hinting at a different killer. Here are my thoughts on the likely differences in the two shows.

Warning: While there aren't full-fledged "spoilers" in here for either series, there is some open speculation here about "whodunnit" in the American version which I have obviously not seen yet, and that does contain some information about who didn't do it in the prior British version. So don't read if you don't even want hints.

There are some things that they simply had to change if they were going to do an American remake. The dad's best friend won't be named Nigel, and probably nobody will poach pheasants or own a crossbow. Those things just wouldn't work if the story were set in the U.S. It was also predictable that the cast would have a little more racial variety over here, since the U.S. has more racial variety than the U.K. (The crime affects the Solano family in the U.S., where it was the Latimer family in the U.K.)

Other things that probably wouldn't happen in a U.S. remake:

• The lady detective crying so often. That's not simply against some PC etiquette for how professional women are portrayed; it's also fairly unrealistic for how an American lady detective would handle herself in the professional world. 
• The minister being portrayed positively. Most U.S.-based shows, if they portray Christians at all, portray them at least somewhat negatively. Think Ned Flanders from The Simpsons, or Angela Martin from The Office. 
• The lady detective having huge and glaring blind spots that compromise her professional judgment, as part of the plot. While blind spots could happen to anyone in the real world, it's somewhat against PC etiquette for how professional women are portrayed on TV or in film, especially if their blind spot relates to them being somewhat emotional and naive. (As we have already seen in the previews for Gracepoint, in the U.S. version the lady detective does not get passed over for a promotion at the hands of a lady supervisor, but at the hands of a male supervisor, and does not react by pouting in a bathroom stall.)

As it affects the crime and "whodunnit" though:

There were only 3 strong suspects in the British version (er, ok, 2 strong suspects and the surprise of who really did it). If they're going to change "whodunnit" for the American version, you can bet they won't change both the race of the actor to non-white and then make him the criminal too; that's not likely to happen. So my bet is that, in the U.S. version, "whodunnit" will be the other remaining suspect: the Christian minister. (The main pro -- and the main con -- of that choice are the same thing: given some of the undertones of the crime, hanging it on a preacher or priest would be predictable.) But another con: dramatically, the preacher is a far weaker choice for "whodunnit" than was made in the British version, where the killer was known and trusted by quite a few people, which led to some amazing reactions as the town realized who had actually committed the crime and how they had trusted the killer. In the British version, the innocent-but-suspected vicar is somewhat of an outsider. So while it would have been shocking if he had done it, still not to the extent as when the true killer was revealed. If they want to keep the absolute thunderstruck reaction of having known and thoroughly trusted the killer, if it's the preacher then they'll have to make him more of a part of the action, or risk losing all the drama when people realized that they knew the person who did it. I actually hope they keep the original identity of the killer in the U.S. remake. Some of the character arcs and relationships were deeply affected by the killer's identity.

So that's my best guess (and wishlist) for how Gracepoint might unfold.

"Slut-shaming" versus virgin-vilifying

Lots of people argue by slogan these days. There is a slogan now being used that way, "slut-shaming", and they say it like it's a bad thing for a "slut" to be ashamed. Granted, I wouldn't choose the word "slut" -- it's harsh and insulting and communicates nothing but contempt. So I wouldn't introduce such a word into the conversation myself, and will take this opportunity to say some words that are more accurate: foolish, irresponsible, using and being used, selling your future short. The feminists see this as an issue -- that men are not called to account for the exact same bad behavior -- then conclude that therefore women should behave just as badly.

Many feminists are genuinely trying to take a stand for fairness; but I wonder sometimes whether they realize that they're being played. Would it bother them to realize that "feminism" has become a tool by which the men play the women to get what they want? And the feminists are defining "success" in terms of "doing what men are doing" -- as if what men are doing is automatically smart or right or desirable. Why did that assumption pass unchallenged, especially among feminists? Does an "empowered woman" want to be a copycat of the men?

Women have traditionally been held to higher moral standards -- at least when it comes to sex -- because we're the ones who suffer the consequences of idiocy or short-sightedness. We're the ones who face the "choice" of aborting our children or raising them alone, often in hardship. The stakes of the game are far higher for us, so we were expected to play smarter.Why aren't men ashamed of lying their way into a woman's bedroom? Good question, but that doesn't make it smart for us to give them a free pass and condone it. And make no mistake, the men have played the feminist movement so that now they have women standing up for the "right" to play the game the way that men want them to.

Except conscience is a tricky thing. If, deep down, we know we have been irresponsible with our lives, our bodies, our hearts, our emotional well-being, possibly even our futures or our potential children's future -- our consciences demand that we notice. The "feminization of poverty" -- the fact that the poor are more and more likely to be women and children -- is directly because we have stopped playing smart, and started defining "success" as "imitating men at their worst". And we could be a little smarter. This is an age where people are security conscious. People wouldn't dream of giving out their ATM pin to someone they just met, or having their password that's something ridiculously easy to guess. I would suggest that most women need to change the password to their pants. "I love you" is just too easy to guess. It's a sure way to get lied to and played.

As for virgin-vilifying, it has become a recurring action in pop culture. In The Breakfast Club, there's a scene in which the most disreputable character continually insinuates that there is something wrong with anyone who isn't sleeping around. And in that conversation, it looks as though he's the only one who may be sleeping around -- but the others allow themselves to be treated as if their patience or self-control -- or waiting for the right moment -- is somehow shameful. On The Simpsons, there is an episode in which we learn that Principal Skinner is a virgin -- and the town reacts in shock and disgust as if something was badly wrong with waiting for the right person, the right moment, the right relationship, or even marriage. There have even been some feature-length movies that have as their premise that there is something wrong with you if you are past a certain age and still a virgin. It was entertaining to see this virgin-vilifying turned on its head in the movie Easy A, where the main character helped other peoples' reputations -- that is, helped the reputation of vilified virgins -- by claiming to have slept with them.

On this particular topic, the feminist movement reminds me of a scene from the play Guys and Dolls in which Adelaide sings, "Take Back Your Mink". The lyrics are all about how powerful she is and how she is taking a stand and won't be played by the men any longer -- but the actions are all about her undressing herself for men's entertainment in a strip club. When it comes to the topic of "slut-shaming", the feminist movement is taking the role of Adelaide, singing about how sleeping around is "empowerment" while the men hoot and applaud, and maybe not realizing that was exactly what the men wanted them to do, and that the men are quite firmly in control of that situation.

A window into our daily struggles

Some stories are popular beyond any expectation -- even stories that are no better-crafted than average, or have serious flaws. I notice that the more popular series speak to the current situation: they touch the average person's daily struggles. Consider the basic premise behind the most popular stories of the last decade:

Harry Potter: An unappreciated boy with a dreary life finds a world that is enchanted and exciting -- where he is welcome, and he matters.

Twilight: An only child from a broken home finds a large family where she belongs, and love that will last literally forever.

Hunger Games: the common people fight a system rigged against them by a rich, out-of-touch political class in a corrupt and decadent capitol.


The themes of the day are being lonely and unappreciated, wanting to find love that will actually last, and living in a big system that is rigged against the little people. The newest entry in this list, Hunger Games, has a heroine whose early victories include seeing the politically-assigned "enemies" as not so different than herself -- or her younger sister. In that world where hatred and conflict are promoted, an act of defiance can be as simple as holding hands, or honoring a little girl's death with some wildflowers, or giving someone a small loaf of bread.

My point here is seeing how simple it is to undermine a corrupt system. Every act of honesty, decency, or compassion is good not only for its own sake, but also as a threat to the surrounding darkness. These books speak to daily life because so many people are looking for a warm welcome, for a chance to matter, for a place to belong. And like the Hunger Games' heroine Katniss discovered: it is a powerful thing to realize that other people -- even "the enemies" -- really are just like you.

Guys and Dolls: How the missionary is redeemed by the gambler

It's high school musical season again. Have you ever seen Guys and Dolls? I like the unusual plot line: it's one of the few dramas in which a Christian is redeemed by someone she's trying to save.

When we first meet Sgt. Sarah Brown of the Save-A-Soul Mission, she is followed by a noisy band. Remember how St Paul says that, when we speak without love, we sound like a resounding gong or clanging cymbal? That's a fitting description of Sgt. Sarah Brown. I have to wonder if her annoying band is supposed to be a nod to St Paul's gong-and-cymbal comments. Her speeches are well-meant but completely loveless. There's not a lot of mercy in them. She's shocked and disappointed that nobody listens.

Sky Masterson's interest in Sarah Brown is in order to win a bet: he has to get Sarah Brown to agree to go to Havana, with its decadent night life. In her desperation to appear successful to her religious leader, she agrees to go to Havana with him in return for his promise to bring people to the mission where her supervisor can see.* In Cuba, Sky's skillful scheming seems to pay off. He even gets her drunk without her realizing what she's drinking. In a surprise twist, Sarah Brown begins throwing herself at Sky, and having fun for the first time in her life -- but he can't bring himself to take advantage of her. After they get back to the states, Sky even claims to have lost the bet that he could get her to go to Cuba in the first place.

When Sarah finds out that Sky has lied -- and put out word that he has failed -- to save her reputation, she has something close to a religious experience herself. She now knows what it's like to need mercy, and to be shown mercy. For the first time, she has some sympathy with people who have not lived blameless lives. She even finds herself talking to one Miss Adelaide -- a stripper -- as just another human being like her, a feat that would have been impossible in her former days as a cold and arrogant person who assumed her own superiority.

So from Sarah Brown's point of view, Guys and Dolls is the story of how a "sinner" saves a "saint".

---

* When they get to Cuba, the Sky-and-Sarah story has all the makings of a Faust story. She's sold her soul to gain the appearance of religious success in the eyes of her supervisor. The surprise in this story is that the devil repents. "Sky Masterson" -- symbolic name much?

Does God want our worship?

In the often anti-Christian show The Simpsons, there is an episode in which Homer Simpson is tricked into becoming a missionary (Episode "Missionary: Impossible" from Season 11.) The illiterate primitive people at the mission know more about religion than Homer does, in some ways. The show's writers have someone ask Homer a question that many Christians have heard from skeptics, and instead of having Homer give a Christian reply, they have Homer give the standard mockers' reply, with a little Hollywood flair added:

Native: "If the Lord is all-powerful, why does he care whether we worship him or not?"

Homer: "It's because God is powerful, but also insecure. Like Barbra Streisand before James Brolin."

If you were to search the commands in the books of Moses, you would not find a command where God asks for flattery. In the commands of the books of Moses, God shows remarkably little interest in receiving praise. In the Ten Commandments, the well-known command forbidding idol-worship is not, after all, followed by a command insisting on praising God. The Sabbath command does not contain a command to conduct worship services; it contains a command to rest from work. The kind of "worship" which God asks of his people as they live their daily lives is to be ethical: to be morally good. He requires of his people that they live good lives: not lying, not stealing, not murdering, not taking each others' wives and husbands. He asks his people to be holy as God himself is holy. He asks us to follow him in his ways.

The Simpsons doesn't exist to be fair; they exist to entertain. But if they had given a decent answer, it might have gone something like this:

Native: "If the Lord is all-powerful, why does he care whether we worship him or not?"

Could have said: "He cares whether we live good lives. It wouldn't be such a bad idea if we cared about our lives as much as He does."

And even that is before we begin to understand what a blessing it is to know God, and to be his people.

J K Rowling and the Resurrection

If you don't enjoy the Harry Potter books, you may want to skip this post because it may not make much sense without the background of J K Rowling's books.

If you do enjoy the Harry Potter books, you'll know the Christian themes of forgiveness and resurrection are worked into the plot of the books. Here is something I intend as fan fiction, a deleted scene if you will, where a Muggle targeted by the death eaters knows he is about to die. Professor Snape has warned him of his fate, but the fellow is facing his death with faith. Which is mostly a way to see some of the Christian themes she's worked into the books.

---

Snape took a deep breath and cleared his mind. He could not allow his heart to pound, his mind to race. He had taken considerable risk to warn the man of his upcoming death; the fellow's calm was unnerving. "Perhaps I have not made myself clear," Snape said in a tone usually reserved for students who were not paying attention. "They fully intend to kill you tonight." Still, there was no change in the man's untroubled demeanor.

The man looked up at the stars, blinking briefly. "It's not like it's the end. I'm a religious chap, you know. God will see me through."

"You're about to die," Snape enunciated each word carefully. He wondered briefly if fear had robbed the fellow of his senses. If that was the case, he had done all he could.

The man's smile was tinged with sadness as he replied, "Oh, I understood you just fine. I just don't see a way out of it. Not for me." The man fingered a crucifix that he wore on a chain around his neck -- Jesus on the cross, dying. As he showed it to Snape, the potions teacher greeted him with a sneer, but the man persisted.

"Nevermind, for the moment, who you think this is. I have a question for you: Do you know who I say this is?"

"I believe it's something about the fullness of God in bodily form. Nonsense, of course; why exactly would God take bodily form? He did as all 'bodily forms' ultimately do: he died," Snape said, with the impatient air of explaining a simple concept to a thick-skulled student. "Clearly, he was not the Immortal One."

The man continued with a patient smile, overlooking Snape's taunts. "And, when I go to services -- particularly when I take the Supper -- again, nevermind for the moment what you think is happening. Do you know what I think is happening?"

"You believe you are drinking the veritable blood of your savior."

"Exactly!" he exclaimed in delight, undeterred by Snape's exasperated look.

It was too much for Snape, who was accustomed to seeing his overbearingly cynical outlook put the brakes on even the most enthusiastic. "I fail to see how exactly that causes you good cheer. You go to drink a toast to the death of your 'God'?"

"Of course!" he smiled. "Though -- you all say you're wizards. Magic. I had a great aunt who went to Hogwarts, all hush-hush. She told me a thing or two. So -- you do recognize the ritual, right?"

"Naturally," Snape replied with smoldering anger. "A blood-bonding ceremony. Whoever drinks is blood-bonded to the one who has shed their blood. Afterward, their lives are inseparably linked."

"Right you are! But not just their lives -- also their fates." Snape raised an eyebrow, but refused to ask the question. The man again looked at the crucifix. "You do know what we believe happened next, don't you? On the third day?"

"Something about a resurrection, I believe -- which not even the Dark Lord can achieve."

"Well, meaning no disrespect, but your 'Dark Lord' is not exactly the most powerful force in the universe, is he?" The scowl on Snape's face was now truly frightening. "But allow yourself to at least think about it. Imagine the possibility that it did, in fact, happen. That should clear up the part that was puzzling you before." Snape made to interrupt, visibly gathering himself to launch a verbal strike after being accused of being puzzled -- but the man continued, cutting across him, "When you asked why, exactly, God would take bodily form." Snape's eyes narrowed as his boredom and exasperation gathered steam. He had little patience for being questioned about elementary matters of the supernatural by a Muggle -- least of all, by someone who imagined himself possessed of some sort of rare insight.

Snape had always taken a sort of delight in eloquent rudeness, and was preparing to demonstrate. "Your claim that the Lord Almighty would become human precisely so he could die, to join his fate with mortals, is nonsense. Though I should count on someone like you to have a God who is also an utter fool," he said by way of introduction, contentedly preparing remarks aimed at the satisfaction of watching the smile wither from the man's face.

"It's just this: that the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom."

"For some of us, perhaps," Snape muttered under his breath.

"But don't you see what he's done? When we take the cup, we are blood-bonded to the Immortal One. Because he lives, we are forever anchored to life. Foolish and weak to become human and die? -- I'll grant you that. But far wiser than man's wisdom, and far stronger than man's strength."

---

As with all fan fiction, no profit is being made and all the recognizable parts of the story are the property of the author of the original series. J.K. Rowling owns all things Harry Potter.

Everything I needed to learn about business, I learned playing Minecraft

I admit it. I like the game Minecraft. It's an oddly captivating open-ended game. The monsters are nothing special, but you are in a position to build your own homes (or fortresses, or castles, for the ambitious), your own tools, your own weapons ... The appeal of the game is exactly how open-ended it is, where the main limits are your imagination and time investment. (Ok, and CPU speed.)

• The are a million possibilities. You just have to imagine them and work to make them happen.
• The most valuable thing you will ever have is your workbench. It's so basic you almost don't notice it -- but very little happens until you learn how to use it.
• Early in the game you have to make a good set of tools. You can't accomplish what you need without them.
• The most important knowledge is how to create things.
• The best results go to the one with the best knowledge, skills, and imagination.

Some of the people I have known are disturbingly passive about the world and how it is. They've stopped seeing possibilities, and speak only of what they can't do, what they can't accomplish, what they can't expect. Like the saying goes, "We've tried nothing and we're out of ideas." Minecraft opens up the mind again. Those who play it run the risk of seeing possibilities in their world.

Carmen on Ice: When we wrestle with sin, who's winning?

I love to watch ice skating. One of the most mesmerizing ice-skates I have ever seen was a performance of Carmen on Ice starring Katarina Witt as Carmen. In an early scene Carmen, a walking trouble-factory, has been arrested and is being escorted to jail.

A guard has tied Carmen with a rope and walks her along holding the other end of the rope. But the guard is an inexperienced and naive young man. Carmen sees something the young official does not see: as he holds the other end of the rope and is bound by duty, the guard cannot escape from her any more than she can escape from him. And so she begins to toy with him. Even though she has been arrested it's clear from the way she carries herself: she is in charge. The young guard has little idea how far over his head he is.

It's easy to underestimate sin as an opponent. Whenever we wrestle with sin or temptation, even if we merely wrestle against another part of our own minds, we find ourselves up against an experienced and crafty opponent. Ever find yourself praying to forgive someone, and find yourself instead remembering the wrong and inflaming the resentment so that the resentment is worse than before? Or ever find yourself praying about a sin, only to find you've just given it your full attention by focusing on it? We're the naive young guard, and we can easily find ourselves over our heads. And like the guard, the problem is that we're not entirely sure within our own minds; one part of us would rather have the trouble.

Evil often tries to use us that way: even if we think we have it on a leash, it may be the one leading us around. And Jesus paints a similar picture: that we are slaves to sin. If we struggle with sin but then resentfully and reluctantly do things we do not want to do, then sin owns us. We're the prisoner, we're the captive -- another analogy that the Bible uses for our situation.

Consider how often Saul of Tarsus has been repeated in history: he sets out to stop what he is sure is evil, and instead finds himself doing terrible things and making excuses for terrible things. Or consider how easily justice becomes revenge, an infinite excuse to abuse someone who is hated, provided they have ever done something wrong. It's fairly easy for our good intentions to be turned around on us.

Jesus showed us how to do the same thing to evil: how to reverse things so that evil's opening move is turned around for the good, and for evil to find itself the one being outmaneuvered. He said to bless those who curse us. There is no shortage of people who curse us these days; is it really so hard to return a kind word? He said to do good to those who hate us. There are probably some around who hate us, and we know who they are; it is easy enough to find something good to do for them. He said to pray for those who persecute us, and he encourages us to greet more than just those who would expect it of us. These are more than inspirational words; they show us how to take evil's opening move -- or even an evil status quo -- and turn it into a reversal for evil, where all its plans backfire, and the harder it tries, the more thoroughly defeated it becomes, the more thoroughly its plans are frustrated.

Like Carmen we should know: the rope is in our hands. The question is who is more experienced and determined.

---

Here's a link to that segment of Carmen On Ice, if you want to watch. The segment starts with the fight that leads to the arrest, and then includes the arrest scene.

Behind enemy lines: Christian life in a forced-secular world

A follower of Christ has no enemies, for his own part: hates none, wishes harm to none, works for the good of all. But many others call Christ's people their enemies. And, often times, we find ourselves as Christians in territory that is controlled by those who count us as enemies. Let's face it: banishing religion from the public square does mean that the public square has fallen under the control of hostile hands; a friendly takeover would not have banished anyone. And this has occurred even though the majority of people in this country are religious, even Christian. In the public square, then, we find ourselves in hostile territory. We are behind enemy lines, in a sense.

Unexpectedly, this position behind enemy lines gives us a few advantages, if only we were to use them. Does the word "sabotage" have an opposite, a word that means the stealthy and unexpected act of "subversive" goodness? In the middle of an insult war, a gentle answer is a kind of reverse sabotage. Blessing those who curse us is an act of subversive goodness. Praying for those who persecute us is an act of reverse sabotage. Returning good for evil is Jesus' call to us. And in the midst of this unique amount of fear that so many people are feeling about the nation and the future, hope and goodwill are uniquely potent acts. We are in a position to surprise the enemy, to convert the enemy. Each kind word returned for an insult, each refusal to hate, each refusal to slander, each refusal to assume the worst of others, is planting our flag in enemy territory, the flag of the kingdom of God.

Seven Wonders of the Modern World

Some people say the modern world has no wonders to compare to those of the ancient world. We have no Hanging Gardens, no Pyramids, no Colossus, and so forth. People have charged that our modern world is, in some ways, inferior to the ancient past.

While there is some kind of truth to that, I'd like to suggest some wonders of our own age.

1. Taming electricity - All of the electromagnetic discoveries, really, have been a great advance. Radio, television, cable, cell phones, lighting, air conditioning, microwaves -- our advances have put more power and quality of life in the hands of more people than previous ages.
   
2. Atomics - All of the discoveries of atomic and sub-atomic theory, along with the sciences of radiation, are an advance. Yes, atomic weapons must be included here also; not quite all of our advances are benevolent. Still, we include here X-rays, radiation therapy, and other types of medical diagnostics and treatment that were out of reach in previous ages.
   
3. Vaccinations - Most of the terrors of childhood illnesses have been removed; unlike my parent's generation, I never had to worry about getting polio, or that my children might.
   
4. Antibiotics - Many formerly life-threatening conditions are now minor inconveniences.
   
5. Air travel - Not so long ago it was the stuff of fantasy -- only barely possible -- that someone might go around the world in 80 days. Air travel has made around-the-world trips so mundane that we're more likely to be annoyed by the crowds and delays than amazed that we can go around the world. Here we can also include our halting first attempts at space flight, whether the unmanned interplanetary ships we have launched or the close-range manned operations.
   
6. The Internet - It would be tempting to make "computing" an entry by itself, with all the power and potential computers have brought to everyday tasks. But that has been left far behind by what we have done with the collected power of millions of computers and the ways they are connected The Internet allows us to get nearly any piece of information in the world instantly. A large percentage of all the recordings or videos ever made, or famous photos ever taken, or works of art ever known are now accessible to us in a few minutes. If a book is in another language, it's not really a problem: there are instant translators. And where the efforts of thousands of scholars might have never found their way to niche audiences affordably, now it happens every day.
   
7. Wikipedia - Wikipedia is an example of the new type of wonder that is now possible with the new tools we have available. It is probably one of the largest cooperative efforts in the history of mankind. I do not see it as the crowning achievement of our age; instead, I would compare it to the early manned space flights: it is a vital early step towards realizing what is possible.

We probably under-appreciate the ancient past; but we risk under-appreciating the present as well.

So -- any favorites that I left out?

The Anne Rice Meme?

For those who missed it, recently Anne Rice publicly announced that she was renouncing Christianity but not Christ. She equated Christianity with being anti-gay, anti-feminist, anti-artificial birth control [er, she was Roman Catholic], anti-Democrat, anti-science, anti-secular humanism, and anti-life. While it's easy to note that she's off the mark and probably just angry, the second part is what I want to ask you all about. I expect we all know the feeling of being angry -- justifiably angry -- about things in the church or the state of Christianity. (The exceptions, I think, are people who have in the last few years converted from one group to another; they haven't spotted the problems with their new group yet, or had the time to become annoyed with the problems.)

Some people pull an Anne Rice and make a big show of storming out the door, lobbing dramatic accusations over the shoulder on the way out. (Who knows, it may do some good; God has used odder things to make a positive difference.) I've recently posted why I don't take that route of giving up on Christianity. So how about a meme, for those who are familiar with the frustrations:

1. Name 3 things that really annoy you about church in general.
2. Name 3 reasons why you stay.

Here are mine:

Name 3 things that really annoy you about church in general
1. The cruelty and vindictiveness of some of the arguments between groups
2. The arrogance of people who are sure that all the good is on their particular side of an argument
3. The way church authority has worked out to stifling discussion about what is right, and has basically meant toeing the party line wherever you may happen to be.

Name 3 reasons why you stay
1. Jesus
2. God is trying to bless us
3. God is trying to let us be a blessing to the world

Anyone who has frustrations is invited to respond with what they are and why they stay.