The Tree of Life

Last Friday, Brittany and I went to see The Tree of Life in Hollywood. I've been anticipating this movie for a quite a while. It is the mysterious director Terrence Malick's fifth film in almost forty years. His other movies include Badlands (1973), Days of Heaven (1978), The Thin Red Line (1998), and The New World (2005).

Aesthetically, The Tree of Life is the most beautiful film I've ever seen. Malick uses unique camera angles and gorgeous, natural imagery to create a true work of art. And I'm not quite sure what his worldview is, but it is easy tell that he is very influenced by Christian themes.

Before you go see the movie, you should be aware of some things. It might feel slow at times. There is a break in the middle that shows what creation might have looked like. And there are dinosaurs... briefly. Brett McCracken gives some helpful pointers on how to watch it. The most helpful for me was to "let it roll over you." As you're watching don't focus on trying to "figure it out." Just receive it as is. I think you will find that you will enjoy the experience.

Also, here's the end of Paste's review that summarizes the basic idea of the movie:

...between shots of bubbling lava, there’s a family that you come to care deeply about, including the very flawed patriarch. The themes are grand and punctuated by a sermon on Job in the middle: Why do bad things happen to good people? What’s the value of selflessness? Do the sins of the father need to be revisited by the son? Malick touches on creation and evolution, the existence of heaven and the purpose of life, but does so as much through the humble world of Waco, Texas, in summertime, as through the direct questions from a boy to his Creator that transition between epochs. It’s as much a meditation as a narrative, asking a tremendous amount of patience from viewers and rewarding that patience with something entirely new.

This trailer should whet your appetite:

American Hyper-Instrospection

Ethan Watters, the author of Crazy Like Us: The Globalization of the American Psyche, responds to a few questions from Adbusters. One question Ethan responds to is summarily stated "What is the root cause of the epidemic of mental illness we are currently experiencing? His response:

"If I had to put my money on one idea then it would be the American notion of the egocentric mind – the idea that you are the captain of your own destiny and that you should be able to chart your own path and find your own happiness and control your own destiny fundamentally without the need for others. I think that this idea in the West – and in America in particular – has led to a great deal of insecurity and a general loading of our psychopathology. I think that the human animal is much more of a group animal than the American idea of the mind suggests it to be."

Later on, he expresses the need for more community:

"I think that human beings cannot feel at ease mentally if they are disconnected from their sense of a role within a group. I think that the human mind is deeply permeable to the goals and expectations of the people around us, and if we don’t pay attention to that, if we think of ourselves as the captains of our own destiny, always able to pick ourselves up by our own individual bootstraps, then we are likely to experience that sort of postmodern insecurity that leads us to a certain form of American hyper-introspection – always looking inward."

Also, here's a brief video of Ethan explaining how we as Americans have incorrectly exported our ideas of mental illness to the rest of the world:

(via Roy)

Ted Koppel on Information Overload

I fear that we in the mass media are creating such a market for mediocrity that we've diminished the incentive for excellence. I think we're losing the ability to manage ideas. To Contemplate. To think. We're becoming a nation of electronic voyeurs, whose capacity for informed dialogue is a fading memory.

If you have never had even a passing acquaintance with Aristotle, Socrates, and Plato, then you can't really understand the foundations of man's evolving struggle with philosophy and ethics. You begin to lose track of what has always been kind of undercurrent in man's development. And that is sort of a moral evolution. We have evolved in this century in technical ways that truly numb the mind.

Video here:



(via)

You Can't Believe in Something You Don't

"I wish there was a God. I wish there was. It would be great. From what I've heard, he's brilliant. But, you can't believe in something you don't. Also, if there is a God, why did he make me an atheist?"

These are the words of the atheistic comedian Ricky Gervais coming from this video interview. I've been thinking about these words for the last several days since I saw the video, particularly about Gervais' explanation of not being able to believe in something you don't. I saw this on Abraham Piper's blog and he had some thoughts on this that got me thinking even more:

Here’s a thought experiment:

1. Pick something you believe (anything, no matter how insignificant…)
2. Now believe something different.
   

How’d that go for you?

We’re all myopic, in that we can only see what we see, believe what we believe. Sometimes what we see changes, and with it our beliefs, but what if what we see doesn’t change?

The more I keep this in mind, the harder it is to find fault with people who disagree with me…

I agree with AP's final thoughts. Over the last several weeks some experiences have humbled me and created in me some sense of understanding why some people don't have my worldview.

For instance, I talked with a good friend of mine Sunday night who considers himself a non-Christian. However, he used to consider himself a Christian and was a dear brother who was mightily encouraging in my walk with Christ in college. After having a discussion about what he believes to be true in life, I hung up the phone in sadness and frustration. I asked God, "Why do I believe and why doesn't he?"

It's not a matter of winsomely explaining the gospel or the apologetic arguments for belief. At the end of the day, the God who spoke light into darkness has to shine in a person's heart to give them the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 4:6). This truth is humbling, because I didn't do anything to deserve it. But it's also a hard truth to me right now, because I know people that don't believe and I know God is in control of that.

Another good friend reminded me last night the helpful truth that we're not going to fully grasp these realities. And when in heaven, we will see nothing of God's sovereign decree as being unfair or wrong. Instead, we will worship the God who graciously spared a few sinners undeserving of His love.

Lord Save Us From Your Followers

Last night, I went to see this movie with my high school discipleship group. I enjoyed it and was pleased at the conversation that it stirred up among the guys as we talked about it over Zaxby's.

The basic premise is that a guy goes around the country and asks a lot of different people what they think about Christians and what they think about Jesus. Pretty soon into the movie, you see that there is a huge discrepancy between people's opinion of the two.

My main take-away from the movie is to seek to love people better. Repentance should be what I'm known for, not condemnation. I want my life to exemplify the truth of Paul's words to Timothy: "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost." That kind of humility coupled with sacrificial service is what makes Jesus look good to the world.

Rather than post more of my synopsis, I'll point you to blog posts by my roommate Scott and by Brett McCracken. I felt like they both had good thoughts.

Reflecting on this mortal life

Two weeks ago yesterday, with the death of Ed McMahon on June 23, there began a string of celebrity deaths that has left much of the media-saturated world in shock. Farrah Fawcett and Michael Jackson died June 25, Billy Mays June 28, and NFL quarterback Steve McNair died four days ago on July 4. Most of the attention has obviously been given to MJ. But all of these deaths combined have sobered up a lot of us to the reality of death...which is a great thing.

We were not meant to forget our mortality. The decisions we make every day should be in light of the fact that we will not live forever on this planet. I love Mute Math's song Progress. They say that "every moment in time is just an answer to find what you're here for, what you breathe for, what you wake for, what you bleed for." That's so true. If you get distracted, like I do almost every day, by the cares and comforts of this world, you'll forget that it's all going away someday. And if it's all going away someday, what's the point of life?

Thankfully, we don't have to despair. One of the benefits of Christ's death is that we would have purpose and meaning in this life. By repenting and trusting in His propitiatory sacrifice on the cross, we can be reconciled to God to receive freedom and abundant, everlasting life. And then, we don't have to fear death any longer because we have the favor of God on us.

Reflect on your mortality and live in light of eternity. I think that is what David is getting at in Psalm 39:4-6:

"O LORD, make me know my end and what is the measure of my days; let me know how fleeting I am! Behold, you have made my days a few handbreaths, and my lifetime is as nothing before you. Surely all mankind stands as a mere breath! Surely a man goes about as a shadow! Surely for nothing they are in turmoil; man heaps up wealth and does not know who will gather!"

Huxley vs. Orwell

Check out this interesting illustration looks at the opposing worldviews of Aldous Huxley and George Orwell. I agree with the conclusion, that according to Huxley, we just might be amusing ourselves to death.

(HT:Tim Challies)

Nightline Debate: Is Satan real?

I thought this was an intriguing debate. I thought Mark Driscoll did an excellent job at pointing to Jesus and the existence of good and evil. The philosopher and very confused bishop on the other side of the table made me sad. Their nonsense postmodern jargon of things being "true for you" could be heard over and over throughout the debate. I'd encourage you to check it out here.

Belief: the power behind rebellion

The latest Adbusters article is really, really good. It's entitled They believed, why can't I?. It's good, not because I think everything this guy says is true (because I don't). It's good because he's wrestling with the paradox of belief and skepticism. He talks about the ideal of rebellion being attractive, yet it seems that most of this rebellion is shallow because there's no belief behind it, only unbelief in something else. Here's one paragraph:

"Ask liberals in the United States today what they believe in. They might tell you they want an end to the war in Iraq, that they desire universal health care or are inspired by Barack Obama. But these aren’t beliefs, they’re actions, policies and politicians. A belief is something like universal peace or a caring society or a world with great leaders (or no leaders at all). It is only by believing in such grand impossibilities that small accomplishments are possible. This is why liberals, for nearly two decades now, have accomplished nothing. Many contemporary radicals are little better. They have grand beliefs but little desire to realize what they believe. Doing so would jeopardize their outsider status as rebels. As such, their belief is in bad faith."

And then he says:

"Belief motivates. It gets you up in the morning and headed toward the horizon; it makes you act to bring about what you know is impossible."

Go read the rest here

The article reminds me of a chapter entitled The Suicide of Thought in Chesterton's Orthodoxy. He sums up the modern rebel this way:

“The new rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it...By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.”

Let me know how fleeting I am

At the heart of Lewis's short essay entitled On Living in an Atomic Age is an incredibly important thought: we are going to die. Concerning this world, our lives our mortal. And this very fact should shape the way we live our lives. This is what Lewis is driving at in the essay.

Lewis wrote the essay in 1948, three years after the atomic bomb was used on Japan in World War II. No doubt, people around the world become frightened at the notion that they too could be destroyed by this nuclear weapon.

In order to apply Lewis's thoughts to today's time, we can simply replace "atomic bomb" with "terrorist attack" (or any way of dying that strikes fear in your heart). He begins the essay by saying that people think far too much about the atomic bomb. He goes on:

“you and all whom you love were already sentenced to death before the atomic bomb was invented: and quite a high percentage of us were going to die in unpleasant ways…It is perfectly ridiculous to go about whimpering and drawing long faces because the scientists have added one more chance of painful and premature death to a world which already bristled with such chances and in which death itself was not a chance at all, but a certainty.”

Instead of worrying, he says:

“If we are all going to be destroyed by an atomic bomb, let that bomb when it comes find us doing sensible and human things – praying, working, teaching, reading, listening to music, bathing the children, playing tennis, chatting to our friends over a pint and a game of darts – not huddled together like frightened sheep and thinking about bombs. They may break our bodies but they need not dominate our minds.”

And finally he gives the lesson explicitly:

“What the wars and the weather and the atomic bomb have really done is to remind us forcibly of the sort of world we are living in and…which we were beginning to forget. And this reminder is, so far as it goes, a good thing. We have been waked from a pretty dream, and now we can begin to talk about realities.”

The reality is that "the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever." (1 John 2:17). And may we pray with the Psalmist: "O LORD, make me know my end and what is the measure of my days; let me know how fleeting I am!"

Why Peter Singer makes the New Atheists nervous

Dinesh D'Souza wrote a great article yesterday about Peter Singer. Singer is an atheist that seems to make the "new atheists" nervous:

"Some of Singer's critics have called him a Nazi and compared his proposals to Hitler's schemes for eliminating those perceived as unwanted and unfit. A careful reading of his work, however, shows that Singer is no Hitler. He doesn't want state-sponsored killings. Rather, he wants the decision to kill to be made by private individuals like you and me. Instead of government-conducted genocide, Singer favors free-market homicide.

Why haven't the atheists embraced Peter Singer? I suspect it is because they fear that his unpalatable views will discredit the cause of atheism. What they haven't considered, however, is whether Singer, virtually alone among their numbers, is uncompromisingly working out the implications of living in a truly secular society, one completely purged of Christian and transcendental foundations. In Singer, we may be witnessing someone both horrifying and yet somehow refreshing: an intellectually honest atheist."

(HT:Justin Taylor)

Those who want Heaven most

I think the idea of "going green" is a good thing. But it's important to not make it the main thing. We should be a good steward of this planet, but not in order to save it. Nature, C.S. Lewis says, is a sinking ship. He goes on to say the following in Present Concerns, in an essay entitled On Living in an Atomic Age:

“For it is part of our spiritual law never to put survival first: not even the survival of our species. We must resolutely train ourselves to feel that the survival of Man on this Earth, much more of our own nation or culture or class, is not worth having unless it can be had by honorable and merciful means.”

and

“Nothing is more likely to destroy a species or a nation than a determination to survive at all costs. Those who care for something else more than civilization are the only people by whom civilization is at all likely to be preserved. Those who want Heaven most have served Earth best. Those who love Man less than God do most for Man.”

Strobel asks questions of atheists

In Part 3 of an ongoing series at Friendly Atheist blog, Lee Strobel responds to this question:"What argument is most convincing to plant the seeds of doubt (or, rather, faith) in an atheists mind?" He does this by citing several people and questions they have for atheists. I'd encourage to read the whole thing and the comments, but here's my favorite part:

"I didn’t email Alvin Plantinga, considered by many to be among the greatest philosophers of modern times. But based on his assertion that naturalism is self-defeating, we could formulate this question (thanks to William Lane Craig for some of the concise wording): If our cognitive faculties were selected for survival, not for truth, then how can we have any confidence, for example, that our beliefs about the reality of physical objects are true or that naturalism itself is true? (By contrast, theism says God has designed our cognitive faculties in such a way that, when functioning properly in an appropriate environment, they deliver true beliefs about the world.)"

Strobel responds to a barrage of quesitons

After answering the first question over at Friendly Atheist's blog, Strobel now responds to the many questions/comments he received from the readers.

Check it out

Strobel answers questions at Friendly Atheist blog

Over at the Friendly Atheist blog, Hemant has asked Lee Strobel to answer some questions sent in by atheists who read Hemant's blog. If you didn't know, Lee Strobel was an atheist for many years before he noticed some attractive qualities in his wife after she became a Christian. After more investigation and hearing the gospel in a way that made sense to him, he became a Christian as well. He is now regarded as one of the leading apologists of our day.

Here's Part 1, where he answers the question:

What is your own background with atheism? What caused you to become a Christian? Is there a difference between your former atheism and the “New Atheism” of today? In other words, how hard-core of an atheist were you?

Here's a snippet of his answer:

"For nearly two years, I investigated science, philosophy, and history. I read literature (both pro and con), quizzed experts, and studied archaeology. On November 8th, 1981, alone in my room, I took a yellow legal pad and began summarizing the evidence I had encountered. In light of the scientific evidence that points toward a Creator and the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, I came to the conclusion that it would have required more faith for me to maintain my atheism than to become a Christian.

Essentially, I realized that to stay an atheist, I would have to believe that nothing produces everything; non-life produces life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason. Those leaps of faith were simply too big for me to take, especially in light of the affirmative case for God’s existence and Jesus’ resurrection (and, hence, his divinity). In other words, in my assessment the Christian worldview accounted for the totality of the evidence much better than the atheistic worldview."

Dinesh D'Souza on the Christian worldview

Dinesh D'Souza recently gave a speech in Colorado Springs that confronts the idea held by many, including the new atheists, that Christianity should be eradicated from our society. Dinesh argues that many people take for granted several fundamental ideas that would evaporate without the Christian worldview. He narrows in on the idea of fredom, mentioning slavery and women's suffrage, and the worth of the human individual. He concludes this way:

"In sum, the eradication of Christianity—and of organized religion in general—would also mean the gradual extinction of the principles of human dignity. Consider human equality. Why do we hold to it? The Christian idea of equality in God’s eyes is undeniably largely responsible. The attempt to ground respect for equality on a purely secular basis ignores the vital contribution by Christianity to its spread. It is folly to believe that it could survive without the continuing aid of religious belief."

Read the whole thing.

Does virtual morality exist?

Adbusters looks at this question in their lastest article. They examine the violence and sexually perverse behavior happening in video games and other virtual worlds, and wonder if immorality has free reign there.

"Technology is dragging morality into some deep and murky philosophical waters, forcing us to reexamine our understanding of it as many of us choose to become actors in virtual worlds. By putting choice and consequence in closed virtual worlds where we can kill without harming others or facing punishment ourselves, we are forced to reconsider the case for moral behavior. New video games such as Grand Theft Auto IV and online communities such as Second Life, invite an increasingly large percentage of society to participate in fantasy worlds where we are invited to experience life without rules – to be the bad guy or the sexual deviant. The implicit suggestion of these products is that, like gravity, morality does not necessarily exist in a virtual world. Morality and consequence can be switched off. Anything goes...

...When Jesus began teaching and interpreting the moral code of the day, he radically redefined adultery, translocating the sin from the physical realm of actions and words to the virtual world of the mind and imagination. In Matthew’s gospel, Jesus says, 'You have heard the commandment that says, ‘You must not commit adultery.’ But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.' What Jesus teaches is that God is concerned not only with what plays out in the physical world of actions (reality), but also with what takes place in the virtual world of our minds. A sociological approach to morality judges murder wrong because it harms an innocent person. A theological approach to morality finds murder sinful not only because of the physical act, but also because God is offended by an angry mind as well as violent hands. The humanist or secular view of morality is concerned only with what we do. True religious morality is concerned not only with what we do, but with who we are, with what we desire to do."

Ray Boltz and worldview

Tim Challies responds to this news article that reports on Ray Boltz coming out as being gay. Tim does an excellent job at pointing out some huge worldview implications for us:

"There are essentially two ways that humans can understand the world. The first way is the way we all understand the world until the Holy Spirit intervenes in our lives and gives us new eyes to see. This worldview is I-centered. I am the center of my own universe and the arbiter of all truth. I may not vocalize things in just this way and may not even think them quite like this, but it is ultimately what I believe. I believe that I am capable of looking at the world and understanding the way it works--who God is, who I am, the relationship between us, and so on.

The other way of seeing the world is God-centered. Here I acknowledge God as the center of all that exists and the arbiter of all truth. Everything that is true and everything that is knowable has its source in Him. Thus I can only interpret the world properly by rightly acknowledging God. This is, obviously, the biblical worldview. It is God who tells me who He is, God who tells me who I am and God who declares the terms of the relationship between us.

The first worldview allows me to acknowledge as truth only what I want to believe about myself; the second worldview requires me to acknowledge as truth what God says about me. The first worldview has to have as its premise that I am ultimately good while the second has as its premise that God is ultimately good. In the first view I sin against myself while in the second I sin against God. The contrasts could hardly be more pronounced."

Yesterday, I was having a conversation with someone about Reformed theology, and this idea came up. We often put our experience over what God's revealed Word says about reality. This can be very dangerous. Tim finishes his thoughts this way:

"Sadly, Boltz has an I-centered worldview. He declares without apology that he is gay and, digging a knife into God's back, says that it is God who has made him this way. He rejects God's assessment and instead assesses himself by his own standards and declares that he is good. He piles sin upon sin, accepting his homosexuality as good, rejecting God's declaration that it is sin, divorcing his wife, living that homosexual lifestyle.

The lesson to me in all of this is the importance--the life and death importance--of seeing the world not through my eyes but through God's. God has given us the Bible which allows us, like a pair of glasses that somehow illumines blind eyes, to see the world as He sees it. Through the Bible I find that I am not good but am instead utterly depraved. Incredibly and humiliatingly, I find that I have no ability to properly see and understand reality without Him. I find my desperate dependence upon Him to comprehend what may seem so plain and so obvious. I find that I need Him to interpret reality for me because, without Him, I'll get it wrong every time. I need God to teach me to see myself."

Read the whole thing.

Political Stomachache

I've read several little articles this morning that are getting me frustrated. Erik has a good post that talks through Joe Biden's issue on abortion.

Biden: For me, as a Roman Catholic, I’m prepared to accept the teachings of my church….I’m prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception. But that is my judgment. For me to impose that judgment on everyone else who is equally and maybe even more devout than I am seems to me is inappropriate in a pluralistic society.

Brokaw: But if you, you believe that life begins at conception, and you’ve also voted for abortion rights…

Biden: No, what a voted against curtailing the right, criminalizing abortion. I voted against telling everyone else in the country that they have to accept my religiously based view that it’s a moment of conception.

So whatever you believe you can't take into the public realm? That does not make sense.

Also, I saw these next two articles discussing Sarah Palin over at Justin Taylor's blog.

Here's a snippet from this post:

"So while I respect Palin's decision to raise Trig, that's all the respect she will get from me. I don't see eye-to-eye with her on anything else: energy, guns, sex education and of course a woman's right to choose. Her supporters say that Trig signals that she practices what she preaches. Her decision to make her own choice but not grant it to others is a sign of her hypocrisy."

WHAT???

Finally, here's a string a quotes from this post:

"Belief in god, like getting pregnant, is a private matter between consenting adults (or one consenting adult and one or more deities) and is no one else's business. I am on record in this blog (and have not budged an inch) as not objecting to any candidate's religious views.

But I object strongly when anyone (and especially anyone with political power) tries to take their theology out in public, to inflict those private religious (or sexual) views on other people. In both sex and religion (which combine in the debates about abortion), Sarah Palin's views make me fear that the Republican party has finally lost its mind.

Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman...She does not speak for women; she has no sympathy for the problems of other women, particularly working class women.

Joe Biden's views are most relevant to the question at hand, since, as a Catholic, he shares much of Palin's embryological theology: he believes life begins at conception. But he has gone out of his way to insist that he would not impose his personal views on others, and has indeed voted against curtailing abortion rights and against criminalizing abortion. That is the right answer. It's in the Constitution. It's not in the Bible, or the Qu'ran, or the Bhagavad Gita. It's in the mother-lovin' Constitution."

(Sigh) It boggles my mind that people are still so one-sided in their pluralisic beliefs. They gladly state that no one can impose their certain views on them while at the same time condemning others becuase of their view.

I need a Pepto Bismol

Ideas have consequences

Victor Frankl, survivor of Auschwitz, once said:

“The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment…I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers." - Can Man Live Without God?, Ravi Zacharias