Friends are where you find them. About 15 or so years ago, I gained a dear friend named Buckley. I began reading a tome of his called Up From Liberalism. The book hit me squarely between the intellectual/political eyes and I have not recovered. I went on to read God and Man at Yale, A Hymnal, Happy Days Are Here Again and others.
In the same way that the Westminster Confession generally summarizes what I believe to be true from Scripture, Buckley has generally summarized (although I am loathe to use the word summarize where Buckley is concerned) what I think politically.
Obviously, there are some differences and nuances, but his presentation of argument, understanding of process and insertion of biting humor make his words lovely even if his position is on the other side of the fence, as it were.
Chairman Bill, I will miss you, but will continue to enjoy your words.
I keep confessing to “guilty pleasures” on this Blog so here comes another one: I enjoy watching the yearly Academy Awards presentation. It’s not easy to get past the narcissism, the obnoxious self importance, and the sense of entitlement that the AA presentations literally reek of, but I usually manage to do it with only a few snorts of derision. It never ceases to amaze me that people with such obvious talent can do and say the things that they do and say, but I’m a Calvinist so it definitely fits my theology.
I think the main reason I watch is because movies were such a big deal when I was growing up, Gone with the Wind and The Wizard of Oz were released within a year of my birth and while I didn’t see the beginnings, I have certainly seen the growth and maturation of both the art and the craft. I have been entertained, excited, intellectually stimulated, and even, to use their word, enthralled, by movies for most of my life and my interest remains to this day.
I have not seen most of the movies and roles that were nominated yet since most of my movie watching now is via DVD, but I found some interesting aspects and comments in the presentation. First, I (and Jeff Miller, who called me) was absolutely shocked to see Cormac McCarthy in the audience. This would not be notable for most any other novelist but McCarthy has almost been the poster boy for reclusive writers. In addition, I have read a number of his brilliant novels and I almost can’t imagine a more unlikely group that he would rub shoulders with than that crowd. I suspect part of it had to do with the Coen brothers, Joel and Ethan, who produced and directed No Country for Old Men. Based on what I have heard, they followed the book very closely, which was smart because you almost can’t imagine anything more taut and suspenseful. The Coens are probably near the top of the talented list in Hollywood, as those of you who have viewed Oh Brother, Where Art Thou can attest, and McCarthy may have been drawn to them because of that talent.
They are also among the most self deprecating Hollywoodites around also, an incredibly easy tagline to obtain. While receiving the Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay, Joel Coen noted: “I think whatever success we’ve had in this area has been entirely attributable to how selective we are. We’ve only adapted Homer and Cormac McCarthy.” There’s obviously more to it than that but that was a great comment to make to Hollywood and the world.
Finally embracing the concept of total depravity, Darth Vader has suddenly become one of us. Or maybe the whole Presbyterian denomination has migrated unwittingly to the Dark Side. Confused? This will clear things up, here.
Apart from a veritable army of psychologists, psychiarists, and counselors; many thoughtful people believe that America has unfortunately become a nation of victims. This all began when the concept of sin went out of favor and “I’m O.K., You’re O.K.” became the mantra of, well, the sinless. There was no longer any possibility of doing any thing wrong. Your childhood environment, addiction “disease,” upbringing, sexual repression (I’ve been paying attention in Sunday School, Elder Allen!), societal prejudices, etc. all take the place of sin, make you a victim, and keep you deep down, “O.K.”
In addition to this, your rights to health and happiness cannot be interferred with by anyone because, contrary to the above ideas, anyone, for any reason, will be sued for everything they have if your rights are interferred with and you happily can claim victimhood in court. Their victimhood, whatever “made” them do it, cannot interfer with your right to victimhood.
Our victimhood tends to lead to a lot of public sentimentality in which people cry in public about things that happen that may or may not have impacted them. This is most prevalent when there is a crime of violence and a media camera appears. You can bet that a bunch of people who had no connection other than reasonable proximity to the real victims (in the true sense of the word), can’t resist getting their share of sympathy and borrowed victimhood and begin weeping on camera. This probably developed from the years of odious talk shows in which people tell in public every awful thing that ever happened to their family and then have the audience join them in weeping in public.
You are probably wondering about the title of this post by now. I recently enjoyed a two-part HBO series about Queen Elizabeth I and my wife, seeing this and knowing how much I enjoy reading history; rented the two Cate Blanchett movies about Elizabeth. While watching these, it crossed my mind how lucky Elizabeth Tudor was to live in the 16th. - 17th. century instead of the 20th.-21st.. This was a woman who became the Queen of England and led her nation to a golden age by defeating the rich and powerful empire of Spain. However, if she lived now, she would not have had time for those deeds of derring-do because she would never have gotten out of therapy. After all, her father had her mother’s head cut off! And why did he do it? Essentially because she, Elizabeth, was a girl instead of a boy! She would have been a therapist’s dream if she simply had enough sense to realize she was a victim instead of a queen.
Babette’s Feast is literally a feast of theological and human insight played out in this beautiful movie. The overriding theme is that the totality and immensity of God’s grace and mercy allows us to live in joy and with grace and alone gives us the ability to forgive others. The corollary is that seeing grace as miserly, narrow and needing our works to be complete causes Christians to be narrow minded, joyless and unforgiving. Here are some questions of interest to interact with and address, but given the depth of the movie, you probably have other ideas to put forth. Also, your impressions of the movie as a movie and as theology would be very interesting. Let everyone know what you think about the movie and the idea of grace it puts out.
• The hymn of the little church contained their credo and spoke of the coming of the new Jerusalem at the end of time. Did the church members’ almost total concentration on this improve their ministry or did it in fact create obstacles in their mind?
• The hymn uses Jesus’ illustration of giving your son a stone when he asks for bread. Is there an irony in singing this given their concentration on austerity as being proper and “holy” before the feast?
• The most enthusiastic participant at the dinner and the one who delivers the speech about the grace of God is the worldly general. Why is this the case? Consider this in the light of the story in Luke 7 in which the one forgiven much loves much.
• Martine and Philippa turn away from love and art respectively, believing that it would be displeasing to God. What, if anything, does the dinner and through it, the discovery of the richness of grace teach them about these decisions? What can we learn from it?
• There was much shock, concern and even revulsion about the turtle, the “reptile,” among the people, that was even expressed in the nightmare of the sister. Consider this in light of Peter’s vision about the sheet coming down from heaven with “unclean” animals in Acts 10. The turtle soup was enjoyed first by the outsider, the worldly General, then by the church. Is the “goodness” of God’s grace in His provision for Gentiles an adequate explanation for the focus of the movie on this aspect of the feast?
• The entrée at Babette’s Feast is Cailles en Sarcophage, or quail in a sarcophagus. A sarcophagus is a stone coffin. How does this relate to the imagery of communion and grace?
• Discord, dissension and backbiting had arisen in the church. How and why was this resolved by the Babette’s feast?
• Fictional allegories are by nature imperfect but there are a number of ways in which Babette is a type of Christ. Remembering the imperfect nature of allegory, consider some of the following aspects:
Babette came to the austere coast from a much richer environment; one in which she held a more exalted place.
She gave everything to the preparation of the feast, saving nothing back for herself. Are there any other aspects of the movie in which this connection exists?
• The dinner symbolizes both Holy Communion and the Wedding Supper of the Lamb. Consider ways in which this is the case. Does the little group of twelve stand in for the church universal in this imagery?
• At the end of the movie, Babette says that she prepared the feast for herself, not for the church, and that she is a “great artist.” In what way would this match the allegorical type of Christ spoken of above?
• Both Philippa and Babette are told that they will practice their wonderful arts of singing and cooking in Heaven in various parts of the movie. What does this indicate to us about Heaven and how does this relate to the ideas of the little Church and the overall theme of God’s overwhelming grace?
The title of this blog entry is also the title of a new book just out by Susan Jacoby that speaks to the prevalence of anti-intellctualism in America today. Or maybe I should just say “In the Western World,” given Jeff Miller’s post on the London Mail survey below about fictional characters and historical personages.. The New York Times book review is here. While you (and I) probably don’t agree with all her conclusions, there is no denying the trend. And whatever you do, don’t leave the site without clicking on the YouTube link under the picture that shows the model on the game show about being smarter than a third grader answering the question about Budepest. It is beyond hilarious, or pitiful, depending on how the mood strikes you.
Apparently that’s what a group of Catholics in the Netherlands is saying. They figure that the average Dutchman is more familiar with the islamic fasting period, Ramadan, than they are with Lent, so it’s just smarter branding to let folks know what this whole Lent thing is all about by calling it the Christian Ramadan.
Ben Stein is releasing a documentary this month about how scientists are summarily dismissed and blackballed if they question Darwinism. Trailer below:
Dr. Rowan Williams has recently proposed that British Muslims be allowed to practice Sharia Law to resolve marital and financial disputes. Williams is the Archbishop of Canterbury— the highest position in the Anglican Church. You can read about it here.
Most of you have seen the “Motivational” posters that have “inspirational” pictures with an ironic meassage below them. For example, one I saw recently with a baton being passed in a race had the title BLAME, and the message, “Success is usually knowing who to blame.” The company that makes them is Despair.com and they are really quite funny.
I recently saw a poster of that type that is funny, but unlike some of the others, is as true as anything you may ever see, especially within the general context of Southern evangelical religion. In fact, I may print a copy of it to help myself stay straight.
Since it’s all over but the exact computation of the delegates, I’ll opine on the state of the race post 2/5.
On the Democrat side, what a contest! The dems have this requirement that delegates be absolutely proportionally allocated. So, since HRC won a few big states, and Obama won more smaller states, they just about evened out, once you proportionally allocate the delegates at stake. Many commenters I’ve read suggest that a brokered convention is a likely outcome for the dems, and I think their arguments are plausible.
What’s interesting is whether the Democrats will heal up or explode at a brokered convention. If HRC wins and does not choose (or is not required to do so by the super-delegates as a condition for their support) Obama as a running mate, or if he wins and does not choose her as a running mate, then I suspect there will be a massive party split, with women and Latinos offended at HRC’s exclusion, or black Democrats offended at Obama’s exclusion, as there are fairly pronounced splits along these demographic groups in the exit polls. However, if by choice or compulsion, one chooses the other, and especially if Obama is at the top, then they will be extremely difficult for the Republicans to beat.
Speaking of the Republicans, I suppose we’re all McCainiacs now. Huckabee and Romney split what McCain didn’t win, but he won the big important states like IL, CA, and NY. Rush argued today that this demonstrates his weakness, as those states have been written off by the GOP for the last few election cycles - i.e., he can only win in the bluest of blue states, and may not be able to win in the south, which is a sine qua non for the party to win in November. That seems a flawed argument to me since McCain came in second in the south, and was the second choice of many according to the exit polls.
Much is being speculated about McCain choosing Huckabee for VP to make up for perceived southern weakness. I sincerely hope not. McCain is weakest not with social cons (he’s always been and voted pro-life; he just doesn’t advertise it, a fact that I suspect will change), but rather with economic conservatives. Given the fragile state of the economy, and his lack of interest or expertise in this area, a good solid economic conservative/supply-sider would be a more logical choice. What if you could find one that could self-fund? Maybe who had been the choice of the conservative talking heads, had a private sector background, and could possibly heal the party rift? But can McCain be gracious enough to extend the olive branch to Romney? I doubt it. Look instead for Florida Gov. Crist, SC Gov. Sanford, MN Gov. Pawlenty, or, who knows, maybe even former FL Gov. Jeb Bush (who, but for his last name, would be the nominee this time anyway).
McCain will give a speech to the Conservative Political Action Committee tomorrow. Look for him to invoke Ronald Reagan (who would be 97 years old today, had he lived) repeatedly. No surprise there. A little toning down of the class warfare rhetoric by McCain would be good. Perhaps even an acknowledgment of the contributions of the private sector to America. He might want to consider adding this nugget of info I ran across today to his speech: Exxon Mobil, the much maligned energy conglomerate, paid 30 BILLION DOLLARS (that’s $30,000,000,000) in corporate taxes in 2007. Here’s some context for that staggering number: If you take the total amount of taxes paid by the bottom 50% of individual taxpayers, it would roughly equal what this one (1!) evil, greedy, wicked corporation paid in one year. How’s that for paying your fair share?
Oh, yeah, and in case you’re interested, that’s a 41% effective tax rate (and before anything is paid to any state). Find all the Exxon number crunching here.
I somehow suspect that no one, not even the Republican presidential nominee, will bring that up.
Last night, Jimmy Hopper and I were having some post-book group discussion. Having been focused on Dostoevsky for the previous 90 minutes, our conversation turned rather Anglophilic and we talked a bit about Churchill. I got home a few minutes later and Dana told me about this article.
Apparently, there was a survey done among some Brits who had much difficulty determining which names from a list were actual historical figures as opposed to fiction. Some 25% dismissed Churchill as fictional. Good thing he was around about 60 -70 years ago or they would be taking the survey in German.
I always have hoped that Jay Leno’s ‘Jaywalking’ bits were setup. Now, I’m fairly, but sadly, convinced they’re for real.
Sometimes, you read something in the news that is so stupid, so insipid, so completely and utterly ridiculous, that you wonder whether you’ve stumbled onto the Onion, or some such. Although, when I tell you that this story involves the intersection of the Church of England, Global Warming, and Lent, perhaps it will seem less like parody.
Two bishops in the Church of England are suggesting that people fast from carbon for the next 40 days. Read it here. Quoth Bishop of Liverpool James Jones:
For example, on the first day, people can take out one of their light bulbs and whenever they go to turn that light on, and it doesnÂt work, they can remember why they are fasting from carbon — to help the poor of the world. At the end of the fast they can replace it with an energy-saving light bulb.
How does anyone’s stumbling around in the dark help the poor of the world? What absolute nonsense. No wonder the pews are empty in the CoE.
I guess I can quit worrying about who to vote for for president. Chuck Norris called the house today and said to vote for Mike Huckabee and now I’m too afraid to consider anyone else.
If there’s anything I wear on my sleeve more than my Republicanism, it’s my love of all things Apple. I am a serious fan of the Mac, iPod, etc. Being such, I am, predictably, disinclined toward Microsoft, and have been known to speak of them in less than flattering terms.
All of that said, really, I could never have made up anything this good. You have to have instructions to get the box with the Vista upgrade discs in it open. Really. Read all about it here. Or, if you’d rather go straight to the source, the instructions are posted on M$’s own website here.
A new book, Against the Machine, by Lee Siegel, attempts to describe the effect of the internet on American culture. The New Your Times review can be found here.
Suffice it to say that Siegel doesn’t care for the Internet, and he warns you that if you sit in front of it for long periods of time, you will be encouraged toward “exhibitionism and asocial behavior.” The book is generally panned by the reviewer but Siegel makes some worthwhile points. See what you think about it.
A follow up to my last post. Survey USA has new poll numbers out for Alabama. You can find them here. The summary:
McCain 40
Huckabee 31
Romney 21
Paul 5
Again, assuming for the sake of argument that the conservative Huckabee voters would go for the more conservative Romney rather than the more moderate McCain were Huckabee to withdraw, then Romney would be winning 52-40.
As it stands, the conservative split may even deliver Alabama to McCain.
BTW, Huckabee will be speaking at Open Door Baptist on Saturday.
