Category Archives: Politics and Culture

“Don’t Re-Nig”: A New Low for a New Political Age

If this is what passes for acceptable within certain circles, I wonder if we haven’t crossed some sort of threshold in terms of our ability to engage in civil discourse.  Between this and the Bill Maher/Rush Limbaugh “hate speech” flare-up, I really do wonder …

My apologies for the poor quality of the image.  This was the best I could find on the net, and it was stamped with a watermark.  For the impatient among you, the bumper sticker reads as follows:

“Don’t Re-Nig in 2012.  Stop repeat offenders.  Don’t reelect Obama!” 

 

 

Presidential Politics and the Character of the Man

As the Presidential primaries continue to roll along, with another 11 states set to hold contests this upcoming Tuesday, a new poll jointly sponsored by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal seems to suggest that the heavily contested primary season is damaging people’s perception of both the Republican Party and the candidates themselves.  At present, when asked to describe the Republican primaries and candidates in a single word or phrase, nearly 70% of the poll’s respondents – including 60% of independents and more than 50% of Republicans – have offered a less than glowing evaluation of the candidates and their behaviors.

While this is not particularly unusual in a hotly contested primary season, what is potentially of concern for evangelical Christians, is our public identification with the Republican Party.  According to a recent article on The Pew Forum, white evangelical Protestants seem to be trending towards a greater affiliation with the Republican Party.  In 2008, 65% of this group identified (or leaned) Republican, while 28% identified (or leaned) Democratic.  But three years into President Obama’s administration, this 37-point gap has swelled to 46 points as 70% of white evangelicals now lean Republican and only 24% lean Democratic.

While some may read this data in a positive light, I can’t help but wonder what this caustic season of Presidential primaries is doing to be people’s perception of the evangelical church and of Christ himself.  When the public figures we either tacitly or openly support conduct themselves in such a caustic manner, people make assumptions about the values we hold to be true.  And my question is: why are we, as evangelicals, not holding candidates to higher standards by openly challenging them on the manner in which they are conducting themselves in this race?   While this conclusion may not be all that flattering to the evangelical community to which I belong, it would seem to me that we appear to be entering into a dangerous new era in Christian history, in which we seem to be willing to set aside character issues so long as our pastors and our candidates publicly advocate what we believe to be the right theology, methodology and/or policy.

 

When Presidential Candidates Talk About God

It is a commonly held belief that American voters want to know about the religious leanings of their presidential candidates.  Do they believe in a god; and if so, which one?  Why do they believe?  And how will this belief inform their policies?  Will they defend the separation of church and state?  Or will they use federal monies to fund “faith-based” initiatives?  These are the sorts of things we want to know … aren’t they?

Last month, USA Today reported on a new study just released by Lifeway Research.  According to their survey of 2000 voters, only 16% of Americans would find themselves more likely to vote for a candidate if he or she were to consistently express religious beliefs in public forums.  Now take a look at some of the other findings:

As you can see, Republicans (32%) are eight times more likely to be positively influenced by a candidate’s religious views than are Democratic voters (4%).  Conversely, more than half of all Democrats (55%) would actively move away from supporting a religiously vocal candidate, as opposed to the 7% of Republicans who would do the same.

So what do you think?  Does a candidate who expresses his or her religious beliefs have the potential to draw you towards them or does it tend to push you away? 

“Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close” (2011): A One-Minute Film Review

There is an old adage that tells us that a recipe can only be as good as the ingredients that are used.  If that is true, consider the Oscar-nominated Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close. It begins with director Stephen Daldry, a man so narratively gifted that all three of his previous films have gone on to earn “Best Picture” nominations.  To that, you add the two-time, Academy Award-winning actor, Tom Hanks, in the role of a saintly father who may be the only person on earth who understands his uniquely challenged son.  Now mix in Sandra Bullock, just two years removed from her own Oscar-winning performance, as a bereaved mother left to deal with her own grief, even as she struggles to help her son come to grips with his loss.  Finally, take all these ingredients and set them in the context of the “jumpers” leaping from the burning towers on September 11th.  What should emerge from the oven is a scintillating film that finally gives voice to our collective grief and rage.  But, unfortunately, this is not the case.  Indeed, there are two critical weaknesses that take the legs right out from underneath this film and ultimately prevent it from becoming anything more than an overly-saccharine sympathy card that leaves nothing but a bad aftertaste in your mouth.

So what are the issues?  Well, the first problem has to do with the adaptation of the source material itself.  In fairness to Eric Roth, anytime a screenwriter has to distill the content of a novel down to a script that can be filmed in two hours, material is going to be sacrificed.  But in this case, many of Jonathan Safran Foer’s most insightful musings on the nature of war and terror have been left on the editing room floor.  In the novel, the only reason the grandfather re-emerges into the life of this scarred young boy is because he, too, knows what it means to lose a parent to the ever-turning gears of war.  But here, in the film, the fire-bombings of Dresden during World War II are used only as a set up to explain the grandfather’s selectively mute nature.  Thus, the larger theme of war and its impact on the lives of the innocent is almost completely absent.  And that is a very real problem when you are attempting to say something of value on the subject of 9/11. If you do ultimately decide to see this film, ask yourself this: how would the film have been substantially changed if Oskar’s father did not die in the attacks of 9/11, but in a random car accident that left him with just enough time to place a few phone calls?  If you believe, as I do, that nothing would have functionally changed, than you will begin to see the central problem with the film.  To reduce the events of September 11th to nothing more than a plot device that allows a character to grow is to fundamentally disrespect the nearly 3000 people that lost their lives on that day in history.

The second major issue with this film has to do with the casting of young Thomas Horn.  For some inexplicable reason, director Stephen Daldry made the decision to cast a complete unknown in the role of Oskar Schell.  Prior to this film, Horn had never acted either in film or in television; and that is a massive liability for a film in which the young actor is required to play an emotionally shattered boy who is likely suffering from the effects of Asperger’s Syndrome as well as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.  Yes, every once in a while, a Haley Joel Osment in The Sixth Sense comes along to take us all by surprise.  But that is the exception and not the rule.

So where does Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close sit in the pantheon of 9/11 films?  Probably somewhere beneath Oliver Stone’s World Trade Center, and just above Adam Sandler’s Reign Over Me.  At best, it’s an adequate film that leaves the viewer wondering: is it just too soon to expect a film to really be able to handle the events of that day? 

This film has been rated PG-13 by the MPAA for emotional thematic material, some disturbing images, and language.

Capturing 9/11 on Film: The Documentaries …

Earlier this week, my wife and I went to see the latest film based upon the events of September 11th, 2001.  In the hopes of putting Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close within its proper context, I have decided to offer this brief series on the history of 9/11 and film.  Yesterday, we examined the major studio releases that have sought to relive the events of that day.  Today, we will continue the series by taking a closer look at the notable documentaries.[1]

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

9/11 (2002).

By far the “gold standard” of all the documentaries on this subject, this is the film that almost wasn’t.  On the morning of September 11th, French documentarians Gedeon and Jules Naudet were out on the streets of New York, making a film about a young probationary firefighter.  But as fate would have it, the brothers were standing in the flight path of the first plane as it flew straight overhead and into the side Tower 1.  Thus, these two brothers became eyewitnesses to history as they captured the only known footage of the first strike as well as the only internal footage of the chaos that erupted in the Trade Centers as the firefighters fought their way into the building in a heroic attempt to rescue the survivors.

Ten years after the fact, this film still stands out as a giant among the many imitators.  By the sheer virtue of its immediate and unparalleled access to the events of the day, it possesses a power that can still reduce the viewer to a state of shock.  From the off camera sounds of the bodies striking the pavement to the steely look of grim determination in the rescuers eyes, the viewer is given a front row seat to hell-on-earth, a seat that might gladly be surrendered if it weren’t so important to remember.

102 Minutes that Changed America (2008).

If 9/11 is the “gold standard” of the documentaries that have sought to understand these events, the History Channel’s 102 Minutes that Changed America comes in a very close second.  Wisely eschewing the footage that played ad nausea in the aftermath of the attacks, this documentary is instead assembled by cobbling together footage from the countless amateur videographers that were filming throughout New York.

What gives this documentary its power is the lack of a singular narrative voice.  There is no filter for this footage. There is no news anchor gravely interpreting the chaos.   There is no buffer from the anguish and pain.  Instead, there is only shaky, raw footage painstakingly stitched together in such a way as to tell “our story,” as we all came to grips with the way our lives were going to change through these events.

Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004).

Thus far, we have looked at two documentaries that sought to provide cathartic release by offering the viewer an intimate opportunity to relive the events of that day.  Unlike these other two films, however, Fahrenheit 9/11 has no such purpose.  Instead, Fahrenheit 9/11 attempts to take a broader, more politicized, view of the events as it offers up an interpretation of the day that links the attacks, the Bush Presidency, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the Bin Laden family and the Western dependence upon oil.

Regardless of whether you agree with the politics of the film or not, Fahrenheit 9/11 is significant in that it won the Palme d’Or at the 57th Cannes Film Festival in France; and on the strength of that win, went on to be released in the United States just weeks before the 2004 Presidential election.

9/11: The Falling Man (2006).

The least well known of the documentaries we have discussed, 9/11: The Falling Man is nevertheless an excellent look at one of the nearly 200 “jumpers” who elected to plummet to their demise rather than facing what they presumed would be a slow death via fire and smoke inhalation.

On the day after the attacks, newspapers around the world ran a photograph, which came to be known as: “The Falling Man.” It had been taken by the Associated Press photographer Richard Drew; and unlike any other image from that day, it alone was branded as distasteful and voyeuristic by a mainstream media that never printed it again.  But some, such as the documentarians responsible for this film, believed that this picture needed to be confronted, for it alone communicated the true horror experienced by those trapped in a burning building.[2]

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Tomorrow, this series will conclude by taking a look at the Oscar-nominated film, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close.

[1] It should be noted that no documentaries related to the “alternative accounts” of 9/11 are included in this list.  Such accounts, while widespread on the internet, are too radically different from the accounts accepted as factual by mainstream America, and thus they are a separate entity unto themselves.

[2] 9/11: The Falling Man can be viewed online at the following address: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXnA9FjvLSU&feature=player_embedded

Capturing 9/11 on Film

Last night, my wife and I decided to take in Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, one of the nine films nominated for the “Best Picture” of 2012.  Ordinarily, after viewing a film of this nature, I would simply put up a “One-Minute Review,” and be done with it.  But something about this film has elicited responses within me that demand more than a few perfunctory paragraphs. So today, I am going to begin a brief series on the subject of 9/11 and film.  And to get things rolling, I am simply going to highlight a few major films that have attempted to address this subject over the past 10 years.

United 93 (2006).

On the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks, Paul Greengrass, director of The Bourne Supremacy and The Bourne Ultimatum, offered us this partly speculative, real-time account of the only hijacked plane that failed to strike its intended target.  Much to his credit, Greengrass wisely rejected any attempt to entertain the audience and largely avoided almost all of the exploitative melodrama that one would normally expect from a picture of this nature.  In fact, he was so resistant to the notion of fictionalizing or sentimentalizing the events of 9/11 that he even saw fit to cast some of the real flight controllers as themselves in the film.  Without question, this is the rawest of the films released to date, as it offers no hope and no explanation.

September 11 (2002).

Released within one year of the tragic events of 9/11, this ambitious, yet rarely-seen, film is actually a compilation of eleven “shorts,” filmed by directors such as: Mira Nair, Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu and Sean Penn.  With each segment lasting exactly 11 minutes, 9 seconds and 1 frame, the filmmakers were given broad latitude to explore how the events of the titular day affected people all around the world.  As with any film of this nature, some segments are stronger than others.  Having said that, this film deserves to be seen, if for no other reason than it was the first of its kind to tackle the issue while the wounds were still raw and bleeding.

World Trade Center (2006).

Released around the same time as United 93, this film could not be more different in tone or effect.  Subverting his usual flair for political muckraking, director Oliver Stone instead elected to film a patriotic story of two Port Authority rescue workers who were trapped when the Twin Towers collapsed, and were amongst the last of the survivors to be extracted from “Ground Zero.”  While the film’s tagline sees fit to remind us that this is “a true story of courage and survival,” one can’t help but wonder if we are being reminded of this fact because the sense of hope that the film conveys feels so out of place with everything that the viewer knows to be true about the events of that day.

Reign Over Me (2007).

Six years after the attacks of 9/11, Adam Sandler commendably used his clout to make the first mainstream, Hollywood movie about the emotional fallout that followed the events of that day.  Unfortunately, Sandler’s best intentions were seriously undermined by his own desire to stretch himself as a dramatic actor.  The resultant film is a melodramatic mess that only sporadically comes to life when the under-rated, but always-excellent Don Cheadle enters the frame to provide some measure of gravitas and genuine humanity.  Sadly, by the end, we are left with a vision of “hope” that feels almost as patently false as much of Sandler’s acting career.

Part 2 of this series will explore a few of the most significant documentaries on the subject of 9/11, while part 3 will conclude by placing Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close within the proper context of our culture’s attempts to capture this event on film.

“Christians” Killing Homosexuals to Win the “Culture War”

In recent days, the politics of Uganda have once again captured the attention of the global audience, as lawmaker David Bahati has sought to introduce a bill into the National Assembly that would call for homosexuals to face life imprisonment for their crimes.  Three years ago, a similar bill, which also included the death penalty for certain sexual acts, was voted down when pressure from the international community was brought to bear on the largely “Christian” nation.[1]  But according to Bahati, “This is a piece of legislation that is needed in this country to protect the traditional family here in Africa.”[2]   In an interview with the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), Bahati went on to say: Continue reading →

Can You Trust an Atheist?

The scarlet "A" serves at the sign of the New Atheists public awareness campaign.

Do you trust an atheist?  Would you vote for one if he or she was running for office?  What if their competition were an openly gay individual or a Muslim?  Could you vote for an atheist then?  What if your child wanted to marry an atheist?  Would that concern you?

Fifty years ago, these questions were not at the forefront of American culture because the American population was largely “Christianized.”[1]  But by the dawn of the new millennium, the culture had radically changed as globalization brought about an increased sensitivity to living in a pluralistic world. Continue reading →

Killing Black Babies and the Legacy of a Deceived King

Today, on a day when we pause to remember the towering legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., I want to tell you a rather tragic story – a story about the intentional efforts to eradicate the black race.

It all begins back in the late 1800s and the early 1900s, a time when America was undergoing tremendous social change.  As a nation, we were riding high on the crest of the Gilded Age, a time when the United States economy grew at an unprecedented rate, and real wages, accumulated wealth and capital formation all exploded.  During this time, many within the social and academic elite were beginning to question the historical doctrines of the church.  The publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species had convinced many that man was nothing more than the unintended by-product of evolutionary forces that had been at play for millions upon millions of years.  And all of this contributed to the thinking of a small, but influential group of people beginning to dream of a new utopia – a world with few ethical boundaries.

Margaret Sanger, Found of Planned Parenthood

Enter Margaret Sanger. Sanger was an American socialist who dreamed of a world in which women had absolute power over their own bodies.  As a sex educator, nurse, and birth control activist, she spent her life in the pursuit of a dream: the establishment of the American Birth Control League, which later became known as the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.  To many men and women in contemporary society, Sanger is a cultural hero, remembered much in the way that we remember Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony.  But there is a much darker side to Sanger’s story.  For you see, Margaret Sanger was not simply an early feminist seeking to protect the rights of her oppressed sisters.  Margaret Sanger was a disciple of Thomas Malthus, a 19th century cleric and part-time political economist.  Listen to the words of Thomas Malthus:

“All children born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the deaths of grown persons.  Therefore … we should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality; and if we dread the too-frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use.  Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits.  In our towns, we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague.  In the country, we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlements in all marshy and unwholesome situations.  But above all, we should reprobate specific remedies for ravaging diseases; and restrain those benevolent, but much mistaken men, who have thought they were doing a service to mankind by projecting schemes for the total extirpation of particular disorders.”[1]

Much like her teachers, Malthus and Adolph Hitler, Sanger was a eugenicist who believed that we must seek to eradicate the “human weeds,” which she defined as “feeble-minded, syphilitic, irresponsible and defective stocks” that “bred unhindered.”  And who were these “defective stocks?”  They were the Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, and anyone who wasn’t white and wealthy.  Consider Sanger’s own words:

“Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying … demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism … [Philanthropists and Christians] encourage the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant … We are paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all.”[2]

Now, lest the reader think that this was an aberration in Sanger’s thinking, allow me to share a few more choice quotes from some of Sanger’s other writings:

“Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.”[3]

“Eugenics is the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.”[4]

While there is no doubt that these are wicked ideas masked by the language of freedom and choice, perhaps most despicable of all is Sanger’s contemptuous plan to enlist the aid of African American ministers in the genocide of their own people.

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. And the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”[5]

This, of course, brings us back around to the subject of Martin Luther King, Jr. In 1966, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America inaugurated the PPFA Margaret Sanger Award, which is given in recognition of “excellence and leadership in furthering reproductive health and reproductive rights.”  How ironic is it, that on May 5th, 1966, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. received the award named on behalf of a racist who sought to deceive the black clergy of America so as to further her agenda of racial purity.  How ironic that he would issue these words:

“Recently, the press has been filled with reports of sightings of flying saucers. While we need not give credence to these stories, they allow our imagination to speculate on how visitors from outer space would judge us. I am afraid they would be stupefied at our conduct. They would observe that for death planning we spend billions to create engines and strategies for war. They would also observe that we spend millions to prevent death by disease and other causes. Finally they would observe that we spend paltry sums for population planning, even though its spontaneous growth is an urgent threat to life on our planet. Our visitors from outer space could be forgiven if they reported home that our planet is inhabited by a race of insane men whose future is bleak and uncertain.”[6]

Dr. King believed that the billions we spend on the “engines of war” made us a race of “insane men.”  I wonder how he would feel today knowing that we spend hunderds of millions every year – in the United States alone – on the planned termination of infants.[7]  I wonder how he would feel knowing that even today, 64% of all abortions are performed on women of color?  I wonder how he would feel knowing that 69% of the women who abort live just above or even below the poverty line?[8]  Is this the “mountaintop” of racial equality that Dr. King envisioned? Or is this Sanger’s mountaintop of racial purity?

[1] Thomas Malthus, An Essay on the Principle of Population. (McLean, IndyPublish: 2002).

[2] Margaret Sanger, The Pivot of Civilization, 1922.  Chapter on “The Cruelty of Charity,” pages 116, 122, and 189. Swarthmore College Library edition.

[3] Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.

[4] Margaret Sanger, “The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda.” Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.

[5] Margaret Sanger’s December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon’s Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.

[7] The average cost of an abortion in the United States is $413.  If 1.21 million were performed in 2005, that means that Americans collectively paid $499,730,000 to terminate babies that year.

John Perkins and the Road to Galatians 2:20

Just nine hours ago, on the eve of this nation’s 28th annual celebration of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., I had the privilege of standing near an elderly black gentleman by the name of Dr. John Perkins.  Now please understand, in my life, I have had the somewhat unique opportunity to meet and speak with several well-known individuals, most notably Bono, N.T. Wright, and even, on one occasion, President Jimmy Carter.  But as I stood in that lobby at Willowcreek Community Church this morning, trying hard to summon the right words to explain the importance of Dr. Perkins to my seven-year old son, I couldn’t bring myself to stand in line for the chance to meet him.  Something in me just knew that I would have nothing to say.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with Dr. Perkins, he is the son of an impoverished sharecropper who grew up in New Hebron, Mississippi. When his older brother was killed at the hands of a town marshal, Perkins fled to California in the hopes of never returning home.  But God had other plans.  In 1960, at the age of 27, Perkins returned to Mississippi to share his new found Christian faith.  And it was then that he began his public ministry, working to bring about racial reconciliation and healing through the Gospel of Jesus the Christ.  Dr. Perkins has been a leader in the black community for over 50 years, and has dedicated himself to galvanizing people and ministries to take up the call of working in concert with the poor and vulnerable.  He does this because he believes in the mighty truth of Galatians 2:20:

“I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.”

Tonight, as I continue to ponder what it means for me to try to raise my sons in a way that encourages them to spend their lives in the fight for the fullest expression of the Kingdom of God, I find myself thinking of two passages penned by Dr. Perkins.  I leave them with you in the hopes that they will challenge you in the same way that they have challenged me.

“After one horrific night of torture in jail, Perkins underwent a crisis of faith.  ‘It was time for me to decide if I really did believe what I’d so often professed, that only in the love of Christ, not in power of violence, is there any hope for me or the world.  I began to see how hate could destroy me.  In the end, I had to agree with Dr. King that God wanted us to return good for evil, not evil for evil. ‘Love your enemy,’ Jesus said.  And I determined to do it.  It’s a profound, mysterious truth, Jesus’ concept of love overpowering hate.  I may not see it in my lifetime.  But I know it’s true.  Because on that bed, full of bruises and stitches, God made it true in me.  I got a transfusion of hope.”[1]

* * * * * * * *

“The existence of a compelling Christian witness in our time does not depend on our access to the White House, the size of our churches, or the cultural relevance of our pastors.  It depends instead, on our ability to sing better songs with our lives.  True conversion is always personal, but it is never solely about the individual who experiences God’s love and knows the good news of salvation.  True conversion is about learning to sing songs in which our life harmonizes with others’ – even the lives of those least like us.”[2]

Finally, for those of you who might enjoy the opportunity to hear from Dr. Perkins directly, I offer you this half-hour video from an interview he did at St. Norbert College.

[1] Charles Marsh and John Perkins, Welcoming Justice: God’s Movement Towards Beloved Community (Downers Grove, Intervarsity Press: 2009), 12.

[2] Charles Marsh and John Perkins, Welcoming Justice: God’s Movement Towards Beloved Community (Downers Grove, Intervarsity Press: 2009), 70.