a sense of yearning

Over the Rhine has a song called Snow Angels, from their album of the same title. Listening to it as we drove home from a friends last night, I was struck by the following verse

Snow angel, snow angel
Someday I’m gonna fly
This cold and broken heart of mine
Will one day wave goodbye
Goodbye to this cruel wicked world
And all the tears I’ve cried
Snow angel, snow angel
I’ll meet you in the sky

Certainly they are not the first to communicate this sense of yearning. Nonetheless, it stuck me as an uncommon sentiment. There seems to be an existential understanding in this of the need for something else. Although sung very pleasantly, I can almost hear Karin crying as she sings these words. Once again, I feel more intimately connected with an artist I have never met (actually I met them once, but that's not the point) than I really ever have with a church community. I just don't get this sense of desperation with most Christians I meet. Certainly they profess the existence of sin and an eternity free of it. What I sense more is a fear of eventual suffering rather than a desire to be delivered from it in the here and now.

The National on Letterman - July 24, 2007

The National is yet another great band to come out of Cincinnati (also home to Over the Rhine). Their album Boxer was named album of the year by Paste magazine and it is fantastic. This is them performing the song Fake Empire on the Late Show with David Letterman.

Arrested Development film update

I said I would occassionally update news about any progress towards Arrested Development hitting the big screen. Jason Bateman gave this interview to MTV on December 6.

a brief gripe

"There are no rules in filmmaking, only sins. And the cardinal sin is dullness."
-Frank Capra
The same can be said of teaching.

The Bells of St. Corleone

I read recently a brief review of the classic Frank Capra film It’s a Wonderful Life in World Magazine. The reviewer described the film as having presented a Christian worldview. Plugged In, which is published by James Dobson's organization Focus on the Family, said that "after more than 50 years, families can still explore its rich themes and valuable life lessons together." In a 1996 video release by Republic Entertainment Inc. it was labeled under the heading “Family Collection.” In his film Hollywood vs. Religion, conservative movie critic Michael Medved uses it as an example to defend his thesis that the Hollywood establishment has transitioned from being pro-religion in the 1930s and 40s to being anti-religion today. He claims that the inclusion of angels and God makes the film friendly to Judeo- Christian values.

I don't understand why these individuals and organizations are so quick to claim this film as being consistent with their belief systems. The basic plot line is that although things have been tough lately for George Bailey, he is at heart a good man. All he needs to do to make things better for him and the world around him is to search within himself. The film ends with him making this realization, and all seems to be well within the world of Bedford Falls.

I find it interesting that this has become known as a Christmas film. To begin with, very little of the film takes place during Christmas. More than that though, the world of Bedford Falls seems to exist completely outside of the need and recognition of the incarnation of Christ. If God became flesh and set out to die for the sins of the world of Bedford Falls, then he was wasting his time. There is no problem in this imaginary universe that cannot be overcome be a little good intention and self-awareness. The character of George Bailey is not fundamentally in need of the salvation offered in the scriptures. His life does not reflect the sinful condition that the book of Romans claims to exist in all of mankind.

A film that makes an interesting contrast with this is Francis Ford Coppola's The Godfather. Both of these films feature main characters walking past the marquees of art-deco movie theaters. The film playing inside during each is the Bells of St. Mary's. They are therefore set during the same time period. Despite this, they present sharply different portrayals of the world. The main character in The Godfather, Michael Corleone, has recently returned from World War II. It becomes clear that he is determined to remain apart from the organized crime of his family. By filming him as a soft-spoken, clean-cut war hero, it is clear that Michael is the traditional good guy of the film world. He is the George Bailey of the Corleone family. Unlike George Bailey however, Michael cannot find enough inside of him to defy the evil in the world. If anything, looking deep inside himself reveals that he, like everyone else, has evil woven into his nature. The film ends with a marvelous shot of Michael who has just ordered the murder of his brother-in-law. He retreats into the shadows and appears very similar to the way we first saw his father in the film's beginning. Rather than finding the tools to defy his family, he has become them.

Although The Godfather does not name Christ as the source of redemption from evil, it goes to great lengths to show that the entire creation, not just individual parts of it, are in need to a redemption that is outside of their own faculties. In order to do so, it deals candidly but honestly with the manifestation of sin in the world. Certainly this film should not be screened by young children. At the same time, it seems significantly more consistent with a Christian view of the world than does It's A Wonderful Life. It is unfortunate that Christian leadership is so quick to equate clean and moral with a Christian world view. In the case of these two films, it seems like clean and moral can also be significantly dishonest. As Christmas approaches, and we focus on the fact that Jesus came to earth, I can't help but feel as though we have lost touch with the reason that he had to.

more on immigration

Apparently people are targeting illegal immigrants for crime. The feeling is that they will not report it to the police for fear of deportation. The raison d'etre of the US government is to protect the rights of its citizens. If people are here illegally, then they do not enjoy this protection fully. Amidst all of the debate over immigration, I have heard no one argue for the restriction of immigration on these grounds. This is my biggest concern with open borders. If a significant portion of our population does not have the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, it hurts us all.

A Miracle on Larch Drive

My kids believe in Santa Claus. Perhaps I am lying to them. Perhaps this is not rationally sophisticated. Nonetheless, this myth gets perpetuated. I am ok with that. I am thinking about this as I have just watched Miracle on 34th Street. This for me is one of those Christmastime staples. Some of these films offer nothing other than sentimental value. I find more however in this film. Every year I watch it, I see more and more value. On the surface, the film deals with the existence of Santa Claus. The films main character, Doris Walker, has at some point had her heart broken by a man who left her alone to bring up their daughter Susan. Mrs. Walker has apparently been profoundly shaped by her painful past. In an attempt to spare her daughter similar heartbreak, she is bringing her up to only believe in what can be perceived using common sense. Two men enter their lives and threaten this situation. Susan becomes friendly with a friendly lawyer neighbor named Fred Gailey who seems to be the poster boy of romantic optimism. Fred seems intent on challenging Susan's refusal to believe in anything irrational. They also happen upon a gentleman named Kris Kringle who believes he is Santa Claus. Kris comes to work as the Macy's department store Santa for Doris, who also works there. Although Doris and Susan take to this kind old man, they refuse to believe that he truly is Santa Claus. Kris gets into trouble when he becomes angry at the store psychologist for his treatment of another co-worker named Alfred. He confronts the man Alfred's defense, and ends up being criminally charged for his actions. The district attorney attempts to have him institutionalized due to his belief that he is Santa Claus. Fred Gailey, the Walkers' lawyer, becomes Kris lawyer. He tries to prove that not only is there is a Santa Claus but that it is indeed Kris. The film is clearly about more than the existence of Santa however. Throughout the film the character of Doris struggle to maintain her refusal to accept anything outside of empirical reality. It becomes clear that for her this is a way of coping with a fear of hope. Fred confronts her on the need to believe in more and tells her "Faith is believing in something when common sense tells you not to." Most of the inhabitants of the world created by the filmmakers seem to share the sentiments of Doris and Susan. Alfred the Macy's janitor is declared mentally ill by the store psychologist fort being caring and good natured. The district attorney rests his case as soon as Kris affirms that he believes himself to be Santa Claus. Simply using the backdrop of New York City adds to the feeling of a world which is too busy to care about anything more than the next thing. Although religion is never expressly mentioned, I believe that what is on trial is God. Two years before this film was made, 350 years of modernist and scientific arrogance ended abruptly with World War II. Obviously science itself did not end, nor should it have. Rather, a time began when it became slowly more fashionable to consider belief in something outside of the natural world. Clearly this film is asking questions related to this topic. Clearly the film is also critical of the cynical products of the modern era. I certainly have no idea is the God of the Bible was being considered by the makers of this film. The film does though provoke some interesting conversations about the role of faith at the crossroads of modernity and post-modernity. In this film, the idea of Santa simply has no place in a reality fashioned by the struggle for self-preservation of its inhabitants. It is the same struggle for self-preservation that the Bible identifies as sin. According to Fred, what Doris and the rest of the world are lacking is faith. As far as my own kids go, I don't think its right to wean them off of Santa and onto God. At the same time, it seems that to deprive them of the experience of Santa would just rush them into a world of business and unbelief that much sooner. I want them to believe in something. I am afraid that the process of aging and becoming wiser will rob them of the ability to believe in more than just Santa.

Where is the promise of youth for my child?
Where are the faraway kingdoms of dreams? We've been to the moon and there's trouble at home

They vanished in the mist with Saint Nicholas ,

they lie scattered to the ghettos and the war zones
Why can't I sleep in peace tonight underneath the satellite sky
I want to stand out in the middle of the street and listen to the stars

I want to hear their sweet voices

I want to feel a big bang rattle my bones

I want to laugh for my children I want the spark to ignite

before they find out what it means to be born into these times

-Mark Heard "Satellite Sky"

The Pledge Revisited

When I left for college, I was what you might consider the quintessential American patriot. In addition to having intense political passions, I also was a lover of all things USA. My bedspread, bath towel, and backpack all featured American flags. The fact that my alma mater was founded by a church (Brethren in Christ) that affiliates itself with a pacifist perspective was a source of great frustration to me. I viewed this position as being both cowardly and traitorous.

I have recently found myself in a situation that represents a sharp departure from my past. The school where I work purchased flags for the classrooms so that the pledge of allegiance could be said in the morning. I found myself, as a matter of principle, unable to either put up a flag or say the pledge. The reason for this has nothing to do with disliking the United States. As a teacher of United States History for 12 years, I have developed an intense admiration for the Constitution and the principles which it espouses.

As far as the flag is concerned, I have much respect for it a symbol of this. It is with the use of the flag that I take issue. When I teach, my goal is to examine truth which transcends the confines of my school as well as the geographic and political boundaries of this country. If I were to work in a public school for the government, I may be more comfortable with its display. The fact that I do not frees me I believe to hold all earthly institutions accountable to transcendent truth. To display the flag in this setting would, I believe, compromise the appearance of my willingness to do so.

The pledge is a more serious concern for me. Not only do I not feel comfortable leading my students in the pledge, I do not feel comfortable saying it at all. The pledge was written in 1892 by a Christian Socialist named Francis Bellamy. It was written for a magazine called Youth Companion as part of an advertising campaign to sell flags. It changed several times until taking on its present form in the 1950s. At one point the supreme court upheld laws requiring all students to recite it, but that has since been overturned. What follows is the text of the Pledge of Allegiance, including problems I have with it.

I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the United States of America
Although I love this country, I love the principles it seeks to protect even more. I believe what was given as justification for our revolution was that at times governments instituted by men are prone to seek to rob men of these rights, rather than preserve them. I believe the following words from Jefferson demonstrate this. "In the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another..." His writing seems to be defiant of the concept of undying allegiance to any civil government. I believe the concept of allegiance asks for this. Wikipedia defines it as "a duty of fidelity said to be owed by a subject or a citizen to his/her state or sovereign. " Encarta defines it similarly as "loyalty to ruler or state: a subject's or citizen's loyalty to a ruler or state, or the duty of obedience and loyalty owed by a subject or citizen."

If I were to feel this type of loyalty to the United States, I would be more comfortable pledging it to the state or the nation. I certainly do not owe allegiance to the flag itself. I realize that it is just a symbol, but the pledge is not worded accordingly.

and to the Republic for which it stands
Why not just say to the Republic for which the flag stands? To include "and" identifies a distinct allegiance to the flag. Still, I don't believe I owe allegiance according to the aforementioned definitions to either. Perhaps this is affected by my faith. I believe that allegiance as such is reserved for God. At the risk of the appearance of religious fundamentalism, I want to point out that such sentiment is by no means reserved for the faithful. This is made powerfully clear by the words of French enlightenment thinker Denis Diderot. The author the L'Encylcopedie, Diderot famously quipped " man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."


One Nation
Although the meaning of this word has recently evolved to a political identity, historically it has been defined, as by American Heritage Dictionary, as "A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality."In the historical sense, we are as much many nations as we are one. We are white, black, catholic, teen, nerd, farmer, Texan, beach bum, etc...

Under God
This is probably the one that has evoked the most controversy. Although written in 1892, the pledge did not formally contain this phrase until 1954. I certainly think that this nation is under God in terms of it being subject to his authority. However, I do not believe that this is any more or less true than it is for any other nation. I believe the way that it worded also leaves too much to the imagination. It could be implying official connection with a deity, special favor from a deity, equal authority with a deity, or a combination of this and other things. Because of this ambiguous language, I would prefer it to not be included.

Indivisible
If it is under God's authority, then it, like all other governments, is quite divisible. This sounds to me like the Titanic's captain claiming his ship to be unsinkable. I find it hard to understand how the same people who so passionately defend the inclusion of "under God" do not seek the exclusion of the above. This to me gives it the pledge a nationalistic favor and I believe the inclusion of "under God" should be seen as such.

With Liberty and Justice for All
Although these are guaranteed, I don't believe they are actualized. The day they are, I will be happy to say it.

I do not pretend that this is by any means a comprehensive discourse on this subject. I hope that it does not come across as dislike of the United States. This country existed for 116 prior to the writing of the pledge. Obviously love of this country can exist without its recitation. Perhaps I will undergo yet another change of heart on such things. Until then however, I do not feel comfortable with the pledge.

I think it would be fitting to end with a comment about my thoughts on governmental loyalty. The Bible in Hebrews says to "Obey your leaders and submit to their authority." At the same time, Jesus admonished the pharisees in Matthew for placing law based in the traditions of men over that of God. Matthew 15:3 says "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?" I interpret this as a requirement to obey earthly authority to the extent that it does not require me to break God's commands. As a citizen of the United States, I recognize the US Constitution as the supreme law governing my earthly citizenship. I do not believe that loyalty to it compromises my faith. However, as its enforcement is in the hands of men, I believe that it is within the realm of possibility that it one day could. Given this fact, I am willing to submit to constitutional authority, but I stop short of pledging it my undying allegiance.

Tis The Season

Two things that prominently feature in my memories of the early 1980s are Weird Al and fear of atomic warfare. The two came delightfully together in his early song "Christmas at Ground Zero." (embedding is disabled for this song, so I had to post a link). Its worth the time for a song featuring the line "We'll dodge debris as we trim the tree underneath a mushroom cloud."