Saving Power of Imagination!

My introduction to Woody Allen movies was through his later film 'Midnight in Paris'. I liked Woody Allen's use of imagination in the movie. 'Midnight in Paris' is a story about a couple, Gil and Inez, engaged to be married that go to Paris for vacation to celebrate their engagement. The lady's personality is that of a 'philistine' in that she lives in the 'material' world cares pretty much for nothing else other than good food, dressing well and exciting sex. The man on the other hand has a finer tastes for life. Gil is thrilled that he is in Paris the city of dreams for the quintessential artist.

The man and the woman see and experience very different worlds in Paris. Inez goes about the city uninterested, disenchanted and ends up having an affair with the guide. Gil on the other hand, finds his imagination getting fired up. He can't get enough of the city and goes about exploring it. Inez sees no point in enjoying the night walk in Paris. Gil goes it alone. It is in one such midnight walk that a carriage pulls by and he is asked to hop over into it. He gets transported into the Paris of the 1920s when it was thriving richly with a host of young Bohemian artists. He meets everyone from Ernest Hemingway to Gertrude Stein and spends the night in their August company. This happens every night. Gil lives a dream life in his imagination. He is a happy man.

The question here is... What do you make of Gil's imaginary world? Does it really matter that the guy has such a powerful capacity for imagination? Or may be he needs to see a Psychiatrist? Why make such a big deal of this imaginary world? Should we just dismiss this cinematic depiction of the power of living in an imaginary world as a crazy old Woody Allen's attempt at making mediocre movies towards the tail end of his career.

I think the answer to this question is implied at the end of the movie in how Paris changes the lives of the couple. Gil is not looking for anything specific in Paris to satisfy him. He surrenders to allow himself to be surprised by his imagination. The more Gil is drawn into this beautiful imaginary world, the happier he is in the real world. That he does not get any sexual satisfaction from his bride to be is immaterial to him when compared with the beautiful imaginary world he is a part of. The woman on the other hand presumably gets ALL she the exciting sex she thinks will make her happy, but ultimately ends up dissatisfied.

When Inez finally confesses that she has been has been having an affair with a mutual friend of theirs and wants to break-up, Gil isn't the slightest bit perturbed which infuriates her all the more. Gil was living in such a beautiful world of imagination that the pleasures offered in the real world seemed mediocre. His imagination was powerful enough to make life satisfying for him. He did not need a 'hot wife' after all. He has his eyes set on a world where ones satisfaction isn't determined by ones needs but by ones ability to be eternally surprised by imagination.

I think there is a Christian principle here. Just like Gil is satisfied by the hope, joy and love offered by the imaginary world do that he does not care much for the mediocre pleasures of the real world, the Christian is to be satisfied by the hope, joy and love of the Heavenly world so that sometimes when we have to give up some of the pleasures of this world it wouldn't be that big a deal.

The Bible uses our imagination to enthuse us about the great goodness of the Heavenly world. The Bible talks abstractly about the next world in terms of the length, breadth and height of the treasures God has prepared for those that love Him. Then the Bible also talks concretely about streets of gold, sea of glass, great mansions. This abstract and concrete figures of speech is meant to fire-up our imagination so that in the imagination empowered Hope of the things to come, we would endure the hardships of this world.

If we do not use our imagination to envision, explore and be enthralled by the Hope we have in Christ we, like Inez will see a very 'reductionistic' world and will ultimately begin seeking after silly pleasures to satisfy us. Christians like Gil have to be people with fired-up imaginations so that we see that there is more to this world than meets the eye. We should go about exploring the world through the Word of God. The imagination empowered vision of the World painted by the Bible will help us set our priorities right and live a happier and FULLER life in this world and the next. Unless Christians use their imagination to see the BIG world that God created and called us to be in, we would become a bunch of petty people seeking after silly stuff in a reductionistic world. Imagination saves us from this narrow focus by helping us SEE the great things God has in store for those that love Him.

2012 Olympics - A Story of our Society!

I love history, I admire beauty, I appreciate philosophy and I enjoy watching the Olympic opening ceremony with a bunch of good friends. Thanks to the 2012 London Olympics opening ceremony, I got to do all of this. What made the London Olympics special is that unlike most other Olympic ceremonies, the theatrics of the London ceremony were not about a juxtaposition of shapes, sounds and sights, rather it was beautifully choreographed storytelling of the Story of Civilization (some parts were politically charged though; the Olympics (at least the recent ones) was the one thing in the world I thought was above politics… apparently, not any more).

Anyway, I love it when art is used to tell a good story. Art needs no justification. Art does not have to always tell a good (or happy) story for it to be good art. When a story is told well, it is good. But then there are cases where art can be used as a 'propaganda machine' – when even its best elements become desecrated by subversive motives of base-humans that wield it for political purposes. Much of the rendition in the London Olympic ceremony was good artful storytelling, but there was some subversive use of art for propaganda too, especially for the NHS (British Healthcare System).

There was once a true saying about England: 'The Sun never sets in the British Empire'… literally, the British Empire was so vast, covering all time-zones, that some part of its empire was facing the Sun. Great Britain has a very special place in the story of Human Civilization; it almost single-handedly brought about the shift from an agrarian economy to an industrial economy the world over. The presentation at the Olympics about the history of Great Britain seemed to suggest that Britain strives to continue to be the rudder of the world, shifting the world economy to the next stage, away from the industrial/capitalist setup to a socialist setup (NHS).

The choreography began with an astoundingly beautiful landscape bright, beautiful and green where families farm the land, eat of its produce and enjoy communal harmony. Then the economy transitions to the Industrial Age. Slowly, the colors of the choreography change - what was bright, beautiful and green becomes dark, ugly and grey. You don't see families and country homes with gleeful kids playing anymore. Instead, you see masses of 'individuals' climbing out of coal mines greasy, grim-looking and hopeless. Out of the pain and toil of these industrial workers, iron is smelted into five fiery rings that interlocked to become the Olympic-rings. I thought this part of the story was beautifully depicted, even the grim-looking grey scale depiction of the industrial revolution was done artfully. It was spectacular. It was good art.

Now on to the part of the story were Art was made into a 'propaganda machine'. In the rendition of the transition from the 'communal' agrarian era to the 'Individualistic' industrial era, something interesting happens in the performance that is noteworthy. A few rich men pop-up and they are depicted as the greedy, suave and in-compassionate men - the evil masters of industrial revolution, the new 'capitalist'.

These 'Capitalists' are shown as being carefree, dancing and enjoying the fruits of the labor of other oppressed industrial workers. A slight on Capitalism? The whole thing had the feel of socialistic indoctrination. What shocked me was the performance ultimately ended in a crescendo for NHS (National Health System - the British Government controlled Healthcare System). I don't object to the government trying to take care of people who do not have enough community around them to support themselves, but to make Artful presentation in the Olympics as propaganda for the NHS is atrocious. Atrocious, not from policy stand point, but from the stand-point of using art and such a unifying event as the Olympics as a political propaganda for NHS. Of course, sick people need to be taken care of. There are many ways of doing it, NHS is one. It is probably not the best way to do it. To use Olympics and artful performance with kids as a vehicle for propagating the assumed greatness of NHS is I think very subversive use of art.

In fact the very introduction of the NHS is subversively done. It begins in a scene in which the kids in hospital beds have nightmares of being chased off by evil Ghosts (of the evil dead Capitalists? or Political Conservatives?). Then Mary Poppins is flown-in to soothe the kids and then (surprise, surprise...) in big, bold, bright lights the NHS is formed. It almost seems to imply that as London changed the world from an agrarian economy to an industrial economy, it will lead the world into a social economy.

Let us take a step back here... the overall idea that is presented here is that people were once happy farmers and then the industrial age makes them hapless victims of the evil capitalists and now moving towards a social age of taking money from the evil capitalists and serving the poor. This is Marxism pure and simple. The problem with this rendition of the story, is not that it is totally false (there is some truth to it), the problem with the rendition of the ills of Capitalism and the need for socialism it is that it is one-sided. The performance glosses over the fact that the agrarian economy had its problems. Neither does it show that the capitalistic system has its benefits too.

For example, in the agrarian age the farmer was a powerless worker at the mercies of forces beyond his control. Often he did not own large portions of land to have a sustainable income. He did not have access to capital, so he could never get a loan to buy land and work for himself and pass on the benefits of his hard-work to his son to build upon. Instead, he had to work for the large land owners. If crops failed, he got in debt to the land owner and eventually he became a servant/slave of the house of the Landlord. In this 'feudal' system, the landlords often were just another version of the evil, exacting and excessively greedy new capitalist. In this system, the farmer never got a shot at life, his son too had only to be a poor farmer at the mercy of the rain-gods serving the rich (often greedy) landlords.

Enter capitalism, capitalism is based on the idea of availability of capital solely based on merit. Capitalism steps into this feudal system and says that it will lend the farmer money to build his own farm and make money off it. Capitalism will lend you money if you are meritorious (hard working, industrious and responsible) to use the money well and repay the loan with interest. Capitalism freed people up to do what they were good at doing, as long as what they did was valued by others in the society. For example if you are good at making iPhones and people value the iPhones you make, capitalism becomes the vehicle to make it happen. You did not have to be a son of a billionaire to have a shot at life. You just had to be enterprising. The London Olympics points out the evil side of capitalism (rightly so), but it totally misses this good part of capitalism.

Social propagandists actually get it partly right, in that they observe the social ills better than the capitalist counter parts do, BUT they diagnose it wrongly. They think the problem with society is its Capitalistic bent. They think that if only people could be convinced (if need be, indoctrinated) that communism is a better system, then that people would become communists and the world would become a better place. They mistakenly see capitalism as the problem as socialism as the solution. They are oblivious to the real problem that is the cause of the ills of the society - the evil within human heart/will. Socialism has not and cannot change the evil within the human heart.

Enter Christianity, how does Christianity solve this problem? Christianity rightly diagnoses that the problem is the evil within human heart. The problem is not with an -ism, neither is the solution an -ism. The problem is Sin and the solution is a Savior. What is missing in London's rendition of the story of the civilization is that it misses the fact that there real Sin in all human hearts (whether agrarian or capitalistic or socialistic) and that there is a real Savior who can transform every human heart and make it anew loving, enterprising and happy.

Ironically, the London opening ceremony left out the part where much of Christianity spread through the world in the 18th and 19th centuries by the work of the British (and European) missionaries. The schools, colleges and beurocratic systems they built gave the colonized countries the social structure they needed as they moved away from the feudal systems to freer economies. In India, back when women were not sent to college, a British lady Ms. Sarah Tucker, through the work of the Christian Missionary Society built the first college for women in South India. It paved way for my grandmother and many other women of her generation to be educated. In fact, if only the Christians had followed the tradition of building mission hospitals where the poor and oppressed can come and get healed, we wouldn't have to be dealing with Government overreaches into the lives of individuals in the form of the NHS or any other socialist setup.

What is even more ironical is that it is the people who often consider themselves the 'Christian Right' that vociferously oppose Government support systems pertaining to Healthcare. If Christians had done a good job of taking care of the sick in their midst, the government wouldn't have found a need to step into in the first place. Francis Schaeffer, sometimes derisively called the 'god of the Christian Right' (by the liberal establishment), actually indicts the Christians of the Industrial era for not practicing 'compassionate capitalism'. Christians of that era did not love people around them enough. Of course, they bank rolled the pioneering mission organizations that built schools and hospitals in the Third World, but neglected the Lazarus sitting at their doorstep. We shouldn't forget that Christians gave Socialism the space it needed to become as a global movement. Christians should help the people around us by loving them as people created in the Image of God that deserve dignified treatment.

That the London Olympics chose to highlight the NHS is not so much an indictment of subversive use of arts by the Socialist as much as it is on the hypocrisy of the modern Evangelical Christians. The problem with Evangelical Christianity is that it is very narrowly defined. Evangelical Christians make the 'Great Commission' to proclaim the Gospel as the 'Only Commission' of Christianity. Evangelical Christians forget that we have a mandate to take care of the poor around us. At best Evangelical Christians, much like their counter parts from the Industrial age, have outsourced this helping of the poor to World Vision, Compassion and Living Waters. Ever wondered why most Hospitals have Christian-sounding names? Christians started Healthcare Services as part of their Christian-duty but then turned around and outsourced the taking care of the sick to products of the non-Christian establishment, Insurance companies and the BIG Government. And now, having woken up from the slumber and realizing that the tide has turned, the (evangelical) Christian-right complain that the Government is over reaching into people's private lives and choices.

History, beauty and philosophy come together in the Arts. Arts tell the story of our society. The beautiful choreographed story of London Olympics tells the story of our age - it egregiously shows the Socialist bias towards Capitalism, indirectly indicts Christian indifference to the plight of the society and leaves a gaping hole by saying nothing about Sin being the cause of the social-ills or the need for a Saviour who is powerful enough to disciple individuals and transform Nations. The need of the hour is not NHS or a socialist economy. The need of the hour is societies transformed by a Saviour in which every person is treated with the dignity he/she deserves - as a highly valuable individual made to reflect the Image of the fiercely loving God. Unless this transformation happens, our artful renditions of history, beauty and philosophy will continue to depict our brokenness in our systems (-ism) and the yearning for something better.

The Nikki Minaj Phenomenon

I enjoy music. But I do not consider myself sophisticated enough to critique it. Yesterday I saw a performance of Nikki Minaj's at the Emmys. Nikki walked on the red carpet dressed as red riding hood with a dude dressed as the Pope and then performed what seemed like a confused parody on the Church. The sole motive of the whole deal seemed to be nothing other than being outrageous for the sake of being outrageous. This has now inspired me to try to critique music and so I'll try to bite something I probably can't quite chew.

I respect Nikki Minaj's achievement in making it to the top. It requires a lot of talent and hard work. She is as old as I, yet her achievement is many thousands times greater than anything I have ever done in my life. But I don't think her music, as I saw in the Grammys, is good music and I think it worth the time pondering why.

I think there are two kinds of music, the ones that bring a tear to the eye and the ones that add a rhythm to the stride. Listening to the Adagio in G minor or some Pink Floyd stuff can move one to tears. On the other hand, the Hungarian Dance or the Black Eye Pea can add a rhythm to one's stride. There is one thing both of them exploit, that is that God has created an intelligent universe in which any sound that adheres to musical norms/laws resonates deeply within human beings. Such music evokes the deepest emotions brining about a psychological contentment. Whether it is Beethovens' 5th or LMFAO's Party Rock, both follow the musical norms that resonate with the part of us that is patently human, as God created us to be.

The goal of musicians through the centuries has been to find newer expressions of the musical norms/laws that deeply resonate with us. So whether it be Beethoven or Black Eye Pea, the goal of music is to conform of the norm/law of music thereby eliciting deeply human responses.

The two apart, there is the third kind of music, where the goal is not to conform to the norms of music but to 'stand out' by non-conformance and make that the point of appeal. There is not a lot of ways this non-conformance can be achieved, because beyond a certain point, 'standing out' just gets too jarring even to the ones with the most jaded of senses. So the goal of this performer is to 'stand out' by manifesting non-conformance non-musically. The easiest way of non-musical non-conformance is through bombastic visuals - popes and priest and exorcisms and gothic cathedrals and speaking in tongues and ancient hymns... as Nikki Minaj did at the Emmys. Sometimes it can just be some 'accidental' wardrobe malfunctions, just saying...

If we look at human history, until the 20th century the goal of living was to conform to the ideal of what it meant to be human. Idealism was the highest goal sought. The question that troubled philosophers and prophets and priests and the peasants was the question of the 'highest good' and how to conform to it. Everyone endeavored to move towards the norm of what it truly meant to be human - reflecting the image of God in us. But with the advent of modernism and ultra-modernism, 'individual expression' has taken the place of the ideal. So the new goal is not to conform to the norms, but to 'stand out' in every arena, music included.

People will do anything to 'stand out' and people will admire everything that 'stands out' as long as its titillative value is high enough to appeal to the jaded sense that no longer has the patience or the nuance to enjoy the music that adheres to the norms. Nikki Minaj is not the first to ride this way of egregious individual expressionism, she will not be the last.

Nikki Minaj can 'stand out' by do everything from belittling Priests to disparaging Christianity. She is after all, the new Madonna (remember the burning cross). But there is no way she can stand up against God designed timeless norms/laws of what makes music enjoyable to the human ear. As the legendary Cecil De Miller's said before the screening of his timeless classic, 'The Ten Commandments', "man cannot break the law of God, anyone who tries will only find himself breaking against it".

Lonesome Dove & (relationally) Spineless Men

Painters depict reality through paint and canvas. Writers depict reality through words. Movie makers are privileged to straddle both realms. Hence in one sense, movies get to reflect reality in a unique way. Even as we enjoy the comedies, it is the tragedies that often truly reflect life. The saddest movies are the ones which are relationally unresolved, whether it be the 'Titanic' or 'Gone With the Wind'. Depiction of unresolved relationship is painful to watch and feel.

The TV seriese of the novel 'Lonesome Dove' which won the Pulitzer prize in 1986, took the angst to a whole new level. The story ends relationally unresolved at multiple levels which reflects the problem with the society we live in.

When I started seeing the movie, it seemed a sort of 'happy' movie. Then I got to part 4, I was bawling for the most part and my nose was clogged almost through the entire episode. Every time my nose cleared up, it clogged right back again. I have seen many movies, quite a few that made me cry. When I saw "Forest Gump" I must have cried for about 10 minutes at the least. I was upset for having cried. Then I told my friend, "I saw 'Forest Gump' yesterday". He replied, "I have seen it too." After a pause, looking away I said, "I actually cried". He replied, "I did too". I looked at him and smiled. I was glad, I wasn't abnormal.

In spite being used to movie-crying, what "Lonesome Dove" did to me is abnormal. The morning after I watched 'Lonesome Dove', I lay in the bed for (may be) 30 minutes thinking how so sad "Lonesome Dove" was. What makes the movie really, really sad, for me, is that though the materialistic goals of the protagonists are fully realized and the 'hard virtues' of justice, bravery and honor were most beatifully epitomized, deep hunger for relational fulfillment was not satisfied.

The movie is about a couple of Texas Rangers Gus and Call, revered for their brave campaigns destroying the Apache Indian tribes. The movie is about their retirement plan to drive some cows North into Montana and build a ranch there with a bunch of cowboys. As I was watching the movie, I realized that to me, the movie wasn't so much about whether the cowboys will get to build the ranch in Montana as much as it was about whether Gus would allow himself to truly love a woman and Call would acknowledge Newt to be his son (this bias of mine explains why I am harsh on the character of Gus and Call in this post). Neither of the wishes get fulfilled making the end truly 'lonesome' for all involved, including the viewers.

The movie is overflowing with the great virtues of Justice, Courage, Honor and Fortitude discussing which would be a topic for a different blog. But it is bankrupt when it comes to matters of love, especially familial love. The closest you get to love in the movie is expression of tender feelings for beautiful ladies who happen either to be sex workers or wives of other men. Sometimes, it is honor masqueraded as love. I find this bankruptcy of true love quite baffling. In one sense the cowboys pay the highest honor to womanhood by making her the priced trophy and the end of all. In another sense, the women are more a figment in their imagination and a burden to be exchanged for freedom.

Without Clara and Lorine, Gus' love interests, "Lonesome Dove" wouldn't be what it is. They bring so much to the table but really take nothing in return. Except to live their lives in a state of perpetual angst at the non-committal boys they can't help falling in love with.

Gus and Call are opposite personalities. Gus is happy-go-lucky. Call is the most serious guy ever. But they both have one thing in common, their disdain for anything that smacks of family ties. In fact Gus repeatedly tells Newt that Call wouldn't acknowledge that he is Call's son because to do that would imply that he is just as any other human being. Gus concludes that Call wanted to make a god of himself. Almost like the Great warrior Achilles who wasn't interested in being a Father or a Husband, but rather was keen on showing himself more then human, a god.

Interestingly, Gus too has the same problem, though in a different sense. Clara and Lorrine are DEEPLY in love with Gus, especially Clara. Gus knows it, but choses not to love in return. Lorrine who has known Gus longer tells Clara something that amounts to, "Gus loves being himself more than he loves you or me".

Finally, Gus is injured. Both his legs need to be amputated or he'll die. He has to chose between dying with a warrior's legacy or choosing to live crippled being taken care of by Clara who DEEPLY loves him. He says he can't imagine himself being crippled. He chooses to die instead of devoting the rest of his life to the love of a woman. I saw an uncanny parallel to Alexander the Great, who couldn't imagine himself being same as ordinary men and wanting everyone to believe him to be a god, tried to drown himself into a river.

Both Call and Gus, in spite of their personality differences, had the same problem. They wanted women for sex and good company. They wanted to build a bigger than life image. They saw the family as a burden. They wanted to leave behind a godlike legacy. Every man has in him the urge to prove he is himself and that the himself is someone Great. Sometimes men do it at the cost of family life. Such men are spineless for to be a Great man and have a family takes a lot more courage than to be a Single and Strong.

I say 'spineless' because it takes more courage to start a family than to start a war. Yul Brynner of the classic, "The Magnificient Seven" would agree. A kid tells him that his father is a coward and not as brave as Yul. Yul quickly gets angry and forbids the kid to every think his father to be a coward for not standing up to bad guys. Yul explains, "it take more courage to handle the plow and serve a family than to handle a gun to fight bad guys."

When a society has too many Strong single men who are so preoccupied about being who they want to be and don't want to burden themselves with family ties, such a society would self-destruct. The modern society, in expanding the base of freedom and individuality has cursed a good chunk of its men into being lonesome Rangers who live godlike but, ironically, relationally-spinelessly, only for themselves. 

My Valentine Meditations - On the Missing Valentine

Saint Valentine married people off and got killed for that. In a poll among young urban Americans one the questions was, 'Do you think marriage is obsolete?'. Majority said 'Yes'. Another question of the same poll said, 'Do you want to get married?' Majority said 'Yes'. Most want to marry, but aren't getting married. We live in a world of delayed marriages, if at all people marry. Modern times is missing its St.  Valentine.

The idea of obseletness of marriage is not a problem among just among urban elites. I was reading an article where a school teacher writes about the struggles he has in understanding the mindset and the maturity of the a few of his students who are pregnant in their teens. He discusses a bunch of questions two of which caught my attention. He asks the pregnant teen, "Do you think the father of your kid would marry you?". The pregnant girl answers, "I don't think so". "Do you think your having this child will affect your future marriage?". The girl answers, "I don't know". The girl sitting near by asnwers, "Nobody marries anymore, Mister". The whole class bursts out laughing. 

Where is the St. Valentine of this age who helps those who want to get married, but don't know why it isn't that simple as it once used to be? Is he in hiding? Have we lost him? Has he matyred again?

I was reading another article about some controversial debates about the implementation of the new Healthcare ACT in the US. The question on the table was about whether birth-control pill had to be made freely available in College campuses as part of the Healthcare mandate. The article also had some snippets about what students in college thought about the plan. One of the girls supporting the free distribution of pills said, "I am an adult. None can stop me from having sex. The only question is whether or not I am going about it in a healthy way."

Today, I read an article about how women in military are sexually abused by men. Last year alone there were 3200 reported cases of sexual abuse in the US Army. Most go unreported. One of the ladies said that when she complained about abuse to superiors, she was told to "things like this happen, suck it up".

The fundemental premise in the above statements is the idea that 'sex is a fundemental right'. The belief is that, "None can deny me my right to sex". It is almost has the primacy of the First Amendment right. What is missing there is the idea that 'sex is right, only when the season is right'. 

God created life to have different seasons. In one season, we are kids and then we become adults, then we become parents, then we become grandparents. Then we die. All of these seasons are held together by the 'bonds of love'. Love has different manifestations in different seasons. If we try to mess with the appropriate manifestation of love for a season, we end up marring that season itself.

Marriage is an important season in a person's life. When God instituted marriage he clearly defined the need for a new manifestation of love. He said, "for this reason man shall seperate from his father and mother and 'cleave' with his wife, and they shall be one body". Marriage ushers in a new season which is manifested by new expressions of love in the romantic and erotic forms. As long as the romantic and erotic forms of love are expressed towards the purpose of becoming one with the spouse, the God ordained manifestation of love brings joy to the season of marriage. 

Our modern society is trying to reengineer the manifestations of love and decouple it from its appropriate season so that people will have the individualistic RIGHT to gratify themselves with any form of love they want anytime with anyone.  The lines between the seasons of adulthoood and marriage gets blurred because people try to enjoy the marital manifestation of love before marriage. When the lines get blurred so much, eventually the season itslef finds no reason for existence. We are left with, "Nobody marries anymore, Mister". 

Premature experience of profound love forms can be very detrimental to love itself. In the movie 'Blue Valentine', the wife says that she has been sexually active since 13 had more than 25 partners. Still carrying the baggage from her old relationships, she is not able to enjoy sex with her husband. She is unable to make the transcition from 'lusting sex' to 'loving sex'. In the movie, this inability of hers becomes the breaking point of an already strained marriage. 

Marriage, kids and a stable family is the basis for any civilization to thrive. A civilization that does not have thriving marriages will die. The root cause of this predicament is the unwillingness to submit to Truth. The Truth as God instituted is for different life seasons to be coupled with appropriate manifestations of love. God joined sex with marriage. Let man not separate what God has joined, for if he does will end up destroying both of what he seperated. As the author of the book 'Unhooked' says, "we delay love to enjoy sex and end up losing both". 

St. Valentine stood by God's Truth to multiply and be fruitful. He supposedly stood against the edict of a selfish tyrant to the point of death. Our civilization needs, many who imbibing the spirit of St. Valentine will stand up for Truth of God and take a stand against their own selfish desire for gratification. God's Truth sets us free to experience life in 'all of its fullness' that spans across life's seasons, bonded in love. Sacrificing God's Truth in the altar of self-indulgence is the problem of the missing Valentine.