The Social Network - All about a Relationship!

The last line spoken in the movie ‘Social Network’ is "I don't think you are an a**hole, I just think you are trying hard to be one", the intern of the attorney speaks to Mark Zuckerberg the founder of Facebook. In fact, that one line ‘says it all’ as far as the movie is concerned. But I think the movie also has another angle which gives the pithy observation an interesting meaning.

In the last scene of the movie following this astute observation, Mark, flips open his laptop, sends a Facebook friend request to his college sweet-heart whom he flippantly had humiliated for rejecting him, but still was deeply enamored about. He sits, 'refreshing' his Facebook page waiting calmly for a response, with a smile of a kid watching the rain, waiting for the bright sun to show up and lighten up his sullen afternoon. The movie ends.

In fact the first scene of the movie is in a bar where Mark is trying to convince this sweetheart into being his girlfriend. He says if she was his girlfriend she would have access to an exclusive club which she couldn’t otherwise get to at all. She doesn't seem impressed. He then foul-mouthedly shoots-off about how she, who would sleep with a door keeper to get to any club, was acting up as though she did not care to get into this exclusive club. She tells him 'go to hell'. Mark goes to his room and writes a scathing blog disparaging her about many things, one of which had to do with his opinions on her lack of features.

A casual viewer of the movie may say that Mark comes of as an a**hole. Yes, true, but I think there is also something else going on there. I think he really liked her and wanted to be with her. But being a nerd, with a brilliant analytic mind and challenged social and relational counter parts, he does not know how relationships work. In an effort to try to impress her into having a relationship with him, he blurts out about she getting access to exclusive clubs through him, which she could otherwise not even dream of getting into, all the while not realizing how much he was denigrating her sense of self-worth. Even when she is appalled by his analytic rationale, he does not still get it. He tries to justify his rationale by saying that she wouldn't get access to even into a less privileged club, if she wasn't willing to sleep with the doorkeeper. As horrible as it sounds, in his mind, he is only making an analytic argument to prove to her that he was worth a shot. Even though his rationale is odd, to say the least, his intent is to prove to her that he can provide for her something that makes her happy. She says 'go to hell'. Now, he is in rage, and pours his anger on the blog, dooming any possibility of reconciliation.

In venting out his rage at having been rejected, and wanting to salvage his sense of impressiveness of himself, he quickly creates a website that get so many hits within the first hour, that it brings down the Harvard computer network. He wanted to prove to himself that he as impressive enough win her back even after snubbing her. Creating a website in 1 hour and creating enough hits to bring down the network is awesome. In fact, it is this tryst that eventually leads him to create Facebook.

Someone may say that Mark comes off as an heartless a**hole. But disagree, I think he appears so because he is relationally and socially challenged. There is a scene where he meets her again by this time, now he is already a minor celebrity with a fan base at Harvard. Facebook has already made him a name. He with his impressive accolades walks to her and sheepishly asks to speak to her. He tries to tell her about Facebook. She refuses to even listen to him. Mark has the most perplexed look on his face, ever. He has hit a wall but he does not know how to get through it. He walks off confused and tells his friend that she refused to speak to him. His friend asks, "Well, did you apologize to her". His face registers, if only for a short while, the look of a guy who threw a million dollars into trash can because he did not know how dollar bills looked like. He was so relationally challenged that it did not even occur to him that he really needed to apologize, just as an analytically challenged person would read a sentence like this 'when A is not equal to B and B is not equal to C, then there is no way one can say that A is definitely not C', more than once but still find it confusing.

Mark's longing for his sweetheart does not stop here. Facebook is growing. He is famous. He meets with Sean Parker who created the infamous yet iconic phenomenon of Napster. Sean tells Mark that he created the prototype for Napster when his girlfriend dumped him and he wanted to prove he was valuable. Mark brightens up. He sees the parallel. Mark asks Sean what happened of that girlfriend after he became famous, “Did you two get back?” The question does not even register in Sean's mind, he is already showing off to his umpteenth one-night girlfriend. Sean is who I call 'a complete a**hole'. Mark is lost his heart still longing for his sweetheart.

The other high point of Mark's longing for his sweetheart is depicted at the seminal moment of his phenomenal achievement when Facebook crosses 1 million users for the first time. Everyone is at a party enjoying. Mark is sitting alone in his office thinking about the one he is missing. His hour of greatest achievement, on the road to becoming the youngest billionaire ever, was the lowest point of his life. He did not have his sweetheart to share his achievement with.

Then we move to the last scene where Mark is grilled by attorney representing his Rich-brat Harvard-mates who are suing him, with wealthy attorneys that their Father’s deep pockets could buy, to get a share on Facebook. Mark is indignant. His rationale is that Facebook is his because he invented it. Once the grilling is complete and everyone has left. He is alone, and hasn't had any food all day. You would think he would be totally pissed of. And he is. But he remembers that his pursuit wasn't really fame or money, even his closest friend who was suing him says on testimony, "Mark never cared for money". Right from the night that he brought the Harvard Network down

it was a Relationship that Mark was pursuing . If Shajahan built the Taj Mahal as a momument for the celebration of his love for Mumtaj, Mark Zuckerberg created Facebook as a means to impressive before his sweetheart and to win her back.

The real problem was that being relationally challenged, he did not understand the basic tenet of relationships. Real lasting relationships are built on the ability of a person to love, not on impressiveness factor. His analytically brilliant, relationally challenged mind did not understand that a man who tries too hard to be impressive ends up becoming an a**hole.

Ps: This spin in the moive is entirely fictional. The real life Mark Zuckerberg is perhaps relationally challenged but he has had one girlfriend since his Harvard days and they have been together all along. Commendable!

The Town – Modern Morality – Betrayal better than beating!!!

The movie 'The Town' is a well made. There is subtlety in the script, pace to the story and intense realism. The movie is a realistic depiction of modern lifestyle. It impels me to critique the modernistic worldview that undergirds the idea of the good and the bad in this movie.

A bank robber, Ben Affleck, falls in love with the victim of one of the heists. Among the gang thieves, Ben Affleck is portrayed as the good gentle hearted guy and his childhood buddy, Jeremy resorts brutality too quickly. You get to hate Jeremy’s guts and love Ben Affleck who is powerful yet avoids hurting people 'physically'. What struck me about the movie was the sense of stridency with which the movie upholds goodness as having more to do with the physical than the spiritual. It is a movie true to the materialism of this age where morality is confined to the realm of the 'material' - only that which can be touched and felt.

Jeremy is shown as a bad guy because he hurts people to intimidate them. He does not mind killing friends if he knows that they'll betray him to the FBI. Ben is shown in good light as a guy with a conscience who has become a thief because of inexorable circumstances. Ben does not hurt people physically, but he hurts them emotionally. Strangely, in the movie’s depiction, that he hurts people emotionally does not factor in as moral bankruptcy.

Ben uses a woman, Jeremy’s sister, for his sexual pleasure and then shoves her off when he finds a new one, the victim of the heist, all the while maintaining the facade of a good guy trying to be the best he can be, given the unfortunate circumstances of his childhood. When Ben Affleck falls in love with his victim, that he already has Jeremy’s sister for a lover whose daughter she says is his does not pose a moral dilemma to this guy with a golden heart. Having decided to elope with his new lover, he just shoves her and the kid out of his apartment.

My problem with the movie is that it makes it appear as though he is 'justified' in cutting lose from Jeremy’s sister, now that he 'truly' loves another. The painful scene of the shoving-off is entirely depicted from Ben Affleck's ‘alpha-male-to-be-pitied-for-a-broken-childhood’ perspective. In the scene of separation, you hear the kid crying in the distance when he and the kid's mother are having an altercation. He lifts the kid, walks out the door, leaves her outside the door and asks the mother to follow. Period.

The scene is shot in a way to make the viewer oblivious to the horrid pain he, the guy with a golden heart, is causing the weaker ones. I would have had a better appreciation for the scene if it faithfully depicted the horrible pain this guy was causing the lady and the little three year old. That would have been more realistic as it would have showed that Ben Affleck, who is portrayed as a good-natured victim of his circumstances was himself, a horrible victimizer.

The movie instead of showing him as the victimizer, somehow justifies his spiritually hurting his girlfriend and her daughter now that he has 'connected' with a new girl. That movie does not call a spade a spade and depict Ben to be as much a victimizer as was Jeremy. It is just that methods of victimization are different. Jeremy hurts the body, Ben kills the soul.

The reason why the modern man is often morally blind to hurting the soul, and the reason why Ben is portrayed as a better guy, is because modern morality does not transcend the ‘material’ bodily reality of life. Modern morality, relative as it is, says beating a person is wrong, but betraying the person’s love isn't. It says one can keep eloping with new a lover as long as there are no strings attached and one does not physically abuse the ex.

Even if there are strings, if the pull of new love is strong enough modern morality 'justifies' the snapping-off of the commitment that holds one back from reaching out for the Modern Dream of a finding a sexually fulfilling relationship with no strings. The only problem is that God did not create sexual relationship to be cheap, whether one likes it or not there will always be strings that bond and bind.

In fact, once Ben’s true colors are apparent to the new victim-turned-lover, she asks, "wasn't it enough that you messed my life already (through your heist and the following FBI harassment), did you also have to f*** me?” She asks him to get the hell out of her life. Even here, the guy is depicted to come on top, as a guy with a sensitive heart, he gives here all the money he made in the heist and then says an empty platitude that goes something like "I'll meet you again in this life or the next".

In depicting such partial alpha-male centered materialistic reality, the movie is a lie. But the movie is a true reflection of the lie of the modern lifestyle. It is a faithful reflection of the twisted reality of life as perceived by modern man. If the movie and the depiction of the scenes depict anything it depicts the problems with the modern worldview of life which is preoccupied with the material at the cost of discounting the spiritual and paying a costly price for that. After all, man is not just flesh and blood, he is also mind and spirit.

Poem Inspired by a Survivor

(Inspired by the speech of an abortion survivor http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPF1FhCMPuQ) 

Wisdom cries from the lectern

Pours out a deep anguish of the soul

In a fiery sermon that pierces hearts.

A pretty face and a sweet smile

'Planned' by a Mercenary

To be emulsified in the womb.

But 'Destined' by the Redeemer

To see the light of day.

And Become the light to the dark souls

Bringing fire down from the Heavens

Setting ablaze those feeling snuffed-out

By the militant opinion-makers.

The spectacle of spell-bound admiration

Of the strong for the weak

Of the fit for the mis-fit

Of the complete for the challenged

A reflection of the ‘Image of God’

Making strong the weak,

Fit the mis-fit, complete the challenged.

For such is the glory of God!

A Super Handsome Jesus???

Malcolm Muggeridge in his book ‘Christ and the Media’ in which he was damning critical of the Media, said that the Fourth Temptation of the devil to Christ was to offer to give him a Worldwide TV channel. I doubt that that TV channel would have been a good idea, even if the Media was good per se, because the Truth about the greatest Man that ever lived is that He did not have a photogenic profile, not even to the prophets of more than two millennia ago.

He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. Isaiah 53:2b

This is a prophecy about Jesus’ appearance. With creation of the cosmos, God created beauty, yet He chose for Himself an ugly profile because I think He wanted to show that He would win people over not through their eyes but through their hearts. 

Some theologians say that a credible reason why the Jewish Priests of that age found Jesus’ claim to be the Messiah to be unacceptable is because the Jews were used to having 'handsome' and charismatic God appointed leaders. Their Matriarch, Sarah was an astoundingly beautiful lady. Moses was very beautiful even as a kid. Bible speaks good of David’s handsomeness. So the expectation of a handsome and charismatic Messiah was ingrained into the psyche of the Jewish Priests. “How could perfect Man, the Messiah, look so imperfect?” Isn’t it ludicrous that a Man who was to reverse the fall would in His very body be an epitome of the ugly consequences of the fall.

Jewish Priest made the mistake of miss-attributing value to Jesus, our mistake isn’t much different either. We envision Jesus as a 6’2 lean-muscled male with sharp Caucasian features and flowing hair and neatly trimmed beard. In picturing Jesus as a guy who’ll give our most handsome models a run for their money, posterity has done the most disservice to the image of Jesus Christ.

This photogenic image misrepresents what Jesus's essence is, in the state of His assumed humanity. What made Jesus special was not His pleasing disposition or pleasant looks. He had neither. Jesus Christ’s essence was derived from the ‘relationship’ He had with the Father. The long lonely hours He spent praying to His Father and enjoying His presence is what made Him special in His humanity. When Jesus’ disciples couldn’t exorcize a guy, He exorcized the guy said to the disciples that failed because they did not pray ‘much’.

When Jesus’ Godly value is predominantly envisioned by modern man as being a peaceful good looking dude, and not as a prayerful God who took the form of man to show man how the life of a perfect man should look like, it is not too surprising that many modern Christians too derive their ‘personal value’ from their good-looks as seen by others as ‘religious’ or/and ‘sexy’, suiting ones personality, instead of deriving their value from their prayerful ‘relationship’ with the Father in Heaven.

A regular concerted daily Prayer time is a lost virtue among many modern Christians who pursue their happiness through their eyes, in the TV, rather than through their heart, in the heavenly Relationship. Both the ancient Jews and the Modern folks miss Jesus because they see Him as He is not, through their eyes and not through their hearts. Even God may not help a person who does not find his/her pleasure in prayer. 

Are we predestined to feel frustrated?

I seldom chat on FB. But yesterday, a friend from Church and I were chatting about the frustration in going through the cycles of applying for jobs attending interviews and going through this almost endlessly repeating loop. I commented, “God sometimes predestines us to be frustrated so that through the frustration when we look at Him, we see a different aspect of Him and ‘cherish’ Him for who He is”. I was trying to think of a good analogy to explain this… then I remember something. When I was a kid, I used to cry sometimes and that was when I would long for my mother’s countenance. When I was a kid, probably 7 years old, one afternoon, I was crying at school. My mother to my surprise came to school and the moment I saw her all my fears disappeared and tears were gone. My mother is many things to me but I specially cherish memories of my finding rest in my mother’s embrace only because there was an opportunity for me to get frustrated and I was willing to look up to her countenance for comfort.

Likewise, life gives us opportunities, through the frustrations, to look up at God and ‘cherish’ a unique comforting aspect of that relationship. God is glorified when we find Him the utmost comfort. So I think we are predestined to be frustrated so that we’ll have an opportunity to experience the comforting nature of the Blessed One. Our every day frustrations are not pointless irritations of an otherwise tolerable life, they are rather pointers to a need for a cherished countenance in a special Relationship. These enervating frustrations find its lasting meaning in that ‘cherished’ Relationship.

When we go through frustrating experiences, the challenge is to ‘truly’ look up at Him. We are perhaps more like Peter, we start looking up at Him, but soon are looking at the perilous waves come at us.  We get lost in our frustrations until we are pulled up and embraced into His bosom. Then looking back we have a greater appreciation for seeing Him in a different light and love Him all the more. But, we should be better than that. We should strive to be viscerally conscious of Him so that even as we are going through the frustrations,  we can ‘look up’ and delight and rest in His loving Countenance instead of having to ‘look back’ after the frustrations are over and retrospectively appreciate Him.

Blessed are the frustrated for if they look upwards, they can see God.

Galveston Mission Trip - Help with Home Building

A bunch of us went to Galveston from our GBC growth group. On Friday evening, when I left my home to carpool from George and Rebecca’s home, time was 6:00 pm. The next time, I looked at my watch, we were sitting on the Galveston Bay with burger and smoothie from Sonic, some of us with a beer as well, looking into the dark sea, white waves, jumping fish, bright stars and the lights from the distant ships, the time was 12:00 am. 6 hours had past. We had done a bunch of stuff. Only, I didn’t know when what started and ended. At 6:00, I was at Burdette’s place. We had some Chic a fil sandwiches and chit chatted until whatever time. Being a man of few words, I did not talk much. Sometime later, we started for Galveston. George and I were in his car. I got into one of my passionate topics, 'Gospel and Civilization' and spoke long monologues about the gospel being the foundation for a lasting civilization and also being the reason why the British revolution was bloodless and the French was blood, and about what the gospel said about the political elites. By the time I was done we were in Galveston. I did not look at my watch, least I should be aware for how long George had to suffer my soliloquy.

Once we reached the mission center, we refreshed and were getting debriefed about the mission by the folks that were running it. They gave some astounding statistics about how many people were affected by Ike and are still hurting because of general apathy. Their live stories and commitment kept us spell bound for however long they were talking… I have still not looked at my watch, this time either, but because I was truly in a timeless world enraptured by the joy and commitment of the people running the mission centre. We were told that we will help repair the house of one Ms. Lopez whose house was damaged in Ike was inhabitable for the past 2 years. We were told that during lunch break, we will also get a chance to play with the kids at the neighboring public housing and ‘connect with the community’. Someone came up with the brilliant idea of buying some play things for kids. We went to Walmart and bought a bunch of stuff for kids form chips packets to sidewalk chalks to water balloons. We got something to eat at Sonic and then sat on the ledge on the Galveston bay. I was filled with my cherished memories of sitting on the Thiruvanmiur Beach in Chennai, watching the sea, the moon, the stars, munching some snacks and reading a book in the most pleasant breeze ever. We talked about a bunch of stuff from relationships to postmodernism.

The conversation dispelled some stereo types about men and women. Stereo types say that  men were visual beings and that women were emotional beings and that men would be more attracted by the visual quotient and women would be more attracted by the emotional quotient. For example the stereo types dictate that some men would like the skinny-looks kind and some would like the chubby-looks kind… and women care little for looks and are are essentially looking for men who are ‘truly’ kind to them. Someone said, ‘I like a guy with nerdy looks’. Someone else said, ‘I like guys with preppy looks’. Someone liked some other look which I had never heard about before. Being a man of few words, I did not say much… it was a time for thinking than talking. I realized that in one sense, even this enlightenment by the Galveston bay did not break the stereo types after all… though men and women are probably equally enamored by looks, skinnyness and chubbyness has more to do with the physique and nerdyness and preppyness has more to do with one’s psyche. At the end of the day postmodernism or hyper modernism notwithstanding, men are men and women are women. Period.

I had done enough thinking, half-baked as it may have been, I looked at my watch… it was 12:00 am. We went back to our mission center to get some rest for some work the next. Little did I know then what type of work I was up against. I read Stott for a while and slipped into a slumber at about 1:30 am.

We got ready at about 8:00 am. After the morning devotion we loaded the tools to repair Ms. Lopez’s house and the toys to play with kids. I can’t use words to describe how tough the job was. Being a guy who isn’t that dexterous with hands, I found it doubly tough. It just did not make sense to me building a house should be so difficult. Apparently it is. No wonder poor Ms. Lopez couldn’t get easy help. We had lunch and then went to public housing facility to play with the kids. The temperature was probably in the 90s. I wondered why the folks at the mission centre sent us at such an errand. ‘Community building exercise’ they called it. Not a soul was in sight. Apparently everyone was staying cool within their homes. Rebecca and Holly took on the role of ‘community organizers’ and went about the houses giving juice packs for kids. Soon we had the kids coming out. If only they could be ambitious and lucky enough to win a not-so-tough contest to become a junior Senator, I guess they would be qualified enough to run for president (sorry, couldn’t help that).

Most of these kids were in single parent homes. Rebecca had a bruise in her leg. One of the little girls asked her if her husband beat her. What kind of a life would a person have to have been exposed to have such a question pop up in one’s mind. Another little one was crying for no reason at all. Holly had to carry her with her for quite a bit to calm her. Apparently the little girl just wanted to be carried by someone. Some of us played basket ball with the bigger kids. Some of us were having fun with side-walk-chalk drawings. Some of us threw ball. George taught me how to grip the ball and throw it the right way. I learnt something new. There was a stumpy looking 8 year old who was built to be a NFL hunk. I asked him what he name was. He was too shy to answer. I asked him three times, never got an answer. I asked him if we went to school. He nodded his head. I knew I was in good company. He too was a man of few words. He and I threw ball to each other. That guy enjoyed that a lot. I enjoyed it even more.

As we went about this, David and Jackie somehow managed to get the water balloons filled with water. Oh! My Gosh!!! The kids had a BLAST!!! My pal of few words was the guy who made most people wet. By now, some mothers had gathered too. They too joined the water balloon game. One of them even got Angela on her back. Soon, it was time to say goodbye…

We walked back to our construction site. I was thinking... it occurred to me that in every community it was the kids that were the connecting link to the community. Even in India, when we went for village outreach, the first thing we would do in a new village would be to go to a street corner and do something to attract the kids. The kids would come and sit and watch with glee at the funny theatrics we performed. Then the mothers of the kids would come closer. The men folks were always distant. It was no different here either. Human nature is always that same. The children are the most trusting and least prejudiced. Mothers, once you win their trust would be welcoming. The men folks always are wary of anyone encroaching their territory. No wonder it was the kids who went up to Jesus and touched Him. The one scene which I don’t remember seeing in any of the many Jesus films is him holding a child. But I would think that if we had the paparazzi those days as we do today, there would have been more pictures of Him holding a child than healing the sick.

We worked till 5:00 pm. I had never been more exhausted all my life. I got to travel in the back to the mission centre in David’s truck. We prayed and then dispersed from the mission centre. Some of us decided to have more fellowship over dinner. We went to a restaurant ‘Salsa’. I had the best Mexican seafood. Next time I go to Galveston to watch the bay, I know where I’ll have dinner. The food was doubly tasty because George and Rebecca were kind enough to pick up the tab. A loss for those who did not want to fellowship into the evening. :P For some reason free food is more fulfilling. I never knew why…

I was impressed that Stephen brought (his long-distance) girl friend to toil a whole day in the sun and the sweat, helping Ms. Lopez, when they themselves had little to meet each other. Just as we were wrapping up, we got to meet Ms. Lopez. With hurricane Ike she lost her job, her home, sometime later her husband then her mother. She was at the end of her wits. She said that our Christian concern renewed her faith and hope in life and in God. Looking back if there is one word to describe the experience it is ‘fulfilling’. True love is that which seeks for the other, that which it seeks for the self. We don’t expect life to be devoid of any pain or suffering. But we also expect some empathy from our fellow Christians. When that empathy becomes apathy, the pain and suffering would take its toll.  

As we drove back to Houston, I couldn't help making the connection between what we had just done to Ms. Lopez who was left in the lurch by the wrath of Nature and the over-extended-but-intangible Government aid, and what I spoke to George about the Gospel being the foundation for any long lasting Civilization. After all empathy and love is the MARK of a Christian. “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." (John 13:34-35). 

Inception - Will Blow Your Mind!!!!

Inception is one of those few movies which not only offer the pleasures of sight and sound but tops it off with the intense pleasure of thought. It is a movie that will enthrall you if you enjoy ‘thinking’ the movie as much as ‘seeing’ the movie. If you thought Matrix was based on a complex idea, Inception will probably blow your mind. It is a movie which having prior about the underlying thought the movie is based on will help some folks to sit back and enjoy the movie without having to tax their brains trying to understand ‘what the heck’ it is all about.

The movie is not just about dreams, the movie is about an idea, as Mr. Cob (DiCaprio) says "the single most potent thing in the world is a simple resilient idea that will not die". The sub-conscious human brain is so powerful that if you can get it to believe one very simple resilient idea, that idea can ‘define or destroy’ the person. ‘Shared dreams’ is just the media through which the idea is implanted into the mind of a person. The ideas implanted deep in ones ‘sub-conscious’ mind, if it is simple and resilient enough, will have consequences in the real world outside. The process of implanting this idea into the mind of the subject through multi-layered world of dreams is called ‘Inception’.

Mr. Cobb’s expertise is ‘Inception’. In the movie Mr. Cobb tries go into the world of ‘shared’ dreams to implant an idea into the sub-consciousness of an heir of a business empire that would ‘redefine’ his outlook and impel him to break-up his empire. A breakup of that business empire would benefit Mr. Cob’s client’s business conglomerate which otherwise would get swallowed up by the monopoly that the heir is trying to create. The problem with Inception is that once a person enters into the Freudian world of the sub-conscious, controlling the realities of that ‘shared’ dream world becomes difficult because the sub-conscious mind of the recipient reacts violently to the idea that is being implanted into it.

As Mr. Cobb’s mind dreams a reality where he can make the heir's sub-conscious gullible enough to allow him to place the idea in the heir’s mind, the heir’s sub-conscious mind works against Mr. Cobb’s to resist the control Cobb is seeking over his sub-conscious mind. So Cobb has to create a reality in the ‘shared’ dream world where the heir will make his own sub-conscious mind implant the idea into itself. To do this, Cobb needs to go into ‘nested dreams’ - multiple dreams within a dream. He recruits a team that will work with him in the new realities of the nested dream world. Controlling the complicated world of multi-layered dreams makes the movie super-exciting and original.

Though the concept of inception may seem alien to us as it involves manipulating dreams, it really is not. When Cobb and his team plan Inception on the heir, they strategize that “the idea needs to be implanted deep within the sub-conscious in such a way that the recipient believes that idea was actually his own…  so when we plant the idea, we need to give a ‘positive’ feel. We need to give him an 'emotional' connection” and make it appear that the 'positive' idea is his own. Doesn't this happen to us everyday in the TV ads? Don’t advertisers aim to implant brand names and images with a 'positive' feel about them? Don't these positive images have a big role to play when we do to the movie theatres and say, “hmmm I need a coke”?

The movie novel as it is, has so many aspects which are manifestations of the deeper truths and questions about life and human Nature. It delves into questions about advertising psychology to Freudian guilt complexes to Metaphysics of life. One of these questions I think is worth some appreciative contemplation… What makes the movie super-complicated and worthwhile is that Cobb has his problems with his own sub-conscious mind. Mr. Cob goes back and forth between the dream and the real world. When a person is in this business, he loses his ability to recognize what world is real, the dream world seems just as real. Mr. Cobb and Mrs. Cobb are a great loving couple, but they have a major difference of opinion. They are not in agreement about which world is the real one. Mr. Cobb thinks the world outside is real. Mrs. Cobb thinks the dream world is real enough. Mrs. Cobb actually gets back into what Mr. Cobb thinks is the real world, but kills herself thinking that it isn’t the real world, hoping to enter into another level of reality which would be more real. As Mr. Cobb goes into different levels in the dreams to implant ideas on behalf of his clients, his sub-conscious mind can’t help recreating Mrs. Cobb. The version of Mrs. Cobb his sub-conscious creates works against him to spoil his inception plans. The complicated love between the two adds a whole new level of mystery.

In the dream world, Mr. Cobb and Mrs. Cobb argue about what reality really is. They dabble over the question of Metaphysics. Mr. Cob says that though he enjoys playing God in the dream world creating his own realities, he can’t go on that way forever. Mrs. Cobb thinks differently. When Mr. Cobb says that the dream world they live in is not real, she replies, “You are talking about what you ‘know’, I am asking you to ask yourself what you believe and what you ‘feel’. Don’t you feel happy in this world”.

At a very deep level, the struggle between Mr. and Mrs. Cobb is a struggle between the modernists and the postmodernists and the pop-culturists. The modernists are rationalists. They believe there is ‘one’ truth which needs to be rationally pursued. The postmodernist believes that truth is what you think it is or make it to be, there is no ‘one’ truth to be pursued. The pop-culturists don’t give a hoot about reason or truth they want to have the ‘Black Eye Peas’ kind of ‘good time’. Mr. Cobb is the modernist who thinks there is ‘one’ real world where their children really are waiting for them. He thinks, 'where Truth is there his real Home will be, for his children will really be waiting there'. Mrs. Cobb is a postmodern pop-culturalist. She has a ‘good time’ in the dream world and is satisfied with the version of children her sub-conscious mind has created for themselves in the dream world. After all, it does not matter whether it is real or not as long as it is ‘feels’ good right? Or, maybe not?

This is the central but unstated dilemma of this movie. What is real? What really matters? Knowledge or Feeling? Truth or Perception? Playing God in an unreal secluded world or being human in the real shared world? In a brilliant piece of cinematography, the movie leaves that question open-ended. It will blow your mind off. I would wish there is a sequel to this. If there were an Inception II, I would be the first guy in queue for the 1:30 AM show, just as I was on the day Inception got released.

Hurt Locker – Why is war a Drug?

There are some movies which do not make much sense unless you see the first scene of the movie. One example is 'Saving Private Ryan'. When I first saw the movie, I missed the first 10 minutes and the rest of the movie seemed very depressingly violent. I wondered why folks were so appreciative of the movie. The second time I saw the movie, I started at the very beginning where the old Private Ryan visits the grave of his saviors, and then the gory and the violence took a new 'meaning'.

“Lock Hunter” is as violent, gory and real, but different in that this war movie will not make sense until the last scene of the movie. The movie begins with the tag line ‘War is Drug’. This tag line gives a context for you to help make sense of the rest of the impassioned depiction of mindless violence. But the tag line does not answer the question 'why man needs that ‘war drug’ in the first place?' The last scene gives the answer. 

The movie starts with a bomb defusing operation that goes south, leaving the bomb defuser dead. He is replaced by a guy with great expertise who has a flamboyant, even daringly flippant way of defusing bombs. He does not give a damn about taking inordinate risks or about dying. One of his teammates asks him why he keeps doing what he does even though he knows that it is the roll of the dice every time he straps up his protective attire. He could die anytime. He replies, "I do not know". It gives an impression that this he is inexorably being drawn into war by something much deeper within him which he himself does not understand.

The pressing question in the mind of the movie viewer is, Why do some people love war so much even though they know that they could possibly die? Why does war have this power? Why is war a drug? And more importantly, why does man need that drug?

I believe the answer is at the end of the movie, when he is on a break and spending time with his one year old son who is playing with some toys. He is talking to his son… “You love playing with that... you love mama you love dada, you love your pajamas… you love everything. Don’t you? But you know what buddy… when you grow older some of the things that you love will not seem special any more, you’ll realize that ‘jack in the box’ is really a piece of tin and stuffed animal. Then there will be fewer things that you’ll really love. By the time you get to my age there will be only one or two things you’ll really love… to me I think it is one”. He is actually talking more to himself than his son.

In the very next scene he is back at Iraq defusing bombs with a gleam in his eye and the usual feistiness in his stride, as he walks strapped-up towards the next bomb. The heavy rock band music starts. The movie ends.

The quintessential truth of the poignant introspective dialogue that he has with is one year old is that as a man grows, his propensity to be satisfied by what life has to offer reduces. A young kid would be satisfied with a cookie. But a grown man may like a cookie, but that is not something that will satisfy him. He may need a jar of beer or a peg of wine. Even that may not satisfy him as much as it did in his teens when he first developed the taste for the stronger drinks. A yogi does meditation on a hill top and a hedge fund manager mints money sitting in his corner office. Both of them pursue what they think gives them satisfaction. Some people have sex because it gives them satisfaction. Some people watch TV because it gives them satisfaction. Some people got to war because it gives them satisfaction.

At that point, war becomes the drug. As for that matter anything can be a drug for the grown-ups, money, alcohol, sex (remember Woods), fame, books, TV, social service (self seeking), religiosity (without God) etc… Most people try different things at different stages in life seeking that which satisfies them. They are always looking for the next higher level of satisfaction. They are looking for something that is BIG enough which will satisfy them. If there is a God, then the only experience that can be BIG enough to satisfy man will be the experience of God. For, if God is indeed God, then there can be nothing that is more brilliant and beautiful and exciting and consequently more satisfying than Him.

How to Train a Dragon? – Something I did not like about the movie

I saw ‘How to Train a Dragon’ sometime ago. This is the movie which to my knowledge has got the highest rating (98%) in the ‘rotten tomatoes’ website which is highly critical of movies. Robin hood has 44% rating, Shrek 52%, Prince of Persia 40%, Iron Man 74%. So the 98% says a LOT. I suspect blogs are overflowing with praise for this movie. This is the reason why I want to say something I did not like about the movie. On the record, I ENJOYED watching the movie, but for the sake of the review, I want to take a counter perspective. So bear with me, in case you think I shouldn’t take a counter perspective just for its own sake.

The story is about a little boy in a Viking village who does not have the physical make-up required to be a warrior which is the defining attribute of a true Viking. He is made fun of by the whole village. Little guys and girls his age shun him. Though physically inept, he is an intelligent guy who eventually finds his own intelligent way of winning the Mother of all battles almost single handed, much to the amazement of other Vikings. I liked the meta-narrative of the movie. I like the fact that the movie valued passionate individual ability over a cowering conformity to the societal expectations. What I do not like about the movie is in the way the meta narrative was setup through the characterization of the little kids.

The story revolves around a few kids and their training to slay dragons. There are three boys and two girls (I may not be right with the numbers). The kid who is portrayed as being dumb is an overweight dude. I often wonder why almost every movie for the kids needs to have a fat dude who almost always messes up and is made fun of and is made to feel unworthy. He isn’t even considered worthy of a date. Why should little kids be infused with blithe assumptions that to be fat is to be dumb and unwanted? It does not surprise me that often in schools, it is the unshapely kid who gets bullied and shunned the most.

We do not allow our kids to see movies with explicit violence and sex because we do not want their impressionable minds to be corrupted. How much more should we be careful when some ideas enter their minds through the apparently good channels but maim their ability to rightly value the other people? If the media should subtly encourage young ones to think is not wrong to make ones physical appearance as a criteria in judging their self worth, who can help them make right value judgments.

The same problem with wrong values is exemplified in another character. In the movie, the skinny kid who is the hero is shunned by the girl whom he is attracted to. I did not like the characterization of the girl. When other kids in the group ridicule him, she too joins the jocks and makes fun of this nerd. Later, when she realizes that the skinny kid is an impressive in his own right, she treats him with special affection which later blossoms into love.

The problem here is this. This dynamic of how the antagonistic relationship turns into one of love when the guy proves himself to be impressive alludes to a belief that for a girl to be attracted to a guy, the guy has to be impressive in some way. Looking at this another way, it also appears to allude to the idea that for a girl, it is cool only if fall in love with impressive jocks or impressive nerds. I think this ought to be a huge myth. When I look at successful marriages, the impressiveness of the male is hardly a criterion. In fact the more impressive the male, the less successful the marriage is. The families of famous guys from NFL players to Golf proves just this. Unfortunately, the movie exudes the idea that it is not wrong to value a person based on the person’s impressiveness. Kids learn quick.

Just because there is no violence, no occult magic and no sex it does not mean that the movie is good for kids. Giving kids the right framework for values is primal. In the last few months I read in the news about at four or five kids committing suicide because they did not like school for some reason or did not like their grades. I am not surprised that a kid who see movies where he is not taught to value life the right way, will pass his own skewed judgment on life and will deem that it is not worth living.

Unfortunately, this truth that not teaching right values to kids is a costly mistake is completely lost on the movie makers and the movie viewers. After all, our generation is permeated by the nihilistic secular worldview. When God who is the ultimate value-giver is jettisoned out of our secular worldview, we lose our ability to rightly value things. How dare we blame our kids for committing suicides when our culture does not give the right framework for values? The kids are just taking our values or the lack thereof to its logical conclusion. 

Aspiration and Transformation

(I have submitted this essay for a competition in our company)

Transformation happens when old conventions are broken and a new standard for conventions are set. When Americans were making the best Motorcycles, it was taken for granted that there will be frequent oil leaks, but when the Japanese bikes came into the market, it was taken for granted that oil leaks were unacceptable. Transformation happens when there is an aspiration to make something better that it is. The journey from aspiration to transformation is often a counter cultural process needing a catalyst.

In Jim Collin’s seminal work, ‘From Good to Great’, he questions conventions, “We expected that good-to-great leaders would begin by setting a new vision and strategy. We found instead that they first got the 'right' people on the bus… then figured out where to drive it”. Peter Drucker supposedly said, “At the end of the day we do not bet on ideas, we bet on people”. Transformation requires a right start. Transformation starts not with ideas, but with people. In fact, transformation starts with the person whom we look at every day in the mirror. Transformation starts with the aspiration to make oneself better than one is.

Back in the days of the great Socrates, the father of philosophy, the famous inscription at the temple for the Oracle of Delphi supposedly said, "Know Thyself". In fact Socrates said that he was deemed wise by the Oracle of Delphi because he was only one in Athens who was ‘aware of his own ignorance’. He knew who he was, ‘an ignorant man who ardently pursued wisdom’ and he transformed the world of ideas for generation to come.

The first step in the journey from aspiration to transformation is to aspire to ‘know oneself’. The irony of our society is that we presume to know other people and things far from us but we do not know who we are. A literate person would know why Steve Jobs is named the best CEO by Forbes, he may even know the surface temperature of a star that is a billion light years away, but he would likely be lost if he were asked to write an essay about his passion, strengths and weaknesses.

Unfortunately, the corporate culture often seems to work against pursuit of the truth about self. If a person is attending an interview, he is expected to sell himself as someone having Narayan Moorthy-like qualities. He is expected to not expose his real passions. He is expected to showcase his passions reconfigured to suit the job description. He needs to talk himself up and sugar-coating weaknesses. We are too eager to emulate someone else without knowing who we are. Genuine transformation cannot start where one does not aspire to 'know oneself' for who she is. The aspiration to know one’s passions, strengths and weakness is the first stage in the journey from ‘aspiration to transformation’. The second stage of the journey is where having already known who we are, we aspire to make ourselves better than who we are.

In the book 'Type Talk at Work' the authors say that leaders are people who clearly understand what their strengths and weaknesses are. The authors go on to say that a person develops into a successful leader if she, while naturally being strong in her strengths, is able to go the extra mile by aspiring to work on her own weaknesses to make them her strengths.  In a culture where one is constantly expected to mask ones weakness, to acknowledge the weakness and pro-actively work on ourselves is often counter intuitive to our 'corporate conditioning'. This is why we need a catalyst.

In the book 'What is wrong with the World', G.K. Chesterton says that for a doctor to set the broken hand right, he needs to know how a good hand looks like. For us to transform into people better than ourselves, we need role models whom we can observe and emulate. Transformation cannot be a self-centered individualistic effort. C.S.Lewis says, “We are but pygmies, who stand on shoulders of giants”. We need help to become better than we are. We need real-life role models who are willing to be vulnerable and encouraging coaches acting as catalysts in our process of transformation. I would learn more from observing my mangers at who are such catalyzing role models than by reading biographies about distant Charismatic business leaders.

An organization that does not aspire to bring about transformation through top-down catalyzing role models, will turn destructive. This was apparent in the recent collapse of the financial industry in the west. There was too much self-centered aspiration, but no role models who exemplified the true meaning of 'collective' transformation for the betterment of the world. The wall street instead of being the transformational industry doing the 'work of God', as Lloyd Blankfein CEO of much reviled Goldman Sachs claimed, had become a 'den of robbers' facing criminal charges, for having made millions off  a bubble created by misleading the public, in-turn causing pain for millions of common folk.

A great example of true transformation in the financial industry is the Nobel Laureate Muhammad Yunus’ Micro Finance enterprise the ‘Grameen Bank’. Yunus knew his passion was economics. His heart was with the poor. His strength was in setting up corporate enterprises. His weakness was being a man of ideas too ahead of his age in a society entrenched with old conventions. He supplemented his situational weakness with a 30 year iron-like resilience. He pursued to bring about collective transformation by doing what can truly be deemed the 'work of God'.

The impetus for transformation is an aspiration to make things better than they are. Transformation starts with aspiring to 'know oneself' and progresses through aspiration to make oneself better than one is and then consummating transformation by helping each other achieve collective betterment that results in organizational transformation which in-turn makes the world a better place to live in.

Lost in the Translation

When I was flying from Doha to Houston in a 16hr flight, ‘Lost in the Translation’ was in the flight movie menu so I watched the movie. The movie was unique. It seemed like a movie that girls would like. To my masculine mind, it seemed something was off about the movie. The underlying premise of the relationship was ambiguous.

There are three characters in the movie. A young couple and an older man are westerners staying for a shortwhile in a hotel in Japan. The hubby leaves his wife in a hotel room everyday to work on his business assignment. The older guys works like little and is free the most of the time and so an uncanny friendship develops between him and the young wife of the couple.

Throughout the movie, their relationship status is ambiguous. There are some scenes where there appears to be a latent urge for sensuality, but there isn’t an explicit outward manifestation.Then at some other scenes it appears that the young wife and the older man have developed a father-daughter relationship where sensuality has not role at all, for example in the scene where the both sleep over a his place and they sleep in the same bed but there isn’t much of any physical contact except for, if I remember right, a bit of affectionate caressing of the back of the palms.

The movie rolls on with them becoming more comfortable with each other. One wonders where this ambiguity is leading to and hopes that they don’t do something stupid to undo the beautiful father-daughter part of their relationship. Just then, the work assignments complete and it is time for them to leave the hotel and go back to their separate lives.

Naturally, there is a yearning deep within them for each other, more so for the guy. After all, to give up the beautiful father-daughter relationship can be really painful. So they part with an mild hug. And all is well? You would think... but 'No'. The old man gets into his cab and feels restless. You would naturally think that he regrets missing the beautiful little girl and time they shared together. I wouldn’t blame you.

The cab goes down the busy streets, the guys gets more restless and stops the cab and walks out ‘searching’. He finds her and runs to her. May be you are expecting him to give her an affectionate hug and get her phone number or something. Or may be even go down on his knees and propose his love for her. After all what is wrong in falling in love with a girl half ones age, that she is married posses different problem.

But this dude does something much worse. He takes her face in his hands gives her a French kiss, full on her mouth. They remain lip-locked for quite a bit. Just as I was about to think that this movie was not bad after all, I felt a revulsion, because all along, beneath the father-daughter gimmicks, there was a potent sensuality which for some reason hadn't manifested at all. If the whole experience had to have the satisfaction of being truthful, the long repressed emotions had to manifest itself in some form. The father-daughter embellishment was a sugar coated lie that had to be exposed so that one can redeem oneself by truthfully seeking the sensual satisfaction, that had been latent all along in the relationship.

I remember C.S.Lewis' words in "Four Loves" where he says that a man and a woman cannot really be 'just friends' unless they were madly in love with someone else or had a physical revulsion for each other. All that appeared to be good about the movie's depiction of the relationship was undone in the last few seconds. It was in those seconds that the reason why I thought something was off about the movie.

Village, Shutter Island and St. Augustine’s Confessions (& Lost)

I was talking to a few of my friends who had seen the movie ‘The Shutter Island’. They agreed that they were pissed off at the end of the movie. One of them said that he felt the same way that he felt when he saw the movie ‘The Village’. He said that he wanted to shout, “Give me my money back”.

The one common strand in both the movies is that the thrill and the suspense is built upon an absolute lie. When a movie goer eagerly stays riveted to the movie, expecting to see the panoramic view of a truth behind the build-up of the mystery, and then realizes to ones utter shock that there is no mystery to be unraveled but only a lie that had to be discovered, it can be very enervating. As the much-hyped TV series ‘Lost’ is nearing the end the bloggers are venting out anger as the prospect of not getting comprehensive answers for the mysteries that made the show interesting. We watch the movie/show with an anticipation that we will be ‘satisfied’ by the unraveling of the mystery at the end of the movie – a mystery that would be true and worthy of the wait and which would give meaning to the wait. When this need is not satisfied, there is an angst.

When we realize that we have been falsely led in a movie, as irritating it can be, all we would have lost would have been a couple of hours of our precious time and a few bucks. But the anguish would be incomparable when we have been falsely led in ‘real life’ and we live our life enjoying the thrills and the tide and keep on moving hoping to find ultimate satisfaction, only to realize at the anticlimactic end that all the thrill and the passion was based on a lie which was discovered to be a lie too late in the game.

I remember reading an article in the magazine ‘The Week’. It was about the psychological effect of the modern idea of living a radically individualistic life. A successful editor of a magazine is interviewed and she says (something like this… it is not a verbatim quote), “(when I grew up in the age of liberated individualism), I was told that I was free to do whatever I wanted in my life my own way. I was told free sex was harmless. But all it left me with is a string of broken relationships. I was told that accomplishment would bring happiness. But I found out that on the heels of happiness of this kind comes an inexorable emptiness. Now, I look at pictures of my classmates who have made different life choices because they believed in different truths. As I look back at my life, I realize that I had been lied to. I had been lied to by ‘liberators’ who told that it was ‘my life’ and that I could live it ‘my way’. I was expecting to find an ultimate satisfaction somewhere long, but now, sometimes, I just want to cry”.

If one were to live all of one’s life in some sate of delusion, the enervation one experiences can be as painful as hell. May be hell is a place where there is much ‘gnashing of teeth’ not because of the fire and brimstone but because of the inexorable enervation one feels from deep within at having been ultimately lied to by intellectuals and teachers whom they had so blithely trusted, and consequently, having missed many opportunities to know the truth that stared them in the face.

In the context of this, I am reminded of St. Augustine’s Confessions. St. Augustine says that the one thing in life that brings most hurt is a lie. We really get hurt when someone whom we trust has outright lied to us. We hate to be in a position where we pay a dear cost because we were deluded by a lie. The one thing in life says the Saint, that can bring most joy is, ‘truth’. The one true embodiment of absolute Truth is God. So, says Augustine, “without God, there can be no joy in life”.

If God created life, then He is the one who defined what is true in life. So this implies that He cannot be anything but the embodiment of Truth, for if He IS, He cannot be anyone but the true Creator. And this implies that if there is someone from whom we can learn truth about life, it is God. As lady Editor said, if a lie causes her to cry and if as Augustine says, the truth causes joy. The only hope for joy in life is to be inside the realm of truth on the side of the true One who WAS, IS and will forever BE. 

Weekend With the Men Folks from GBC

To be locked-up in a camp from Friday night to Sunday morning, with a bunch of hairy legged, poker loving, bike riding, kayaking, pickle ball playing, skeet shooters who in their core are lovers of the Word of God is indeed a cool experience. The one thing that unites this disparate group is the unity we find in Discipleship that owes its allegiance to one Person. I went to the camp with my friends from the GBC ‘growth group’ I attend. We drove 80 miles from Houston to this Pine Clove Camp in Columbus. Left our luggage in the cabin, got to know the other guys in whom we’ll share the cabin with for the next couple of nights. We clarified that none in the room were loud snorers, of course mild snoring can’t really be helped.

We then went to the auditorium. The decks were drawn. The poker players got right into the groove. The rest of us were looking at I-phones trying to find some interesting card game with clear rules. Our group ended up playing a game called ‘Oh, hell’. It was indeed one hell of a game… The night was done. We started off Saturday morning with a message by Matt Larzen. The key point was that there are two kinds of people among Christians – Disciples and Pagans. There is no category called non-Disciple Christians, we are either a Disciple or a pagan. Matt Larzen gave a brilliant exposition on gospel of Mark about the cultural significance of unique way Jesus went about making Disciples of those rejected from the ‘high level’ Rabbinic Schools.

Then we had the entire day to play any sport we wanted. Here were the choices Wiffle ball, Basket Ball, Hill biking, Pickle Ball, Skeet Shooting, Ping pong, Foosball, Kayaking, Swimming, Rock climbing then there were a couple of other games I don’t remember the name of. We got to play many games from morning till evening. In the evening Matt Larzen continued with Gospel of Mark emphasizing the need for Disciples to trust in God, unlike the ‘first’ Disciples who after having seen Jesus feed the 5,000 and the 4,000, when instructed to beware of the ‘yeast of the Pharisees’, wondered if Jesus was being sarcastic because they had forgotten to bring enough bread with them for the journey.  Matt emphasized that we had to trust God so that that trust would impel us to take risks for the sake of the One whom we owe our allegiance to.

Saturday night was again ‘poker-time’. Some sat around the fire and shared interesting stories. Sunday morning, Matt talked about need for disciples to ‘correctly’ understand the Word of God so that we would give the ‘appropriate’ emphasis while teaching the different aspects of the Word of God. Unlike the folks in Israel who, in spite of Jesus telling them not to do so, spread news that Jesus was the ‘magical healer’; but completely failed to comprehend and fearlessly communicate Jesus as the ‘resurrected redeemer’ even though Jesus said that He would resurrect.

Matt explained a brilliant observation of some theologians as to why gospel of Mark has two endings and why the ending in earlier manuscripts is intentionally anticlimactic. In the anticlimactic ending, the women at the tomb of the resurrected Lord, do not to speak to anyone about the news of most dramatic miracle they witnessed, even though the Angel commanded them to spread the news. The reason why Mark ends with this anticlimactic response to the most astounding news of the entire cosmos is to convict the audience that they, in being eager to spread the news of 'Jesus as healer' and being not as eager to spread the news about the 'Jesus are the resurrected redeemer', were inclined to ‘Majorize’ the minor message and 'minorize' the Major message. Mark ended this way probably spurn his target audience to make them give more importance to spreading news about the ‘resurrected Lord’ instead of spreading news about ‘magical powers’ the spiritual world has to offer.

Matt suggested that we, as the early Church goers, ought to read the Books of the bible in one sitting to fully comprehend the meta-narrative of each book. Hopefully, I should be able to get to Starbucks on a Saturday and do as he suggested.

Looking back, we had been there for just a little over a day but it seemed like we had been there for a week. This I believe is because our day was packed with so many activities which we normally wouldn’t have done in a single day. I can’t recall a day in recent past when I have played cards and pickle ball and gone skeet shooting and then again played more pickle ball and was fed delicious breakfast, and lunch and dinner not to mention being enthralled by three brilliant expositions of the word of God, all in a little over a day. It was indeed a cool experience. We ended the weekend grateful to the One, to whom we owe our allegiance, for the cool weekend that was so filled with life-giving word and legitimate fun. 

21st Century Christian Monks

As we look back at history, we find that each era brings forth unique new social changes which redefine what humans value in life and how we live. I think that God uses such social changes unique to each age, to bring glory to His name. In the early Christian age, God used the Roman Empire for the sake of His own glory. As the famed Historian Will Durant says, "Christ and Ceaser met in the arena and Christ won".

One of the most important contributions of the middle ages to the development of human progress is I think, the universities. In the middle ages, universities were places which God used to glorify His name. Historians say that 'theology' was then the most important course taught. But for these universities we may still be living in the world of divine right of kings. Then there were monasteries and convents where monks and nuns lived, who apart from praying ceaselessly, helped the downtrodden by managing orphanages and helping the widows with fire wood. God's name was glorified through those celibants.

Back in those days, unmarried celibants had to live in monasteries and convents because if they tried to live with the society, they felt ostracised as everyone else was by default, married. But now, our society has changed. Thanks to the social devlopments of this age marked by individualism. The kind of individualism that we have gives an opportunity for singles to remain single live a very 'active public life' and not feel left-out by the society. So we all, by default, remain single and we get married if we choose to.

I am reminded of St. Augustine's quote. "If God is God, and He is good and powerful and omniscient, He has to be all powerful to bring something good even out of something that is bad".

On one side, radical individualism and unfettered freedom is wrecking havoc in the fabric of our social structure. But I think God is using the new freedoms, to set apart a group of singles who will live active, admirable and evniable public lives that gives glory to the name of God and possibly bring the nations closer to the heart of God.

I say this because I know some remarkable men and women in the 30s, 40s, who are single and are admired and may be even envied by many for the amazing work for God. A single businessman who in the freetime he has being a single guy, has built an amazing Christian ministry for singles. A single media director who makes the Church worship cherished by his extensive knowledge of the media he has acquired by spending time analyzing many movies and reading books. A single girl entrepreneur, who in her spare-time (thanks to her singlehood) travels across the nations building communities for God's glory. A single girl who was a CEO herself and is now a high profile corporate trainer, training CEOs across the globe and using every opporunity to communicate the good news.

I don't mean to say that families cannot serve God. There are great examples of folks with family lives serving God Billy Graham, John Piper etc... But what is interesting about the current generation is that unlike the immediately prior generations, in the 30s and 40s age category, it appears that an increasingly high number of singles live for the glory of God through their singlehood, even as temporary as the singlehood may be. They are, I believe, the Christian monks of the 21st century who live active community-oriented public lives for God's glory.

Let me also state that God's creation-mandate for us is to be married and have God-loving children. God's redemption mandat is for us to go ALL-out and be His disciple. God's redemption-mandate sometimes conflicts with creation-mandate. In the early Christian age, just having Godly children wasn't going to help the cause of the gospel. So Paul said that Christiendom needed monks who'll remain sigle for the sake of glorifying God. I believe the age we live in now, is another age where the redemption-mandate would override the creation-mandate.

I think the Christianity of the next century may be shaped heavily by the 21st Century Christian monks who are giving in to fulfilling the redemption-mandate at the cost of fulfilling their creation-mandate, perhaps just as early Christianity was heavily shaped by the life and the opinions of celibate early Church Fathers.

Good Times and Half-Good-Times

There are some experiences in life which when we look back a year or two later, we would, retrospectively, call them ‘Good times’. There are even fewer instances where we are relatively care-free and experience something good and on the way home or just after we enter our homes, we know that they were ‘good times’. Tonight, my first Rodeo experience, to me, was the ‘good times’ of the second kind. I was fortunate to have been able to go to the Rodeo with my good Christian friends at the GBC. Thanks to the Rodeo Badges they got. So here at 2:00 am, back at my home, I sit crystallizing the quintessential part of that experience in ‘words’. ‘Words’ are important to me.

I wish to expound on the words ‘good times’. First the word ‘good’… I am reading St. Augustine’s 'Confessions'. So I am led to look at the word ‘good’ using the Augustinian lens. As per St. Augustine’s world-view, there are two types of good(s) – the lower good(s) and the higher good(s). The lower good(s) are the good(s) that are in the earthly realms, contained within the physical realities of life – the sights and the sounds and the movements. The higher good(s) are in the heavenly realms, that transcend the physical realities. St. Augustine’s seminal idea, I believe is that an ‘ordinate’ experience of the lower goods would point us towards the higher goods and help us experience the highest of the higher goods, which is, having a relationship with God.

This idea I think, was beautifully encapsulated in the song ‘Hello World’ that was sung by Lady Antebellum at the concert in the Rodeo. Before singing this song, there was a special introduction, that this song was very special to the singers in the band. To put it bluntly, that song exuded with theism. Oh, I loved it. My mind was racing as I was enthralled by the lyrics. It is about a guy/girl with a ‘broken heart of steel’ despairing over the pointlessness of life. Then he/she finds ‘meaning’ in the smile of a little girl with chocolate on her face. He/she then finds deeper ‘meaning’ in his home and his family – wife/husband and kids. This ‘unfurls’ his/her faith. And the song ends with his/her falling on his/her knees in a ‘believing surrender’ to the One above.

The essence of this song, the way I see it through the Augustinian lens is that, the little things in life, like the blissful smile of a little girl and the heavier things of life like the assurance of life that comes with home and hearth are the ‘lower good(s)’of life which give meaning in the midst of our despair. And then through the assurance of this ‘meaning in spite of darkness’, the lower good(s) help us to exercise our faith and look up above and reach up and surrender to the ‘greatest good’ - God.

Now, the phrase ‘good times’ needs some exposition, because standing alone, the phrase makes only an illusionary sense of goodness. There is a popular saying, “When the real God arrives, the half-gods flee”. But C.S. Lewis, in his book ‘Four Loves’, says that the opposite is the truth. He says, “When the real God arrives, only then, the half-gods can stay”. The ‘good times’ we experience are like the half-gods. They can only make sense only if we have the assurance of a real God who promises eternal good. In other words, if we do not have the assurance of being with God, in this life and the next, then all the ‘good times’ we experience in this life is as non-sensical as setting the board to have some good-times by playing one last game of poker on the deck of the sinking Titanic. It is only when we have the assurance of enjoying the ‘real’ good times, eternally with God, will we truly be able to enjoy these half-good-times in this world. Good-times aren’t good-times without God-time in our life.

I had some ‘good times’ this evening, I thank God for them. They are just half-good. The real good is in the relationship with God. These half-good-times are just a fore-taste of the real good-times we will eternally celebrate with the Eternally Good One. May God be eternally praised. 

Valentine Meditations: Valentine Culture and Western Civilization

So this is another Feb 14th, I am reading C.S.Lewis’ ‘Four Loves’, again, trying to get wrap my mind around the idea of love – an honorable thing to do (I guess) on the day which venerates love. I am also working on writing something about Valentines day – my valentine meditations…

Valentine’s day is predominantly a celebration of the affluent. Having lived both in the east and the west, in my experience, Valentine’s day is celebrated with fun and frolic in the affluent west and in pockets of the eastern hemisphere where affluence is pursued as the chief aim of life. In also think that in any society where the ‘social standard’ of affluence is high, the pursuit of affluence is often accompanied by an advent of a prolonged singlehood, delayed marriages and ultimately, fewer children. Affluence is not the enemy of marriages. The modern western society’s high standards for affluence and the mind-numbing pursuit of the high standards causes within the heart of man a dilemma in choosing between a high single lifestyle of freedom and luxury or a shared lower standard of family living characterized by commitment and sacrifice.

By the standards of the western society, unless one is relatively rich, to be married and to have children has become akin to being burdened by a much lesser standard of living, so most singles who are forced to pursue affluent standards by the society have no option other than to wait until they are (college) debt free and rich enough to enjoy an affluent married life. In most cases, this does not necessarily mean that singles are alone until they are married. Most end up with the compromise of living with make-shift mates and celebrating valentine’s day.  Valentine’s day in much of the affluent world appears to have morphed into a celebration for the singles, to celebrate it with their make-shift mates and still remain single.

This ‘valentine culture’ that pursues society’s standard for ‘individual affluence’ at the cost of marriage, children and family will undermine the very foundation of the western civilization. This may not be the straw that breaks the back of the western civilization, it is most likely the rottenness that is eating it from within. G.K. Chesterton said, ‘There are many ways a civilization can fall, there is only one way it can stand. The western civilization is now testing the angles’. I live in an apartment complex in mid-town Houston which has nearly 200 apartments and I hardly see any kids. Whereas in India in an apartment complex of the same size, occupied by similar demographic age group, I would be constantly and pleasantly disturbed by the sound of screaming kids.

A column in the Wall Street Journal said that to bring down the western civilization, the Islamic Jihadists need not really risk attempting another 9/11. They can just sit in their caves and continue to have as many children as they can and then wait for the western world to fall under its own weight. The western civilization as we see it, will eventually fall because this generation of westerners aren’t getting married neither are they having enough children. Without children, no civilization can exist. The theory is that when the western world falls because there aren’t enough children to prop it up, the children of Middle eastern world will, by default, inherit the world of tomorrow.

A huge part of the ‘unsophisticated’ east though hasn’t fallen prey to this Valentine culture. I read an article which said that the ‘Commission for promotion of virtues and prevention of vice’ in Saudi Arabia, (no, this is not a joke there is indeed a commission by that name in the Saudi) has banned any form of celebration of the valentine’s day. This may sound retarded, but I think, the middle eastern Clerics have the prescience that allowing any form of valentine culture of the affluent west to become the norm in their culture would rob defeat from the jaws of victory they are eagerly and patiently waiting for. In fact, Islam is the fastest growing religion, not through propagation of its ideals, but through procreation by its followers.

The Church is not silent either, it too is fighting against this decadence. I went to a Church for a Valentine’s day special event. A special speaker was flown in from 1000 miles afar and interestingly, the theme of the message was “How to stay single and find wholeness (in God)”. But there wasn’t even a cursory mention of getting married or raising families. Perhaps I am ignorant, but I really do not know why one’s pursuit of one’s sense of wholeness in God has anything to do with ones marital status. The message of Evangelical Christianity to singles appears to be that singles should behave, be patient, be blessed and wait for the marriage ‘calling’. The gist of the Christian message, I think, isn’t that different from what I get from TV series ‘Friends’. ‘Friends’ tells singles to be single, confused and cool until something happens and you find yourself getting married. The Church tells singles be single, blessed and cool until you have the ‘calling’. The Church is right fighting against the idea of having make-shift mates, but it appear to not be fighting against the root cause, neither is it giving a solution to the problem.

God commanded man to be fruitful and multiply. The modern society that dictates man to pursues personal affluence does not understand what this command from God means. Modern man is caught in a dilemma. One part of the modern man wants to be free and affluent. Another part of man wants to be married and have kids and a family. Modern man, without the Bible, does not have the framework to reconcile this dilemma that is gnawing from deep within him. This generation that addicted to affluence, tarries on in anguished confusion about marriage and raising families seeks its solace in the valentine culture of make-shift mates.

The pre-modern society had a sense of community and traditions which helped man get married and then helped him stay married. The place held by community and traditions in the previous generation is empty now. The Church, in most cases, instead of stepping into this lacuna and helping the modern man have a Biblical and culturally relevant understanding of being fruitful and multiplying, is, I think, overreacting (against the make-shit mate culture) and asking singles to find wholeness in singlehood first and then think about marriage as a special ‘calling’.

If the historical St. Valentine did what history says he did, he did not invent boxed chocolates wrapped with ribbons or red roses, neither did he ask them to wait for some special ‘calling’ or for the right opportunity or compromise with make-shift mates. He appears to have done exactly what the Christians needed to do. He stepped into a lacuna created by the ‘social standards’ of that day and helped singles get married. He supposedly paid a very heavy cost for it. No wonder he made himself the most venerated Saint of all time across all nations irrespective of religion or race or creed that the Muslim Clerics need not have a decree that no Muslim should celebrate St. Paul’s day but has a decree that none should celebrate St. Valentine’s day.

The Church (of today) I think has a great opportunity to speak into this anguished culture unable to reconcile the dilemma between society’s standard for ‘personal affluence’ and the yearning in the human heart for ‘family life’. Christianity has to reverse the damage done by this valentine culture by speaking INTO the valentine culture, in a language they understand as Paul did at Athens. If Christians cannot make themselves relevant to the plight of this culture, historians of tomorrow may observe that Christianity, which by subjugating the authority of kings to the ‘law from above’, gave mankind the basis to the creating the democratic golden era of western civilization, couldn’t save it from the decadence that had set in.

My Name is Khan - A Message to Christian Charities

I haven't seen the new much hyped Bollywood movie 'My Name is Khan' which has famous Indian movie stars acting and directing in it. I just read reviews. The goal of movie's Protagonist, Mr. Khan a gullible Muslim living in the US, is to somehow meet Prez Bush face to face and tell him, 'My name is Khan and I am not a terrorist'. It appears that the film will have internatinal appeal as it attempts to show that one rotten apple in basket does not mean every other apple is rotten as well. Films of this kind tend to have a good and timely message.

But sometimes, flims of this kind are prone to over-stating their case by using misconstrued examples. They inadvertently tend to take a dig at a good cause by misconstruing or even misrepresenting it for a bad one. I think 'My Name is Khan' isn't an exception. In this, I think it wrongly takes the US Christian Charities to task, especially in how it funds other Charities around the world.

Apparently, in the movie, there is a scene, where a 'Christian-only' Charity contribution is taken in the US for Somalian Christians and Mr. Khan gallantly volunteers to donate to the non-Christians in Somalia. I know quite a few US Christian charities that work with folks in Africa and India, but I have never heard of a 'Christian-only' Charity. It is true that Christian charities work with Churches in Africa. This is because the Chruch has the widest network and strong sense of community orientation and commitment that helps reach out to the common man in Africa. Even villages that do not have electricity will still have a Church. Places where the 'Uncle Sams' cannot reach, are reached-out to by the Church. To call this Church-modelled Charity giving as 'Christian-only' Charity, which excludes non-Christian beneficiaries is to competely misconstrue the logistics of how charities work in villages that has been neglected by every other institution of the world save the Church of Christ.

Before I delve further into what I really want to say, I think, I need to state something that the movie makers have conveniently chosen to not give credence to at all. Over the last few decades, it is the non-Christian Indian Social Service Organizations that have raised more charity money from the west than the Christian organizations. Funding to Indian Christian charity has reduced phenomenally over the past few decades. Only a few Christian institutions get funding from abroad. This fact not withstanding, during relief work after natural disasters, it is the Christian Charities that out-do the non-Christian ones. In fact, I was told sometime back that during natural disasters, the villagers hope that the relief work in their village is taken over by a Christian Charity rather than a non-Christian one because Christian Charities have least corruption and money really reaches the people in need.

My chief intent to write this is not to say what 'My Name is Khan' is wrong about in its depiction of Christian charity, but to state what, in spirit, it is partly right about and more importantly, what lesson Christians, especially Indian Christians, have to learn from this. I think the movie makers were, partly right in this portrayal in that it points out a glaring mistake of Indian Christian Charities. I think the impetus for the movie makers to take a dig at Christian charities is because Indian Christian Charities over the course of the 'past few decades' have become self-centered in as far they have become wealthy institutions in catering to Christians.

Let us rewind, go back to the times when our Christian institutions had humble origins and were more concerned about the society around then about the resources within. If we looked at the political arena of yesteryears, most Hindu leaders where people who were educated in Christian institutions and they had a positive opinion on Christian Charity institutions. Our Christian charities then, were existing for non-Christians, our Church Fathers and Mothers expended themselves in helping others as the Word of God calls for us to do. But that has changed over the last few decades. The problem with Indian Christian charity organisations and institutions of this day is that we have become wealthy and have become unable to handle our resources in that we are holding on to our resources too tightly. We have become a closed system.

We have drawn a circle around ourselves as 'minorities' and are 'pooling' our own resources to enjoy them ourselves. We think our institutions belong to us. We forget that the last person a Christian Charity organization belongs to is us. Our institutions belong to the Kingdom of God. We are just humble custodians who need to give an account for our institutions to the King.

Our institutions in many places, have forgotten the Christian principles of going the extra mile to embracing the marginalized and the oppressed and are instead fighting over which Christian institution has control over which mile of land. We have forgotten to live for others in a way that our Church Fathers did, such that others would see our work and glorify the God we worship.

The Christian organizations abroad that contribute to Indian charities often fail to realize that quite a number of Indian Christian charities do not wish to be a city on the top of a hill that is a beacon to the rest of the society, but want to be a cloistered castle in a lush green valley. Christian donors would need to do due deligence  that the money sent abroad is used to build the Kingdom of God and not the Empire of Christians.

No wonder Mr. Khan wants to donate money to the non-Christians in the third world.

Notebook - First Love to Second Love

'Notebook' is a fairly good movie. I found only one aspect of the movie grating, unfortunately it is central to the movie. I have been trying to understand why the well-loved movie, 'Notebook', just did not feel right to me. I know many friends who love the 'Notebook' and having seen in multiple times, wouldn't miss an opportunity to see it again. Most of them I suppose are people who have had some cherished 'first love' experiences. I think the teen 'first love' is a great experience for some people.

In as much as the movie depicted 'first love' for the sake of 'first love', I seemed to like the storyline, but then there comes a point at which the story line is unnaturally twisted to the exchange the reality of 'mature love' for the dream of 'first love'. A rich aristocratic girl exchanging the lover of her twenties with an accomplished affectionate guy for the love of her teens with a popper working in a lumber yard, just seemed too incongruous to how human nature works. Of course, there is ample empirical evidence of teenage daughters of multi-millionaires falling in 'first love' with puerile paupers. But I have not heard of any instance, even in the novels that celebrate idealistic romance, where lady in her twenties exchanges her love with a classy, rich, accomplished and affectionate guy for the love-of-her-teens with an obscure popper. I think there have been novels where, true to the basic human nature, the opposite happens, where a lady's teen 'first-love' for the boyish teenager quickly disappears when she gets enamored by the real manly aura that surrounds the mature and accomplished man in his twenties.

I would call this love of twenties as 'second love'. This is definitely much stronger than the 'first love' of the teens. I think, qualitatively, there is little difference, between the first love of the teens and the second love of the twenties in that they are both profoundly visceral experiences. Moving on to the differences,  I think the first love of the teens is but a fore-taste of the second love of twenties which is bound to be much more realistic and longer lasting than the first love of the teens, for the simple reason that the guy and the girl are more a man and woman in their twenties than in the teens.

The 'first love' of the teens is a dream. It is a dream that will come true in the love of the twenties. To have the love dream comes true in the twenties, as in the movie 'Notebook', and then to revert back to the teen dream just does not seem sane. Reverting back to the dream of 'teen love' is not akin re-living the dream, it is a chasing after a mirage. This is precisely why 'Notebook' seems grating to me. 'Notebook' is a celebration of the reverting back to the dream which was just meant to be a foretaste of the real thing. This 'Notebook' reverting back, is almost like becoming an adult and getting a McLaren and then saying, "No, I'll exchange my McLaren for the NFS video game I played when I was a kid". It is almost like going to heaven and then on the gates of paradise, saying, "No, I'll exchange heaven for life on earth."

UP In The Air - Escape from the Eternal to the Ephemeral

'Up in the Air' has an interesting script, though much of it were clichés. It also has an interesting storyline with at least one unexpected twist. It is said to be a kind of a romantic comedy, but I did not find anything romantic enough or funny about it. It does not have a ‘lived happily ever after ending’. It does not leave one teary eyed either. There is nothing in the movie that causes your heart to melt in tender love. All it does is, it leaves you with a mild gnawing of the heart that is staring into a void looking for some glimmer of real love. What I find atrocious about the movie is that there isn't even the slightest regret or pity for the lack of real love in the movie. But then movies are a reflection of real life.

George Clooney plays Ryan, whose worldview is driven by the idea that to be free of burden of family ties and close relationships is the best way to enjoy life. He is motivation speaker who is known for his lectures on liberating people from the’ burdensome’ ties of relationships. Having relinquished the ties with his family, he lives much of his life in hotels, airport lobbies and aero planes. His cherished goal in life is to reach 10 Million miles of flying and is always willing to bed any woman who is available. Vera Farmiga plays Alex, who is a frequent flying corporate consultant who claims that she does not mind having sex even in toilets of regional flights during day time. The two meet in an airport lounge and click instantly. They don’t miss an opportunity to get in bed whenever their flying schedules criss-cross.

Then there is George Clooney's assistant Natalie played by Anna Kendrick, who is dumped by her boyfriend through a text message and is dejected in having lost her dream of building a family with her boyfriend. She gets 'liberated' by Ryan's and Alex's ’post-family post-feminist’ inspirational world-view and promptly enjoys a fling with a stranger. Then there is Ryan's sister whose fiancé, Joe, who gets 'cold feet' just before marriage. Ryan, his derision for family ties not withstanding performs his brotherly duty to his orphaned sister by convincing Joe to take up family 'responsibilities'.

But yes, there is love, though only for a short while. Ryan and Alex have a few flings and eventually, Ryan inexorably falls in love with Alex only to realize in the most disappointing manner that Alex had kept it a secret from him that she had an unsuspecting husband and sweet kids and a suburban three story family home to call her own.  

Aghast, Ryan needs an explanation from Alex. Alex does her best to explain to him that she never had any special feelings for him and that he was just her 'escape'. He was her escape from the mundane family life. Ryan's sister's fiancé gets cold feet before the wedding precisely because he is afraid of the ordinariness of family life. Once Natalie is liberated from the idea of having to start a family, she has no issues with having a one-night-stand with a stranger. Joe wants to 'escape' before the possibility of a family. Alex wants to 'escape' in spite of the family. Natalie makes good her escape once her dreams of family life were broken. Ryan lives 'Up in the Air' perpetually in the world of escape away from even considering a possibility of a family.

Family is eternal. Flings are ephemeral. Modern man appears to be willing to exchange one for the other because the heaviness of the eternal is unbearable for him.

When life lacks an overarching sense of purpose, as in the case of the characters in the film, the eternal aspects of life which involve costly commitment, begins to be seen as a burdensome ordinariness that needs to be abrogated and escaped from to be able to enjoy the ephemeral in life. What is lost on folks with this world-view is that within what they see as a problem - the 'family commitment', is present the essence of liberation from within the ordinariness of life. The costly commitment in reality, though is burdensome, serves as the means and the medium for fulfilling the 'relational purpose' of life.

Building a family is like being tree. The tree is eternal, but it appears unexciting. If an eternal tree, that lives for centuries, does not know what its purpose is as a tree is, it does not understand why it is ordinarily rooted in the ground, when other ephemeral birds can freely fly about ‘up in the air’. Such a tree will look at its rootedness to the ground as a burden and will want to be liberated it and be ‘up in the air’, unaware of the decadence it is embracing.

The escape of the tree rooted on the ground to become a bird up in the air is an act of being liberated,  but it is also an act of embracing an empty oblivion which gnaws at very essence of man’s being. Deep within, man yearns for the eternal, not for the ephemeral. Man cannot live with his feet planted up in the air, he had a deep need for his feel to be grounded somewhere deep and strong.

Singing the Weight of God’s Glory

Music is a part of worship of God not because it sounds good in our ears or makes worship livelier, but because words alone are insufficient to describe the weight of the glory of God.

I enjoy Handle’s 'Messiah'. But when I was listening to it at the 10:00 PM Christmas Eve service at SJD Houston, it occurred to me that a few sentences that would take a contemporary song writer to finish singing in, may be, 60 seconds took Handle’s genius 15 minutes to complete. The same sentences are repeated over and over again. Repetitions generally distract my mind. My critical mind was asking, “Why so many repetitions????”.  Then a switch in my mind flipped, and I think, my appreciative mind started working and I again asked, “Why so many repetitions!!!!”.

It is the exploration of these questions that caused me to I state in one of my earlier blogs entries that I wanted to enumerate and (try to) capture in words the experience of worship of Jesus Christ at at SJD. So here is my attempt at capturing in words what I so vividly remember to be my experience of the weight of Glory of God as exemplified in the singing of the SJD choir. What makes my attempt monstrously difficult for me is that I am musically illiterate in my mind, ear and vocabulary. So my attempt to write this is I believe, like a blind man trying to describe a painting to folks that can see.

In my wonderment of why there should have been so  many repetition in Handle' Messiah, I observed the song intently. I noticed that in the song, the word 'glory' was repeated many times, perhaps too many times than usual. And every time, the word ‘glory’ was sung, it wasn’t just sung normally, it was often accompanied with, what I would call, ‘musical flourishes/inflexion???’ (sorry limited musical vocabulary). It seemed as though Handle seemed to give special emphasis to the phrase ‘glory of the Lord’, and especially to the word ‘glory’, by having it repeated many times.

A good Christian friend of mine by name Jim said in one of his Bible study classes that when we say the word ‘glory’ we don’t fully grasp the ‘heaviness’ of the word implied in describing the incredible weight of the glory of God. I believe that when Handle used the word 'glory,' he realized its deficiency in depicting the immense weight of the glory of God. Yes, language is deficient when it tries to describe God. God substantially and sufficiently communicates His Truths to human beings through propositional language. But when human beings try to describe the weight of the glory of God just through propositional statements, it simply does not suffice. If language had been all sufficient, Paul wouldn’t have had to resort to unutterable groan in his prayers.

I think it is precisely because of this limitations of language that God wants human beings to worship Him not just with words, but with ‘harps and chambals’. So that the music would add more weight to the words and there by human expression of worship would get closer in trying to justifiably describe the ‘weight of God’s glory’. On a side note, it is unfortunate that some contemporary Christians (and Christian song writers) think that we worship God with (good) music because it sounds good in our ears and makes worship a ‘lively’ thing to do. No, I don't believe that, I think,  we worship God with (great) music because the heaviness of God’s glory cannot be worthily  described in words alone, something more of human musical/art expression is needed to (try to) describe the weight of God’s glory. I think Handle Messiah precisely understood this Truth.

In the Messiah, when the word ‘glory’ was sung, Handle often seemed to give the word 'glory' a simple musical tune, he gives it a longer musical inflexion (sorry, limited musical vocabulary) so that the word is not just uttered in ½ a second it would normally take it to be uttered, but is sung for 7 or 8 seconds. Then he feels that this isn’t enough to depict the weight of God’s glory, so he adds some inflexion to the underlying tune which makes it difficult for the singer to sing, after all 'glory' is a 'heavy' word that ought not be lightly sung. Even then, he is not satisfied, so he makes the singer sing g-l-o-r-y and then he again makes the singer repeat again G—L—O—R—Y, adding more weight.

Then, there are places where the phrase ‘glory of the Lord’ occurs. Here he makes the tune and the song to double back on itself (limited musical vocabulary) so that the phrase ‘glory of the Lord’ is sung over and over again. I think there is a point where the phrase is repeated nearly ten times. Because singing it just once, does not sufficiently express the weight that the word deserves. But even after the repetitions, Handle Messiah, rightly, isn’t content, the weight of glory is too heavy, he tunes the repetitions such that the musical ‘four parts’ crescendo occurs exactly when the words ‘glory of the Lord’ is sung.

It appears to me that Handle Messiah appears to have orchestrated the whole of the song to make all the singer and the musicians to GIVE THEIR BEST when the phrase ‘glory of the Lord’ is sung. It only seems right that the word ‘glory of the Lord’ needs to be sung with the BEST of human abilities to (try to) worthily describe the weight of the God’s glory. And perhaps even then the description would be like that of a blind man describing a painting to a man with sight, but at least it wouldn’t be like a man with sight describing a painting to a man who is blind. For when it comes to matters of God, it is prudent to act blind and speak with 'fear and trembling' (as led by the Holy Spirit) rather than assume clear sight and speak folly.

Then I also noticed that similar repetitions happened with a few other phrases as well ‘Behold the Lord’ for one, which is repeated with reverence and awe. In another song ‘Oh, Come let us adore Him’ which is repeated thrice with increasing volume that builds up to a crescendo. Once I understood the reason for the repetitions, I couldn’t help getting overwhelmed with repetitious expressions of the weight of the glory of God. I can understand now why Handel's Messiah, as time consuming as it is, is truly a timeless piece. It cares not for time, it cares only for the 'ordinate' expression of God's glory, and in the process transcends time. How infinitesimal the quantity of 'time' is when compared with the quantity of the 'weight' of God's glory.

My renewed understanding of the need for repetitions and long flourishes and four-part musical crescendos helped me appreciate, immensely enjoy and really be awed at the experience of singing the weight of the glory of the Lord, that by the time we were done with all of the singing and the service was complete, I wanted to do it all over again. I wanted to hear all of the songs sung by the SJD Choir once more so that I would get lost in the gorgeous expression of the overwhelming weight of God's glory. I couldn’t accept the fact that I had to wait for another whole year before I could get to experience this ‘weighty worship’ again. I told myself that I was not going to wait until the next year, I wanted to re-live the experience of the ‘singing the weight of glory’ by writing about it and (trying to) capture it in words, as mediocre and insufficient as my attempt may be.

Psalm 115:1  Not unto us, O LORD, not unto us, But to Your name give glory