A Part in the Story of the Kingdom of God

One of the most fulfilling experiences in life is in observing a life that is being transformed. It is precisely for this reason that watching children grow and transform into adults is an enriching experience. It is worth all the sacrifices involved in parenthood. The Scriptures say that the Lord gave His life on the Cross to transform our lives to better reflect His glory. This is so spectacular that even the Angels are eagerly looking to see how the Lord brings about this transformation and cheer, from the stands in the Heavens, every addition to the Flock.

Often, it is through the experiences of pain, suffering and confusion that the Lord draws people to Himself to start this transformation. Paraphrasing C.S.Lewis, "Pain is the megaphone the Lord used to get our attention". When a gentleman walks into the Teen Pregnancy Centre with the damsel he has got in distress, he finds himself at this point of inflexion. He feels the tug of the Transcended law of love written into his conscience by God. On the other hand, he feels the drag of the ‘fallen’ world overwhelming him into making a choice that is selfish. Some men are visibly shaken, others put up an aura of masculine strength. But deep within they all are anxious and confused wanting a sense of certainty and direction. The male counsellor finds himself looking into the troubled eyes of such a man. Feeling inept, the counsellor prays and allows the Holy Spirit to guide the conversation. At some point the Holy Spirit causes a 'click' in the troubled mind and the clear-sighted light of dawn emerges.

To be able to witness this transforming work of this Holy Spirit first hand, is most fulfilling for the counselor. My most recent experience of such a fulfillment was a couple of weeks ago. I woke up on a Saturday morning, ready with my weekend plans. I wanted to go sit at a Starbucks and read Michael Horton's "Gospel Driven Life". But deep within, I felt a tug to go to the Teen Pregnancy Center instead. I did so. There I had the privilege of counseling and presenting the gospel to two gentlemen. Seeing the Light of the Gospel dispel the anxiety and confusion in them made the Saturday one of the happiest days of my life.

Looking back at the experience, my reward did not come from a sense of satisfaction of having done something good. After all I did nothing, except to show up at the Teen Pregnancy Center with empty hands. The Holy Spirit did all the heavy-lifting. The Holy Spirit creates something Good out of Nothing. He builds the Kingdom of God. My reward was of a different sort. My reward was in being draw me closer to the Lord as a witness of the transforming experience. Witnessing the Kingdom building work of the Lord the Holy Spirit renewed my trust in the power of the Gospel of the crucified Lord. The Kingdom of God is like the most treasured pearl. The Bible says that a wise merchant would sell all of his possessions to acquire the pearl. All I did was to spend a few hours on a Saturday morning volunteering at the Teen Pregnancy Centre. Yet, by the Lord’s grace I was given a part in the Grand Story of the Kingdom of God that the Holy Spirit is working on.

Lord Of The Rings - Off My Bucket-List!!!

Back when 'Lord of the Rings' movies released in 2001 - 2003, I was in India. I very vaguely recall the movie releasing in theaters. Unfortunately, I wasn't that into the world of books to have had an appreciation for anything Fantasy related. In fact, I started Harry Potter in 2002, I read the first page, thought it ridiculous. Closed the book. Never went back. I was THAT naive about fantasy literature. Thanks to my friend Sean Sonki who told me that I would appreciate LOTR movies. I LOVED them. I would watch them once every year. I usually try to watch all three the same day back-to-back so that I have the experience of transcending into the world of Middle Earth.

Everytime I watched them I regretted that I never got to watch them in the movie theatre. So I had it on my bucket-list that someday I'll get to watch the Trilogy in some movie theatre somewhere. I had no idea that that someday would be yesterday and that that some place would be Houston.

For the past month, I have been counting down to June 14th. Almost all my friends in Houston knew that I was going to watch the LOTR. Even if I were to get married, I doubt if I would have publicised it as much. Oh well, perhaps not the marriage, the engagement wouldn't have been as publicized. (I'll let the world know when I get married) :) So finally, on June 14th, my heart was beating a tad bit faster through out the day. It sort of feels AWESOME when you know that you are taking something off your bucket-list, something that is tangible but also transcends into the intangible.

I walked into the Edwards Marquee Cinemas at 6:30 and there was a queue at the counter, which was unusual for a weekday. I had booked my tickets a month in advance the perpetual procrastinator with everything in life not withstanding. After all, one may  not get two chances to check an item off the bucket-list. God knows how on earth I landed in Houston around this time. Nevertheless, I was gonig to make sure I didn't miss LOTR this time around.

There were two guy dressed as the 'Black Riders'. I smiled. I walked into the movie hall with about 15 minutes to spare, but even as I was walking through the narrow corridor, I could hear the murmrous crecendo building up... The auditorium was almost full. The energy was palpable. By the time the movie started I couldn't see a single vacant seat.

The show started with the legendary LOTR director Peter Jackson saying that we were the first people in the world to watch the re-mastered version of LOTR movies, not to mention that they were extended versions too (with some cool extra scenes I had never seen before). Following Peter Jackson's revelation, there was a spontaneous applause. The avid movie goer that I am, the only other time I remember people clappping in the movie theatres in Houston is at the end of 'Inception' where to 'top does not topple' making the end pretty darn ironic and open-ended.

When the applause and hoots had died down, the movie started with Lady Galadriel's melancholic voice, "The world is changed. I feel it in the water. I feel it in the Earth. I smell it in the air". I thought, "Well, this is IT". I know not, how time flew for the next 3 hours and 30 minutes. In spite of having seen LOTR so many times, the scenes were fresh and MOST spectacular. The images got ingrained in my mind all over. I was IN Middle Earth for 3 hours 30 minutes. When the movie was over at 10:30 PM, people applauded again. What a way to get something off the bucket-list.

The truth is, I had never read LOTR. Graduating from college, I decided not to read fiction anymore, unless there was good reason to. About a month ago, I realized that I could take LOTR off my bucket-list. It seemed like a good enough reason to read the Trilogy. A couple of weeks ago, I was at Church reading LOTR on my Kindle and West walked up to me and asked what I was reading. I said LOTR. He replied, "Knowing you, I am surprised, I thought you would have read it long ago". Oh well, I am sort of a late bloomer... Of course I didn't tell him that. After all, I am grateful that I get to read LOTR with quite a few years left in my tweens. :) 

I am not done with LOTR yet. I am just at the point where Sam and Frodo meet Gollum. I kind of slow as I am juggling Horton, Packer and Tolkien. And my favorite character until now is Tree Beard. I fell in love with Tree Beard when he said something like, "Oh well, I don't think anything is worth saying anything unless it is worthy listening to for a long time". Tree Beard is heavenly is that he lives in a 'timeless' world and speaks for a long time. He says his name is long because he has a long history. How SO AWESOME!!! I also love Gimli, he is a man's man and a child's child. He is brave and he blushes. He bows when he greets! And he's got an AAAAxe with strong arms to wield them. You would be hard pressed to find such strength and sweetness mingled in one person.

A week ago, when I told one group of my friends (who knew LOTR forwards and backwards not to mention silmarillion), about LOTR coming back to the theatres, one of the guys said sarcastically, "Who'll want to go and see it?". Another ones rejoinder was, "Oh, Emmanuel for one...". Looking at the packed theatre, I felt vindicated. I was glad that I wasn't the only one who was crazy about the movie form of the timeless Trilogy. 

At the movie theater, even though I didn't know anyone there, except for my friend Allan, there was a sense of kinship with all - a sense of being with Friends who, as C.S.Lewis says in 'Four Loves', are shoulder-to-shoulder seeing the same thing (actually, quite literally in a movie theater). Friends don't look at each other, says Lewis, they sit beside each other shoulder-to-shoulder and look at the same world, eye-to-eye. To be in the midst of such a 'transcended space' and then subtend to the view that human beings endowed with such incredible abilities to create and admire and cherish beauty, came out of chance + time + slime is such an incredible leap of faith.

If the Lord had not made the flower beautiful, where would we have gotten our ability to cherish beauty? If there weren't a Real Other world we could Transcend into someone day, how could we ever TRULY cherish our fore-transcendence into the world of Fantasy? Thank God for putting into the world fallen as it is, the abiltity to fore-transcend to experience the Beauty that awaits us the Timeless Realm of the Lord. After all, Frodo lives in the Realm of the Lord and we shall too!  

Lonesome Dove & (relationally) Spineless Men

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bottle - The Game

I think, just like women love to watch the Royal Wedding, men love playing Brute Sports. I think, just like watching the Royal Wedding gives the ladies a vicarious 'Fairy Talish marrying a Prince' sort of satisfaction, playing brute sports gives men a sort of Herculean satisfaction. Actually, at the GBC Men's Retreat, I thought it was interesting coincidence when the men folk were at Stoney Creek Ranch, the ladies had  Royal Wedding Hat party. This is a sport admiring write-up of a new brute sport I played at the GBC Men's Retreat last week. (Disclaimer: none of the hubbies of the ladies in the Royal Wedding Hat party were 'j's enough to mess with the 'Bottle').

For whole of the past week, I have been meaning to write about the most interesting of all games I have recently played, the 'Bottle'. But I couldn't get to it because I had to wait for my (slightly) mangled wrist (thanks to GBC Men's Retreat Volley Ball and the 'Bottle' games) to get better. Today, when West mentioned in the Sermon that he got the 'J' word for being aggressive at 'Bottle' from one of the affectionate and assertive ladies in the Church staff, my resolve to write this increased. After Church as I was sitting outside reading Michael Horton's "Gospel Driven Life", Wes (I didn't forget the 't' there, this is not West, a different guy) walked up to me and said, "I loved the goal you scored at Bottle. That totally changed the strategy of the game". Then I decided that I had to write about the 'Bottle', tonight.

The 'Bottle' is a game that was played at the GBC Men's Retreat last weekend. Basically, it is a game of Ruby played in a pool with a bottle filled with water instead of an oddly shaped ball. The game mostly has to do with testosterone-driven brute Strength and Determination to not let go of the bottle no-matter-what, even if you are getting strangled beneath a pile of men over you. What makes the game interesting is that underwater, the bottle is almost invisible. There are two teams, two goal posts and only one rule - if a guy stops fighting and goes limp underwater, do the Christian thing and pull him up. I exaggerated it a bit there. Actually, it is not as violent as it sounds.

This being the first time I played 'Bottle', my first reaction was a mile shock (in the last Men's Retreat, I went Skeet shooting instead of playing 'Bottle'). When a guy gets the bottle immediately there appears a pile of male bodies over him trying to take the bottle away. I got into one of those piles and my immediate thought was, "Hmmm, looks like this is an easy way to get a fractured fore arm". At that moment I resolved that my first goal in 'Bottle' was to make sure that I wouldn't have broken bones. My second goal was to come up with a saner 'strategery' for playing the game.

I decided that I was NOT going to get into the pile of brutes. Instead, whenever there was a pile of bodies, I would analyze the pile to see who in the opponent team was the biggest threat to us losing control of the bottle and then go behind him and pull him out of the pile. Sometimes, it had the effect of breaking the pile. I SOOOOO enjoyed that. Pulling a guy who is holding on to the bottle or the guy with the bottle with all strength he can muster gives sort of a testosterone-kick. Basically I grab his wrists and start unwrenching his clasp and then have a mini wrestling match until I have pulled him out completely. Besides the testosterone-kick, the good thing about this is that the chances of a fractured limb is slim. Anyways, I was doing this over and over again and having a great time.

Every now and then the bottle gets lost under the pile of bodies and it is quite some time before folks realize that the bottle is no longer at the center. Then folks have to search for the invisible bottle underwater. It is in one of those moments that I realized that there was an interesting strategy for the game... I was near our team's goal post. Everyone was searching for the lost bottle. I felt something hit my leg I knew it was the bottle. I knew if I disclosed knowledge of my possession I'll be below a pile of male bodies, not a desirable place to be in. I didn't make a noise. I feigned to be searching for the bottle and slowly started zig zagging towards the other goal post.

Everyone was frantically searching. Hiding the smirk, I was gleefully making my way to the goal post. Suddenly, I heard West singing Amy Grant's "Emmanuel.... God with us" over and over again. West has a great instinct for the Bottle. West somehow figured out I had the bottle, body language I suspect. The opponent team sent out a guy to check me out... So this guy comes up behind me and gives me an 'TSA patdown'. He didn't quite check my hand, may be he thought it was too obvious a hiding place. He pronounced me 'clean'.

Better one guy's 'TSA patdown' than a pile of male bodies. Relieved, I continued zig zagging my way to the goal post. I think West was still singing "Emmanuel... ". West was unconvinced. Apparently he can sense the 'Bottle' just like the evil Sauraun can sense the presence of the 'Ring' in the Lord Of The Rings. When I got to the goal post there was none there. I took the bottle from under the water the kept it between the goal post. I could hear the stands erupt with laughter and cheers behind me. WOW!!!

'Bottle' became not just a game of BRUTE strength but of cunning and stealth as well! After all, it is wit that makes the man. Having a water-life of only 15 to 20 minutes, I start getting cramps. At the end of our match, when I got out of the pool with sorely cramped legs, George said you are MVP. I asked what does MVP mean. He said with his usual smirk and cute head-nod, "Most Valuable Player". A compliment from a wounded-warrior to a fellow comrade couldn't be more welcome. When West walked out of the service at Church, I 'got his word' that that he getting the 'J' word wouldn't stop 'Bottle' from being played in the next GBC Men's Retreat. 

Vain men go about doing vain stuff

Vain men go about doing vain stuff

On the day of reckoning we'll see our vain stories

From our story of the Fruit of wisdom  

To the Tower that bears our exalted names

Our vanity making of us, narcissistic zombies

But for the Grace of God who is ultimately Glorified!

The One whose glorious Story, everyone one writes

Even the vain ones doing vain stuff.

Placarding the Crucified!

In the Finals of the very recent Cricket World Cup, when the Legendary Indian Batsman the 'Master Blaster' Sachin Tendulkar got-out at a crucial moment, the British writer Andy Zalthman described the response of the crowd in the Stadium as follows.

A stunned hush clamped the Wankhede (stadium), as if the crowd at one of Jesus’ miracles had just seen their hero turn a sickly child into a mahogany bookcase, and mumble “Oops”, before scuttling off saying, “Same time next week?”

Seen as a piece of literary analogy, I think Andy Zalthman shows his class. But, as to the the spin he has given in portraying Jesus as a sort of Street Magician/Showman, I think his idea of who Jesus is, couldn't be more grossly misconstrued from the Biblical portrayal of Jesus as a 'reluctant' miracle worker (Matt 12:39). 

Back in my college in India, I was known as a Christian. As is often the case, there was a hand full who did not like my Faith. One evening, as I was walking into the Hostel, one of the guy in the antagonistic group said aloud to a few of his friends standing by...

"I often wonder about Christians... They have a Cross because Jesus was crucified on the Cross. What if He had been hung to death, would they worship a 'hanging rope' instead?"

As insinuating as the statement was, not to mention the giggles I could hear behind my back, I couldn't help but be happy about the comment. After all, isn't is awesome that the focus of the latter insinuation was on the Crucified Lord which is central to the Gospel, instead of being on Christ's misconstrued miracle working show business.

As Paul says in 1 Cor 2:2, proclaiming the Crucified Lord is more important to the cause of the Kingdom than any wise words or strategic planning or even an army of the committed. The evangelizing commission of the Christian is to PLACARD the Crucified Lord. But unfortunately, 'Popular' Christianity of the Materialistic 20th and 21st centuries has done a VERY bad job of PLACARDING the Crucified Lord. 

As supernatural as the Birth of Christ is, it is the Death of Christ that simply has no equal. Many religions have some idea of God incarnating in human form. But the idea of God dying  as a criminal in the place of His own Creation is an alien and unpalatable idea. I was speaking with a Muslim friend of mine. He told me that it was blasphemous even to suggest that the Creator can die in the hands of His own Creation, let alone being punished for the sin of the creation. Yet, this sacrilegious death is the fulcrum upon which the Christian Faith rests.

Church needs to PLACARD the Crucified Lord to a society that needs the Gospel. Unfortunately, Christian Tradition of this commercialized century gives more importance to Christmas than to 'Good Friday'. In doing so the image of Christ we PLACARD to the society around us, is more a Santa Claus or a Benny Hinn styled Miracle Performer than the Crucified Lord. A Christian culture that fails to PLACARD the Crucified Lord will eventually find itself conforming to the patterns of the world around it. 

Lessening the emphasis of Christmas and Celebrating Good Friday with greater zeal and fervor would be a good place to start placarding the Crucified Lord to the society that needs Him badly. The Good Friday service which goes on from Noon to 3:00 PM is my MOST Cherished service of the Year. In India, it is also the one of the most attended services. In the far East communities, Good Friday is a huge event with community processions etc... Fortunately, the Episcopal Church I go to in Houston has the Good Friday mass. It has a decent attendance as well. 

But I am shocked to notice that most Churches in Houston don't bother to have such a Good Friday service anymore. Some young committed Christians I spoke to seemed ignorant (or just indifferent) of the Noon to 3:00 PM format of the Good Friday service that is celebrated the world over. The popular culture enthralls itself with Easter Eggs and the Easter Bunny. At work, people wish each other 'Have a great Holiday Weekend'. Christians wish each other 'Happy Easter'. Every one skips 'Good Friday' as though it were something unpleasant to be swept under the carpet. I am little shocked to say the least. It seems to me that the Christian Traditions in the US is sort of upside-down. It seems to me that just as the Disciples deserted Christ when he had to hang for 3 hours on the Cross, most Churches are deserted during the commemoration of those 3 sacrilegious hours the Cosmos cringed witnessing. 


'Good Friday' getting less importance is perhaps just the 'symptom' of a flawed understanding of the centrality of the Crucified Lord to the Gospel. The 'root cause' of this problem of the Crucified Lord being sidelined is because our Church sermons seldom focus the Cross or the Crucified Lord. The Church sermons we hear often belie an 'anxiety' on the part of the Preacher to make the congregation REMAIN STUCK to the Church either by making them 'feel good' and entertained, or by making them 'feel guilty' by hitting them with the law, or by making them 'feel loved' in the propped-up Church community-life. Different people, depending on what their 'psyche' finds 'attractive' remain stuck to some variation of the sorts of 'Crucified Lord-less' Churches just described. If the Church continues to deal with the Crucified Lord as something to be swept under the carpet, it would no longer be the Corner Stone that causes the wise of the wider society to stumble (Rom 9:30-33).

If the Crucified Lord is the one whom we are supposed to PLACARD to the society around us, I can't help but wonder why Good Friday has so much less emphasis than Christmas.   PLACARDING of the Crucified Lord would at the least force the likes of the recalcitrant Zalthmans to deal with the Rock the causes the wise to stumble, instead of giving them a straw man Showman-Christ-figure to use for a punching-back in their Cricket commentaries.  

1 Cor 1
22) Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23) but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles... 25) For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength


Wish you all a Solemn Good Friday and a Joyous Easter!!!

Adoring God!

It is natural for people to talk of God using 'love' for an adjective. 'Love' is the highest ideal that a man can possibly strive for. The famous French Existentialist, Jean Paul Sartre maintained that everything in life was absurd except 'love'. Unfortunately, Love is also the most misused word. Every time I see the usual 'dating sequence' in the movies, Hollywood or Bollywood, where two people go out on a date and then get into the car and the apartment and into the bed all in the name of 'making love', it causes me to cringe within.

The problem with such depictions is not just the that the idea of love is being desecrated but that the popular perception of the what makes for 'cherished companionship' is twisted. This makes it all the more pertinent that when we talk of God, it does not help to just use the word 'love' without giving it the right 'content'. This is very important because the first of the two great commandments is the commandment to LOVE the Lord with all the Heart, Soul and Mind.

Love is the ability to 'value' the person for who the person is. When the person we love is really a Good person, then the manifestation of our 'valuation' of that person turns to Adoration of that person. God is the most Good person ever. So any man who has the right value system can't help but Adore God. The catch here is that no man can have he right value system unless he is indwelt with the Holy Spirit of God, having already been Redeemed by the Righteousness of Christ.

Once a person gets the right value system, he can't help Adoring God for who He is. He can't help Adoring the God who commanded King Saul that not even the animals of the Amalekites should be spared. He can't help Adoring God who allowed the Creation to be cursed at the Fall. This Adoration of God's Judgement on the Fallen world is not some form of sadism, rather it is an appreciation for the Beautiful unfallen world created by the Holy God. The Holiness of the Lord demands that there be judgement on the ones who attempted to desecrate His Holiness. The Admiration for the Holiness of the Lord is what makes His Judgement coming down upon as palpable. 

Of Gods and Men

Finally, I got to see the much looked-forward-to movie, "Of Gods and Men", today. It is a very slow moving and a very deep movie. There were parts of movie where I was almost screaming, "Can't you folks walk a little faster, please... you are wasting my time". Then there were scenes especially the reciting of the creeds, reading of homilies etc... where I was, "Oh... slow down guys, this is too much, too deep and too fast. I need a little more time to allow my mind to dwell upon this meaty matter". This movie is the real-deal. It is about a group of French Monks living in Algeria facing the possibility of obliteration by the Islamic radicals. In 1997, these monks got kidnapped and then killed by the militants.

Walking out of the theater, I realized that, though there were many interesting aspects to the movie worth pondering about, I had to zero in on one and do justice to it. As I was at Starbucks pondering what the theme of the write-up should be I realized that the one Monk I liked the most in the group was Brother Luc an old, fragile, very kind-hearted, yet clear-minded Physician. When the Monks ponder leaving the Monastery in fear of being killed by the militants there is multiplicity of opinions. Brothe Luc though, is consistent throughout. At one point he says, "I will not leave, to leave is to die". At at a later juncture he says, "I am a free man, I don't fear death". The old Brother 'Luc' (pronounced 'look' but as though with a single 'o'), is my hero. I want to write about how the hunch-backed Brother Luc ends up being the towering beacon amidst the tension in the group as the Monks struggle to find their identity and figure out if they should hold their ground and face death or make good their escape.

There is a scene where the Monks are discussing their options with the poor villagers they support. There is a beautiful metaphor and play of words, I need to make a note of at the risk of digressing, for there is much beauty in it.  The monks tell the villagers that they are like a 'bird on a branch' trying to decide whether or not they need to leave. A sharp lady replies, "We are the birds, you are our branch, if you leave, we lose our footing".

If the theme of the entire movie has to be encapsulated in one word, it would be the word 'sacrifice'. Monks are people who are the most sacrificial. They take up a celibate life and help the poor. One might think that it would be natural for such sacrificial folk to face the prospect of the ultimate sacrifice with sober courage. But one couldn't be more wrong. Monks chicken-out too. I was wondering why some Monks didn't flinch and others balked as the prospect of Martyrdom even though both live seemingly equally sacrificial lives. I realized that the key difference between the two groups of Monks lay in what comprises the 'basis' for their commitment to be sacrificial living.

The recurring theme among the Monks who say that they need to leave is that to die holding on to the Monastery would be pointless. It would make better sense to go else where and serve the people there. A young Monk laments that he sees not a 'Purpose' in this martyrdom. He says that ever since he was a kid he wanted to become a missionary, but given the prospect of such an oblivious martyrdom, the question to him is, "Why should I do this?." When probed further he says that when he prays he hears nothing.

This is a sharp contrast to the emphatic statements of Brother Luc. Thankfully, the movie gives at least one clue into Brother Luc's heart that would be sufficient evidence to prevent anyone from concluding that Brother Luc said what he said because he was a brave and noble soul that was bound to go beyond the call of duty. Brother Luc was not impelled by a call for duty. His was a different call. The scene giving a glimpse into Brother Luc's heart comes right at the beginning of the movie. In all of the movie, there is only one scene that appears incongruous to the monastic themes and alludes, a wee bit, to the idea of romantic love. It is a conversation between the grand fatherly Brother Luc and a charming young girl from the village.

The girl and Brother Luc are sitting on a bench leaning on the sun-baked walls of the Monastery. It looks like it is dusk. Both of them are facing the Sun. The girls face beaming in the golden rays of the Sun as she is lost in the idealism of romantic meditations. Brother Luc with a kind face, affectionately hunched next to her, slightly bending towards her, attentively listening to her reveries.

The girl asks, "What does it feel to be in love?". Brother Luc replies, "When you are near the person if your heart beats itself out of your body and the knees buckle... etc you are in love" (this is a paraphrase, I don't recall the exact words). The girl still beaming thinks, cocks her head and asks, "Have you been in love?" Brother Luc chuckles, and replies, "Ooooh... many times... again and again. Until I found the greatest love of all and I RESPONDED to that 60 years ago".

Bingo!!! There you have it - the BASIS for Brother Luc's willingness to gladly make the ultimate Sacrifice. The basis for Brother Luc's sacrifice is a response to the greatest love of his life - the Lord for whose glory he had become a Monk 60 years ago.

The difference between Brother Luc and other monks is that the others sacrificed hoping to find their identity through their own sacrifice. They would sacrifice everything except their identity. They did not have an ulterior basis for their sacrifice, outside of themselves. When they realized that their sacrifice would result in the very loss of the self-identity the sacrifice became pointless. In fact, the very basis for their sacrifice began to work against the zeal for sacrifice. In contrast, Brother Luc's sacrifice was a RESPONSE to a love from outside of him. It was something he couldn't help but RESPOND to. When he knelt down, unlike the young Monk who heard none, Brother Luc felt his heart beat itself into an ecstasy and his knees buckle itself into a posture of penitence. Such was the love that captivated him and set him apart.

I couldn't help but ponder how modern Urban Christendom is so different. What is lost among modern Urban Christians is this sense of sacrificial RESPONSE to the greatest love of all. We are so filled with knowledge of Scriptures and self-seeking-spiritual zeal, that there is little space for Christ and the response of love toward him, consequently no space for sacrifice either. No wonder popular culture thinks of modern Evangelical Christians, irrelevant. 

Growing Old in Two Days

I saw my friend and Bible Teacher MF at Church on Sunday and it seemed that it had been a long time since I had seen him. Then I remembered, to my utter surprise, that I had spoken to him just three day before on Thursday evening. In fact, I had also listened to  his lecture on the Priestly office of Christ. I think the reason for this anomaly is because between Thursday and Sunday, my mind had aged quite causing it losing track of passage of time.

Interestingly, the cause for my mind losing track of time is a by lecture of Michael Horton at the SJD conference. He introduced a new Truth into my mind. This new Truth disturbed some of the old Truths. Then there were some paradigm shifts, causing much change in my mind and its way of perceiving life. This is what I call 'ageing' of the mind. Such ageing happens when one suddenly begins looking a life though a different lens. This quick change in perceptions of life that came over on Saturday, caused an illusion of time moving quickly between Thursday and Sunday.

The Truth that Michael Horton's lecture, which caused some havoc to some well rooted ideas, is the Truth of  the ALL Sufficiency of the Gospel of Christ to win over the Kingdom of God for the Glory of God. This new Truth usurped an old truth in my mind that believed that the Christian HAD to WORK to build the Kingdom of God for the Glory of God. The new disturbing Truth says that the GOSPEL WILL conquer the world for the Glory of God. In other words, it is Christ's Gospel that builds the Kingdom of God, not the Christian. Of course, Christ does His work through Christians. But the key point to be noted is that Faith on this  (disturbing) Truth of the ALL sufficiency of the Gospel of Christ makes the Christian look up at the Gospel to accomplish the Kingdom building, instead of looking up to ones own works.

A Christian is not supposed to build the Kingdom of God through his works, because a Christian doing so  ends up building his own little kingdom instead of building the kingdom of God. The problem with the Church of this time is that it focuses so much on 'programs' to build the Kingdom of God. Someone may object, what is wrong with the Church focusing on programs? After all, we need programs to care for the poor and oppressed, right? Hmmmm... Yes, but not quite. The Church should focus on the Gospel and the work of Christ through the Gospel in the life of a Christian 'freeing' him to fulfill the Law - to love God and love Neighbor. This free Redeemed Christian will go and love his Neighbor and become a reflection of Christ to his neighbor and thus the Neighbor will have a chance to see Christ and be drawn by His Glory. Thus the Kingdom of God is built through the 'Gospel-created Neighbour-loving Christian'. The Church instead of getting this Gospel right, is focusing on techniques and programs consequently the Christian is Christless and loveless. No wonder popular culture views Evangelical Christians as a bunch detached bigots.

Through all of this my personal take-away was that my focus needed to move away from what I can do for the Kingdom of God towards what Christ can do in me to make me Christ-like and help me fulfill the 'law of love'. When I saw my friend M on Sunday, my mind did not as it originally did, perceive him through the lens - 'Oh-if-only-I-was-as-knowledgeable-as-M,-I-could-really-be-a-builder-of-the-Kingdom-of-God'. Instead, my mind just wondered at God, for all that the Gospel of the Crucified Lord is doing through M. And was grateful to God for what the Gospel of Christ was doing in me. Michael Horton's message helped me see the world through the 'Gospel-winning-the-Kingdom-through-me' lens instead of the 'me-winning-the-kingdom-through-the-Gospel' lens. Boy, did I grow old in two days!

Adjustment Bureau Makes Predestination Palpable?

Adjustment Bureau is not-so-well-made movie about a very interesting idea. I love movies which are based on complex ideas. I couldn't help being drawn towards this movie because it depicts the tension between Free Will and Predestination. But I think the movie didn't capture the tension as well as it could have. Free Will' is about man having the free ability to make his choices. 'Predestination' is about God deciding what human beings would choose.

In 'Adjustment Bureau', the world has two groups of people the Human Beings and then the secretive Adjusters. Both look human. The Adjusters live much longer lives than human and have seemingly Super Human powers within the Natural realm of life to control human destiny. The Adjusters makes sure that Human Beings use their Free Will in a safe way. In other words, they make sure that Human Being don't end up abusing their 'free will' to, for example, destroy life to the point of extinction. When things go out of control, these Adjusters intervene with Human Choice to make things go 'as per plan'. Whenever there is a glitch in the plan, a new plan is created to counteract the imbalance.

Congress man David Norris (Matt Damon) is a man who according to 'Plan' is destined to become the President. A prior glitch in the plan caused a change of his sweet heart, a beautiful Ballerina. He was supposed to fall in love with the Ballerina, but because of the glitch in the plan the Chief Adjuster decides that David Norris and the Ballerina shouldn't fall in love. As per revised plan, he is not even supposed to meet her, except once. The Adjusters are supposed to make sure things go as per plan. But this revised plan has a glitch too, he meets her more than once and both fall irrevocably in love. The Adjusters try to intervene to keep them apart. And the battle continues... not as engagingly as you would think it ought to be.

Anyways, the movie is interesting because the counter-cultural idea that there are Super Powers exercising control over human lives is made palpable. In a Naturalistic age (one believes that only what one can see/touch is real), this idea of Super Natural control is not just considered as radical but stupid. People may quite legitimately comment that a movie such as Adjustment Bureau cannot prove or disprove the existence of the Super Natural. I would agree. But I think, to blithely brush the idea of the Supernatural gaining credence off, may be akin to missing the forest for the trees.

I think the reason why the modern progressive culture does not give credence to the supernatural is because modern presuppositions about life does not even allow the urban progressives to even consider the plausibility of the Super Natural. I think movies such as Adjustment Bureau tend to work on the sub-conscious presuppositions of the mind and creates a more favourable disposition in the mind towards the plausibility of the Super Natural. Brining about such a change of modern man's presupposition about the plausibility of the Super Natural may be the key to help him ask better questions about God and the Super Natural world. As against, insisting as Richard Dawkins and his ilk do, that any talk of God and the Super Natural is patently incredulous.

The Home

A Two-story town house

A Lawn in front, two cars and two dogs

The aspired home?

Happy college, ample party

Simple work, cool salary

Uncomplex life, brimming affluence?

A peaceful retirement

Friends and Friendlessness

A vapid life, lived to the hilt?

O vain soul, remember in Thy youth

Thou art a King’s Son

Caring for Thy Father’s Kingdom

Look Thou beyond Thy mud-pie aspirations

Unto the storied Home above

Of the King Thou owest Thy allegiance to.

An Evening with Kids - A Need for Human Investment

I went with my Church friends to the Star of Hope school in Houston to spend sometime with little kids studying there. We played with the kids, fed them and just interacted with them. My first impression of the place was surprising. I was filled with a sense of theological inadequacy. There were four kids on my table coloring a picture of Jesus talking with the kid giving 4 loaves and 2 fish. A 6 year old was asking questions about Jesus and even before I could think of what to say, another 6 year old and 7 year old started  to answer. They recited an entire thesis of who Jesus Christ is starting from Him being God to Him forgiving sins to Him taking us to Heaven. I realized that I, with my slow thinking mind, couldn't have packed in so few words with, so much Truth, in such a short time. I had to pause, take a deep breath and tell myself, "Ok, Dude... Step Up!!! you are with a bunch of very smart people". I can't remember the last time I felt so theologically inadequate.

Looking back, this evening's experience was marked by two noteworthy poignant observations. The first was with a 7 year old kid at my table. As I said, my table had really smart kids who were so conversant about many things that I had to step up to keep up. One of the smart ones 7 year olds, I'll call Tom (fake name) asked me how his crayon coloring looked. I said it looked cute. Then he looked at me and said, "People will grown only when God wants them to grow". I couldn't understand why he said so. I was a little bit confused. My philosophical mind started wondering if Tom was trying to say something about the doctrine of Predestination. I looked at him. He said with sad eyes, "My Doctor told me that I will not grow big like everybody else". I still remember how sad his eyes looked when he said that to me. Wanting to encourage him, I said that he will grow big. He replied, "No my Doctor says I will not". When Tom got down from the chair, I could see that he was short for his age. When Tom's mother came to pick him up, she seemed like a short lady too. Somehow, it was ingrained in Tom's mind that, "God did not want him to grow". I wanted to  dispel the ingrained idea. But I did not know how. Tom's sad eyes remained in front of my eyes. The kid was very smart. I also think he has artistic talents. His coloring of the picture showed a lot of maturity for his age, from his choice of colors to his strokes. I wish SOMEONE would INVEST time with Tom to help him understand that life is complex and that being short isn't something to be sad about, lest the sadness in his eyes should result in an indelible scar in his heart sapping him off his ability to live life to all its fullness as promised by the Saviour.

The second poignant moment was when when we were returning from playing some outdoor games with kids. The kids ENJOYED holding hands with some of us as we walked. Two girls who were 8ish were holding each of the hands of one of the ladies in our group. Just then one of the girls Tiffany (fake name) said, something like, "my socks is hurting me". What the little girl said did not make sense to the lady whose hand she was holding or to me. The other girl immediately said, "Oh, she just wants someone to carry her in their arms". What happened there was a classic case of 'Transaction Exchange' which the Psychologist Dr. Eric Berne talks about in his book, "Games People Play". He says, the human beings seldom expose their deeper needs, they say one thing to get something else. People who know them personally, quickly assess their real need and respond to that. The other 8 year old knew the Tiffany enough to know her deeper need. Dr. Eric Berne says in the same book that people play such games so that they get 'stroked' emotionally and/or physically by other people. He goes on to say that the NEED for 'stroking' and the FULFILLMENT of that need is what keeps a human being full of life. He says that if a new born kid were to be left alone without the 'stroking' of another human being, it would actually die. I wish SOMEONE would INVEST time with the likes of the 8 year old to fulfill the deep need to be 'stroked' emotionally and physically, lest she should search for it ways that would end up with her getting exploited in the cruelest way possible.

When I came back home as I was reminiscing upon my experience, I was reminded of something Franky Schaeffer, the son of (my favorite Author) the great Francis Schaeffer said in his book, "Sham Pearls For Real Swine". He says that the person who said that parents need to spend 'quality time' with kids should never be allowed to become a psychologist (I improvised the last part of that sentence, I don't think Franky would disagree though). Franky goes on to emphasis that Parents need to INVEST not just a 'quality time' but A LOT of time with kids. He says, "You have to beg, borrow and steal family time from the world bent upon distracting you from the most important things in life".

When Parents do not INVEST A LOT of time with kids - to attend to their deepest needs, dispel their deep insecurities, help them see the world from a Scriptural perspective, SOMEONE else needs to step-in and do that. If none does that, this generation is sowing seeds for the destruction of the culture that has given us so much freedom, security and privileges. The problem with the education system for our kids does not just have to do with the lack of funds or the selfish attitudes of unions or the lack of committed teachers. The problem is that our society does not value children as much as it ought to. We don't look at children as souls that need to be nurtured to shoulder the weight of this Civilization. Instead we look at them as 'material' beings that need non-human attention of the Wii and/or TV and/or Toys.

One of my very theologically sound friends whom I respect a lot looked at the flat-screen TV at his home and said to me, "This is my son's baby sitter". To give him the benefit of doubt, I think it was part joke and part truth. My heart couldn't be more pained, hearing that. I couldn't blame my friend either. We live a complex life with so much fighting for our attention. But THIS is not a battle we can afford to lose. Jesus Christ made time for kids when the Disciples thought He had better things to attend to. Jesus knew that kids needed HUGE Human Investment, this generation does not. This civilization will pay the price unless SOMEONE 'Steps UP'!

Captain Nemo, Nataulius And the Search for the Good and the Transcended

Google doodle of a few weeks ago reminded me of Jules Verne's birthday. I began reminiscing about my experience reading him. I read Jules Verne's "20 Thousand Leagues Under The Sea" and "Journey to the Centre of the Earth" during my teens. I liked the former better. The appeal to "20 Thousand Leagues Under the Sea" is Captain Nemo and the indestructible "Nautalius". Captain Nemo is the Robin Hood of the seas. Nautalius is his submarine that becomes his instrument of mercy and justice.

When I was reading "20 Thousand Leagues Under the Sea", during my more impressionable years, I couldn't help but believe that Captain Nemo and Nautalius were actually real. I thought and earnestly hoped that they existed somewhere deep in the world of the unknown.

I think there are two reasons for my incredulity. One, I saw the story as a validation of a strong urge to believe that there was more to the world than meets the eye. Two, a brave man using his brilliance and industry to outwit tyrants and help the poor was too good a story to not want it to be true.

At one level, the story is about escapism from reality above the surface of earth. At a deeper level, it is a story of transcendence beyond the mundane reductionism of life above the surface. When much of modernism is reductionistic in its outlook, believing only that which can be touched and seen to be real, Nataulius gives  hope for man to enlarge his vision to give credence to 'fantasy' - the unseen as part of his reality of life. In essence, my teen fascination with Captain Nemo belied a deep need for that which is good and that which has an element of transcendence beyond the qutodian.

But then, the naive admiration for Captain Nemo turned to horror when I came to the part of the story where Captain Nemo cold-heartedly tropedos a cruise ship belonging to the tyrant Nation he hates. Jules Verne describes in revitting language different states of animated drowning of the innocent passengers of that ship. Then I realized that Captain Nemo was really a tyrant in his own right and my fascination turned to disappointment and sorrow. Captain Nemo was too good to be true that he couldn't be true.

The very reason why we have the phrase 'too good to be true' is because there is none who is truly good. Even good people have, deep in them, evil urges which surfaces at some point. At that point the dreams get shattered. After all, we live in a FALLEN world. History is replete with such shattered dreams, from the Enlightenment driven French Revolution becoming a blood bath to Van Gogh committing suicide because he was too sensitive to tolerate the materialistic world around him. 

Disappointments not withstanding, man still has the deep urge to pursue that which is good and that which gives him a taste of transcendence. C.S.Lewis says, "that I am hungry probably means that there is some real thing called food." That we deeply hunger and thirst for goodness and transcendence in life probably means that there is some real Thing that is Good and Transcended.

My fascination and hope that Captain Nemo and the Natualius were real, was really my yearning for the Real Good and the Truly Transcended - God. Ultimately it is in the fascination, adoration and worship of God that man's need for the really Good and truly Transcended satisfied. 

My Valentine Meditations - On the Missing Valentine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rabbit Hole - Small 's' science and Small 'g' god

Rabbit Hole is a moving account of how a young couple deal with the loss of their little son. The movie is real depiction of complicated emotions accompanying grief and guilt. The husband and wife have different ways of dealing with grief which cause them to drift apart from each other. The husband relives the memories of his son whereas the wife wants to erase anything that would remind her of her son. The husband religiously attends trauma management classes, whereas the wife avoids them and withdraws into herself.

There are multiple levels at which the movie is emotionally complex. As the husband and wife drift apart, the husband feels attracted to another dovorciee. The wife, Nicole Kidman, develops an affection for the teenager. Kidman's mother too lost her son. She found her comfort in the Church and tries to get Kidman to go and find solace in religion.

God-talk enervates Nicole Kidman. She thinks people who depend on God for comfort are weak and naive and delusional. In one of the trauma  management classes, one of the other couples says, "God took our daughter because He needed a little Angel". Nicole Kidman spits out a reply, "If God wanted an Angel, why couldn't He make one for Himself". The couple look confused as though that thought had never occured to them.

Kidman resists every attempt made my her husband and mother to help her get over her reclusive self-destructive proclivities. After much emotional wrangling between the husband, mother and sister, Nicole Kidman realizes she needs some kind of novelty to relieve herself. She finds a sense of novelty in a complicated friendship with the teenager whose car had run-over her son, while he was chasing their dog across the street.

Friendship with this teenager gets her introduced to the idea of 'Parallel Universes'. 'Parallel Universe' is a scientific hypothesis that just like this universe that we live in, there are other parallel universes where events may occur in a different way. The teen explains that Nicole Kidman's son may still be alive in another parallel universe. This thought that her son may be alive on another universe gives her the comfort she was seeking.

She asks the teenager if parallel universes were true. He replies, "it is basic science, it is about whether you want to BELIEVE in it". There is no 'hard' proof for the existence of parallel universes. But if one wants to 'believe' in them one can. She believes in the theory of Parallel Universes and feels her burden lift. One may ask what difference does it make if one were to believe that the dead kid lives in a Parallel Universe or in Heaven. From a scientific perspective, not much, actually. Both in one sense are unfalsifiable theories.

The movie highlights a poignant irony. Some people find comfort in god others find comfort in science. But the kind of God  and the kind of Science they believe in is small 'g' god and and small 's' science. It is something that exists 'only in the mind' of the 'believer'. They get themselves to believe in whatever they want, whether it be their small 'g' god wanting little kids for Angels or their small 's' science creating parallel universes where dead kids live. The only criterion is whether or not it gives them comfort in facing the painful questions of life. They are just 'personal truths' which aren't universally true. 

In the movie, after finding her comfort in small 's' science of Parallel Universes and realizing that her novelty with the teenage was fleeting, she goes back to her husband and decides to start DOING SOMETHING to get involved again in normal life - hosting parties smiling at people and playing along.

This movie reflects the mantra of this age - Existentialism which says, "BELIEVE in anything that makes sense whether it is small 's' science or small 'g' god to quell the sense of loss. Then, DO SOMETHING that gives you a sense of novelty and self-worth and tarry through the pain of living this absurd life with as much sense of normalcy as possible".

The lead-up to the last scene of the movie is a party hosted by Nicole an her husband where there is much activity and everyone is smiles. As the party and festivities fade, the final shot of the movie is the emptiness and the unanswered angst in the face of the couple.

Existentialism can never give real answers, it can only give a temporary relief. Real answers can only be found in big 'G' God and big 'S' Science' which are not 'consoling figments of imagination' (personal truths) but are a part of the disturbing REALITY out THERE that has been revealed and discovered. Belief in 'G' God and 'S' Science implies that THERE is Truth out THERE which one has to submit to it. Most people find this submission disturbing and would rather live in the meaningless pain temporaly comforted by 'personal truths', rather than submit to the Truth out THERE and re-orient their life to the transcended Vision depicted by the Truth.

The Fighter – From Futility to Freedom

The movie, 'The Fighter' is intense, cruel, depressing, uplifting and well made. It is based on a true story of human depravity, futility and redemption with a very subtle but pervasive dose of Irish Catholicism and piety. It is based on the autobiography of the boxer Micky Ward whose life as a boxer had a remarkable turnarounds.

Micky has the family which is a bunch of lazy step-sisters and a junkie step-brother Dicky (boxing trainer junkie) and a shrewd step-mom and dad none of whom really have much of a livelihood except to live off the money Micky makes fighting. Micky's step-brother , Dicky, was himself a boxer once and taught Micky boxing. Step-mom sets up matches for Micky whenever the family needs money, sometimes knowingly sending him to matches which are bad for his career and health. Dicky is Micky's trainer. Dicky seldom shows up for training because much of his time is spent in a crack-house with his junkie friends, almost always high with dope. Dicky a one time boxing champ, is now a dope addict and has a 5ish son who lives with step-mom and sisters. Micky has a daughter who lives with his ex-wife and her husband. You couldn't find a more broken family.

Micky's family is emotionally manipulative in living off Micky. Do their best to give an impression that they are a dotting family and are doing everything for Micky's best interests. Micky gets a new bartender girlfriend who fights (literally) against his family to extricate him from them and help him get on his own. Micky ponders detaching himself from the family much to the chagrin of his step brother Dicky, step-mom and step-sisters. Dicky's dope gets him in trouble. Micky in trying to help Dicky, gets his hand broken. Dicky lands in the prison. Micky’s career seems over.

With Dicky in prison, with his girlfriend’s support Micky gets a new start. There is a sense of normalcy and hope. But Micky realizes that as broken was Dicky was he was his best trainer. Dicky comes out of prison, and the destructive family dynamics return. Micky's step-Mom, Dicky, Micky's girlfriend take it on each other. Each of them tries to prove how so important they have been to Micky’s life and how they did what was best for Micky. Being unable to really prove their point, they get angry and indignant with each other and they all of them desert Micky.

Then comes a seminal moment when Micky's step-mom, Micky's brother, Micky's girlfriend get to see the utter depravity in their own selves. They realize how they in trying to appear to help Micky were really only trying to get to achieve their own selfish ends. Dicky only sought to re-establish his boxing career upon Micky’s accomplishments. Micky's step Mom supported Micky so that through him her dope addicted real son Dicky would have a second chance at life. They also wanted money from Micky’s fights. For Micky's broken 'treated-like-s***' bartender girlfriend, Micky was her best shot at life. If he failed, she too would lose her only chance for a better prospect in life.

This self-deprecating introspective realization starts with Dicky kneeling down in a dark passage in the prison and praying to God to give him a second chance. The introspective turn of events help each of them see their utter depravity, see how broken and in need of redemption they themselves are. Knowing who they REALLY are, they become more humble less overbearing.  Thus they become 'free' to try to do only their ‘little’ part to help Micky. Micky gets freed to be the best he can be. The rest is history.

Just like the Orwellian 'double-speak' human beings do a 'double-think'. They can really get themselves to think that they are helping someone when in truth they are only trying to help themselves. Their conscious mind thinks one thought (which makes them think they are selfless), but the unconscious thinks another 'repressed' selfish thought that serves the opposite interest. This unconscious selfish thought is repressed by another thought - that they are basically good people who have good attractive qualities which they think they can use to help others. They cannot see the duplicity in their seemingly selfless motives, unless they are willing to acknowledge the truth that there is nothing about them that is really good or attractive.

This is a deeply Christian principle that man is so deeply marred by the Fall and that he is so broken that even his best intentions and motives are colored by his deeply selfish nature. Christian theology calls this 'total depravity'. Only when man realizes that he is 'totally depraved' and so really needs help from God to become righteous, he is freed from his depraved self-seeking self and his redemption starts.

'The Fighter' depicts this cycle from futility to freedom so beautifully. There is initially the phase of 'double-think' and accompanying clash of selfish interests and self-exalting attitudes ultimatelyresulting in futility. Then there is a phase of realization of the deep ‘total depravity’ and submission to God following which is redemption and truer love, better community and gratitude towards God and life.

Thoughts on NTY Marriage Story Feature

New York Times has a weekly section on marriage which features the best marriage story among the ones submitted. Except when NYT wants to get some controversy raising attention, the marriages couples who have warm fluffy love stories are featured. Last week's feature unleashed a tirade of comments across the blogosphere about how despicable the feature was. It was the marriage of a former NBC anchor Carol Anne Riddell and the handsome president of media sales John Partilla, President of Global Media Sales.

It is a case of two divorcees gettting remarried. Divorcees getting remarried is a good thing. Sometimes, people get married to the wrong people and it would do much better for them and their kids to seperate rather than to be abused. But what was really noteworthy about this divorce and remarriage is that there was no history of abuse or ostentatious incompatibility in their original marriages, the reason why they divorced is because after having been married to a person for more than 10 years and having kids, these people suddenly realized that they were in love with someone else. But this is not the cause for the anger unleashed.

The story goes like this... Two families were friends who were going places from Restuarants to Vacations together for a few years until one of the spouses in each of the families get 'hitched' with each other and decide to dump the other spouse. The four people have 5 children between them. Basically Mr and Mrs. Ennis and Mr. and Mrs. Partilla are good friends until Mrs. Ennis and Mr. Partilla decide to get married and then dump their respective spouses. The dumped Mr. Ennis is himself a media executive who has held high-level jobs at IAC and News Corp and is now head of the digital media practice at the investment bank Petsky Prunier. The Ex Mrs. Partilla is a high level media executive as well.

We live in a world were somewhere between 1 in 2 to 1 in 3 marriages end up in divorce. I am sure this sort foursome scandals has happens quite a bit. But two reasons make this news feature infamous. One, the gumption that this couple had in sending their story to be featured the New York Times unmindful of the hurt it may cause their their ex-spouses and kids. Two, the notorious decision taken by NY to post it without even fact-checking with the ex-spouses. I don't intend to analyse NYT's motives, afer all the media loves to grab attention, besides NYT has a liberal worldview.

What stuck me most was the justification given the couple for their childishly selfish behavior. I wonder what made them think their story was an exemplary case of courage and bravery as exemplified in the comments below. I wonder what gave them a sense of entitlement to admiration of the readers.

Partilla says, “I didn’t believe in the word soul mate before, but now I do". Caroll says, “He said, ‘Remind me every day that the kids will be O.K.,’ I would say the kids are going to be great, and we’ll spend the rest of our lives making it so.” She adds, “I came to realize it wasn’t a punishment, it was a gift,” she said. “But I had to earn it. Were we brave enough to hold hands and jump?”

Having assumed that they have earned the readers admiration for being brave, they now indulge in quite a bit of self-pity feeling entitled to empathy.

NYT says, "As Mr. Partilla saw it, their options were either to act on their feelings and break up their marriages or to deny their feelings and live dishonestly. “Pain or more pain,” was how he summarized it."

It is incredible that it was lost on them that they acted like kids who want to 'feel good' play and dont want to work hard at homework. They shun pain and want to do what makes them feel good with a mypoic view of only their own self-interest, causing pain to their ex-spouses who did not abuse them and their kids who were not abused in their original marriages either. They want the world to applaud them for yeilding their childish 'feel good' proclivities.

Caroll says, “My kids are going to look at me and know that I am flawed and not perfect, but also deeply in love,” she said. “We’re going to have a big, noisy, rich life, with more love and more people in it.”

Actually, in the photograph of cake cutting at the reception where the five children are pictured, the face of the eldest girl who is probably 12ish is void of any clear emotion except may be angst. The stark fact is that Caroll's sentiment of 'deeply in love' is directed at none except her own feelings of love. This is the kind of immaturity that Shakespeare describes as 'love loves love'.

Mr. Partilla feels that "...options were either to act on their feelings and break up their marriages or to deny their feelings and live dishonestly".

It is intresting that the couple associate dishonesty with a feeling rather than their 'unprovoked' betrayal of their original spousal commitment. When there was no abuse in their original marriage, that they betrayed their committment to their spouse isn't seen as being dishonest by these 'blind lovers'. It is incredible that to excersice some 'self-control' over their 'frivolous' feelings is seen as being dishonest. Aren't self-control and honesty virtues which go hand in hand?

I wonder what they tell their kids when the kids 'feel' like they want to always play pingpong video games and eat french fries and avoid the pain of doing homework and eating healthy. Would they encourage their kids to just be 'true' to the feelings and avoid all hardwork so that they wouldn't be dishonest to the way the feel about things??? Or would they teach them the virtue of self-control???

Interestingly, they are not alone in their skewed idea of dishonesty which is contained only within the realms of their feelings and has nothing to do with their commitment to a person. One of the very few bloggers who supported them said, "...I feel encouraged to see that they are loyal to how they feel".

Until quite recently, Loyalty was something that can only be attributed to people. Would loyalty have the same meaning even if it attributed to non-personalities? Perhaps, it seems only right that after  having desecrated the virtue of honesty, in the same vein, they should extend it to the other age-old virtue like loyalty. Of course, unsaid, the virtue of love has been desecrated the worst of all. When 'feelings' takes precedence to Truth there is no saying where it goes.

This is a malady of the age we live in - The Age of Sentimentality. It is an age where we give an inordinate importance to how we feel about things. Unlike our ancestors, our greatest goal in life isn't aligning our life to the Truth of life, rather we pursue a 'feel good' factor about life. Steve Jobs in one of his interviews said it best, "I don't care about what is right or wrong, I care about success". In fact, the reason (apart from rigid i-phone protocols) why i-phones aren't used it the corporate world is becuase they aren't robust equipments, they just 'feel good'.

Back in those days when families were still stable and psychatrists weren't in much demand, people had a sense of what the Truth was, they tried to align their life to the Truth. Self-control was a virtue because it helped them align their life to the right way to live. But now, we live in a post-modern (hyper-modern) world and so Truth is relative. When Truth becomes relative, feelings take precedence. The result is the 'abolition of manhood' and move back to 'childishness'.

C.S.Lewis said in his book, 'The Abolition of Man' says that our generation is creating men without chests. Humankind has a chest and a spine so that they can go against their basal instinct and put the interest of their kids and spouses above their own and be truly loving and develop character. Once we loose our handle on absolute Truth and relegate right and wrong to the realm of frivolous feelings, we are sowing seeds for decadence of our civilization because none of the virtues that make man a man means anything anymore except how they make you feel at different points in time. I believe it is in this vein that G.K.Chesterton said, "A civilization can stand in one angle, and fall in every other. We are now testing angles."

The entitlement that this couple have to be admired and empathized with after having acted so immaturely following their feelings, is symptom of a decadence that has set in our civiliation. When sentiments and feelings to take precedence over Virtues and Truth, man loses his manishness. When man loses his God given manish nature, the civilization he creates begins to die, albeit a slow death.

Secretariat - The Dilemma between Family and Legacy

I admire horses. In fact the very reason why I ride the Motorcycle is because the Motorcycle is the closest modern man can get to riding a horse. It is common probably knowledge that 'Secretariat' is an excellent movie about the most legendary Horse that ever lived. Here, I do not want to write about the obvious. I want to write what the movie has to do the dilemma that most people face between caring for family and following life's passion.

The movie has a spin that makes the viewer realize that the real hero of the movie is not the horse but its owner, Debbie. The movies starts off showing her as a home maker with a successful attorney for a husband and four kids, two of them adolescent, one of them almost outright rebellious, all of them still in school. Debbie is at a stage in a woman's life where the demands of the family is more than the demands of any full time career.

Unexpectedly her mother dies, and she goes back to her parent's ranch . She remembers the tender memories of her childhood with the horses and how her father loved them and was so proud of the legacy of having bred the finest horses. Her brother suggests that they sell off the horses with the ranch, pay the taxes and continue on with their own lives. Being a Harvard economists, he sees liquidation of assets as economically most sensible. Debbie a plain a simple homemaker, with a heart for horses, is unwilling to let the legacy of her father fade into oblivion.

She remembers her father telling her about horse racing, "it is not about whether others think if you have won. It is not even about whether you think you have won." She wants to attempt to build upon the legacy of her father. This means that she has to spend time in the ranch away from her family. Her dilemma is between catering to the demands of her family and building upon her father's legacy.

She chooses to make her father's legacy her own. Consequently, she shuttles between the Ranch and her family for many years. The Ranch looses money, the horses do not have a good trainer and she misses not being with her teenage daughters who are becoming more beautiful by the week. She cries over the phone, she cries in her bed alone, for missing the most important moments in her kids life. But her passion to keep the legacy alive keeps her going.

Her husband tells her that she can't have her spending his money on something that seemed only to be a huge drain. She hangs up the phone. It is at this stage that her brother makes a second attempt to convince her to sell off the ranch and the horses and get back to her "long neglected 'duty' as a mother and a wife". She replies, "Next time you talk to me about my duties as Mother and a Wife, you'll be a stranger to me".

Her life is split between her home and the Ranch for about three years and she against all odds, breeds the most legendary Horse that ever raced in recorded history. Her 'Secretariat' becomes a National Phenomenon. I was talking to someone at Church and he told me that he remembered the horse 'Secretariat' when he was a kid.

As I was watching the movie, I realized that the suspense wasn't really about the horse. I knew the horse would win, after all there cannot be a movie if it didn't. I was really curious to know how choosing the tougher option between family and her legacy affected Debbie's relationship with the family.

Her husband loving as he is, is getting impatient. I was brazing myself for a confrontation and a breakup in that family, similar to the one that happens  in the movie, "Nothing But the Truth", where a female reporter takes a stand upholding a journalistic principle and pays a huge price. She gets pilloried for sticking too much to her passionate principles and being a unfit mother and wife. Eventually, her husband dumps her. But this never happens in 'Secretariat'.

What happened in 'Secretariat' is beautiful. The result of her choice and shuttling between priorities, initially appears to have the effect of being estranged from the family but as time passes, her passion and legacy gets 'inherited' into her family. Her husband and children 'share' into the legacy she is building. The kids are overjoyed about the 'Secretariat'.   They are proud that their mother was bequeathing to them a great legacy. Her husband is at her back. Even her brother realizes that she made the right choice. She is known in the racing circles as the most attractive owner any horse ever had.

I think, herein lays the answer to the dilemma that many face when it comes to being with family and following ones passion. The essence of family is 'sharing'. All our successes, joys and sorrows are 'shared' and that sharing is what gives meaning to life. There are times when someone in the family feels a deep passion for something, at such times, a family that is true to its essence of 'shared experiences' can be a source of strength and meaning (not a liability) to helping that person to 'move out' achieve that which is passionately pursued and make that a part of their 'shared' legacy.

I believe family has this unique characteristic because the family was created by God to be a well-spring of joy and strength that results from shared experiences which becomes the 'bedrock' for men and women to 'move out' into the world and exercise their dominion over it making life more beautiful and more cherished for many, and most specially for the family itsef.

God Himself has His essence in the 'shared' experiences of His Triune nature (Father, Son and Holy Spirit). The Triune fellowship is His well-spring of joy. In fact, when God created the world, He did not just say, "I created the world". He rather said, "Let US create...", true to His Triune shared creative experience. He 'imputes' into the family, a part of the divine nature of being strengthened by 'shared experiences' and 'moving out' to create a legacy.

The family is thus a reflection of God's Triune nature of shared experiences and creative legacies. That is the reason why God wants family and procreation to be sacred rites. In as far as a family reflects the 'shared' experience within and 'moving out' - the creative legacy of the Triune nature, it shall be the most beautiful transcended experience of life. One does not have to chose between family and legacy. Rather, they mesh with each other and enrich each other as a true reflection of the Triune Creator's nature manifested through creative legacy strengthened by shared experiences.

Narnai - Voyage of the Dawn Trader

Just watched Narnia - Voyage of the Dawn trader - midnight show at Marquee - the first show in Houston theaters. In the first few minutes, I was a little disturbed that the screen writers had excersiced their artistic liberty quite a bit and I was afraid which part of the movie they would end up butchering... Now that I have seen the entire movie, I can affirm that my fears were unfounded. Indeed, the screen play writers have done a really good job in striking the balance between making the movie exciting and still holding on to the spirit of the Narnia Seriese.

I do wish the screen writers had not meddled with Aslan's stealthy appearances depicted in the book, but not much of a reason to be disappointed. I think the part where Edmund and Caspian turn against each other and how Aslan makes his fearsome presence felt shouldn't have been taken out of the movie. On the other hand, Aslan appearing in the mirror in Lucy's dream was quite a bit of digress from the book, but was most welcome.

The movies portrayal of the 'green mist' exposing human vulnerability was a brilliant improvisation of the book's 'darkness', which really tied the narrative together in a way that I think book does not. The 'grey mist' representing evil brings back the traitorous ambition of old evil witch into Edmund's conscience and the wanting to be 'materially' valuable into Lucy's.

I was glad Aslan's parting words, "In the other world I am known by a different name. The very reason you were brought into Narnia was so that you'll know me a little here, and better there.", was unaltered. After all, at the end of the day those are the words that give the Narnia the meaning that makes it eternally beautiful and true, Right?

Next Three Days – Love of God

I just saw (actually 4 days ago) the newest Russell Crowe movie ‘Next Three Days’. It is a intense thriller. After watching the movie I drove around the 40 mile 610 loop, among other things, reflecting on the movie and how it depicts the love of God.

In the movie, Russell Crowe’s wife gets arrested for a murder. She gets incarcerated because all evidence is against her. Russell is the only one who believes in her innocence. Incriminating evidence seals her doom. He vows to bring her out of prison. The wife, already suffering from a bit of inferiority complex goes into a self-destructive cycle. The more her tries to help, the more she resists and is spiteful. But still Russell perseveres believing in her innocence and tries to free her. She attempts suicide. He does not give up, he is at her bedside. 

This is amazingly similar to the love of God. In the Bible, God relates with man in a Father-Son relationship. But there is another very important, but less talked about, facet which is the Groom-Bride relationship. God is the Husband, human being is His Bride. He loves His Bride with an everlasting love. Even when we are spiteful and angry and allow our feelings of insecurity and inferiority to destroy us, He never gives up on us. Even if we decide to give up on us and attempt suicide, He never gives up on us. No matter how much we resist His plans for our freedom, He’ll not give up on us.

The wife has accepted her doomed life in the prison. She then realizes that only way to get him off his pointless endeavor to free her is to lie to him that she committed the crime. She does that. He does not flinch. He trusts her so much that he reaffirms her worth. He says, “I will not allow this prison to become your home”. 

The prison which the wife thinks has become her home, points to another metaphor in life - people thinking that living in chains is normal. Roussea said, "Man is born free, but every where he is in chains". Prison is bondage. Sin/hopelessness is bondage. Most people live in the prison of sin/faithlessness and think it is their home and that there is no hope for real freedom in life. They make a home of the prison of sin/hopelessness. But God does not want us to settle for a life of faithless  bondage. Jesus Christ says, “I have come to show the Truth. I am the Truth and Truth shall set you free.”

In the movie, to redeem her, Russell stoops down to the point of becoming a criminal himself. Till the end she does not see her worth and tries to jeopardize his carefully laid plans for her freedom. But he keeps on loving her and trusting her to redeem her to himself and start a new life in a new home far off in distant shores.

In real life, God allowed His own Son (Jesus Christ) to be killed in order that through Him, no matter how much we self-destructively jeopardize His plans for our everlasting freedom, we will not succeed. His Truth will set us free, because He will not give upon us. He loves us as a trusting Husband loves His self-doubting wife. No matter how much we resist, He’ll make us find our freedom and journey to the new Home He has prepared for us a on the distant Shores where we’ll live as free people fully redeemed and happy in Him. Nothing can separate us from the love of God.(Rom 8:28-39).