The Lives Of Others

'The Lives Of Others' is an award winning Foreign language film that actually made me cry because the end of the movie is so evocative of how life works, for those of the Christian faith. I am glad my friend from Church, Luke, lent me his copy.

The movie is about a Captain of the East German secret police the Stasi who is true to his principles even at great personal peril. Some power-hungry officers in the Stasi decide that they need to bring destroy a famous Playwright in the communist East Germany. They wire his house and put Captain Weiler in charge of monitoring the wire taps. Captain Weiler is a principled man, totally devoted to the totalitarian principles of the Communistic state. 

Captain Weiler is promised rich rewards if Weiler can find incriminating evidence against the playwright. But during the surveillance, Captain Weiler realizes that the Playwright is a true artist and that his art needs to be protected against the regime. The Captain decides to not report some of the Playwright's work that is aimed at exposing the Communist regime. Weiler knows that if he is caught, he'll be dealt with the most severe form of punishment. Weiler bends over backwards to save the Playwright. The Stasi realize that Weiler had hidden some critical data. They don't have proof, so they demote him to a very menial position which Weiler does faithfully for many years. Eventually, the wall comes down and East Germany gets unified. 

The Stasi men are wealthy in the unified Germany too. They work the system. But Weiler 'falls through the cracks' and is a dejected man delivering mail from door to door. Throughout the movie, Weiler is an unhappy man. He is not successful. He never has his 'American Dream'. He stands for a principle and pays the cost for being the righteous man.

One day, the poor, inconsequential, despondent Weiler is walking the streets. He sees a huge poster of the Playwright with his new novel 'Sonata for a Good Man'. Curious, Weiler goes into the shop, opens the book. He realizes that the Playwright dedicated the book to Weiler. After unification of Germany, the Playwright gained access to the wire taps and realized how Weiler had saved his life. Weiler takes the book to the cash register. The clerk asks if if this book needed to be gift-wrapped. Weiler looks up, and for the first time in the movie has a beaming smile and says, "This is for me!". 

The Christian's life is akin to Weiler's. The Christian cannot conform to the ways of the world. Conforming to God's standard for righteousness, the Christian has to set himself apart. Others have a jolly good time 'working the system', whereas the Christian true to the principles of Truth gets the shorter end of the stick. From Elijah to David to Paul to Luther, people that follow God have struggled immensely with life. They are often disappointed and depressed. Yet unmindful of the present-day struggles, they run towards the ultimate reward of Heavenly life. The smile on poor Weiler's face when he says, "This is for me" is representative of the smile that would be the Christian's when he is rewarded in Heaven for all his hardships on earth.

Revelation 17

13 Then one of the elders asked me, “These in white robes—who are they, and where did they come from?”

14 And he said, “These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

17 For the Lamb at the center of the throne 

  will be their shepherd; ‘he will lead them to springs of living water.’ 

  ‘And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.’

Sometimes the hardship we undergo as principled Christians can be overwhelming. We find ourselves as misfits in the world. But we shouldn't give up. We need to remember that we have a beautiful inheritance awaiting us in the Other shore in the form of a great relationship with God. He'll satisfy us for all the hardship we undergo for the sake of His Name. In this life, we should not conform to the standards of the pleasure and power mongering world. We should stand apart. We need to do our best to Serve God even when it comes at great personal peril, disappointment and despondency. We who end up as losers for the sake of righteousness, are actually in the good company of the ones in White Robes, washed in the blood of the Lamb. Our mourning shall be brief! Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted (by the King)! 

Another Blessed Lonely Christmas!

Owing to multiple reasons, I schedule my annual vacation round Feb/March. Consequently, this is the 5th Christmas, in a row, that I am going to be away from family. Actually, I have lost all memory of what made Christmas special when I was young. It is sort of sad.

The only thing that is Christmasy about my life these days is listening to Christmas songs. There are some songs that always bring a tear to my eye. One is 'The Little Drummer Boy' http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=Adg_JIQzdhs. The other is 'What Child is This' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oz44GJlSPeo.

Little Drummer Boy is about this little boy standing by the manger Jesus is born at. He loves Jesus so much, but he has nothing to give Him. BIG people come and give Jesus BIG gifts. He is sad that he has noting to give the King. He thinks and thinks what he can give Jesus. Then he realizes that he can play the drum for Jesus. He sweetly asks Jesus, 'Shall I play for you?'. He plays the drum for Jesus. He plays his BEST for Jesus. His ULTIMATE joy is in seeing... 'Then Jesus smiles at me... Me and my drum...'. Even writing this makes me tear up, that the Lord is pleased with whatever little I can glorify Him with. He considers it precious. I think I try to put myself in his shoes a little too much. The GOAL of Christmas is not just to have a good time. But to make our Lord 'smile' at us and what we do thing Christmas.

'What Child is this' makes me tear-up not just because the tune evokes a depth of transcendence and awe and mystery, but because there is a philosophical depth to it too. The song deals with the whole Person of Jesus. His Kingship 'King of Kings', His mean estate 'among ox and lamb', His Love 'pleading for sinners', His crucifixion 'nail, spear shall pierce through him'. It also talks about ordinate human response 'Good Christian fear', 'Hail, hail the Word made flesh', 'Let loving hearts enthrone Him', 'Raise, raise a song on high'. The going back and forth between Christ's Greatness and Human Response brings tears of joy and admiration.

Christmas is BEST when Christ is made the Celebrity that is most admired over and over again... When people tear-up in Michael Jackson concerts, how much more should we tear-up when Christ is the Celebrity??? Well, this applies only to the sensitive mushy ones I guess... :P

I think lonely Christmases are blessed because being alone around Christmas has given me a greater appreciation for life. It has given me the ability to appreciate life in spite of life being reduced to the bare essentials. It is at such times that I gets to really enjoy God. Loneliness is a very small cost to pay for the opportunity to enjoy and be satisfied in Christ.

It was St. Francis of Assisi who said, "A man who has everything and Christ has everything. A man who has everything but Christ has nothing. A man who has nothing but Christ hasn't anything less than the man who has everything and Christ'. Understanding this quote of the great Saint at a philosophical level is one thing. Living it at an existential level is a whole another experience. Blessed lonely Christmases give me this priceless experience.

At the end of the day, Christmas is about glorifying God and share my Joy in Christ with people around me. I can always do this whichever part of the world I am at, for the WHOLE world is the Lord's and the WHOLE world CELEBRATES the King of Kings!

Ides of March - The Story of Uncaring Sexy Men

'Ides of March' is a classy movie. It is a story about political campaign machine trying to win the public over. The story that has multiple plots. The bigger story is that of one candidate's political machine trying to thwart another's. This battle in the public eye is being fought on the realm of big ideas and noble personalities that have perfected the public persona. Within this big story, there are smaller stories of human dynamics involving rivalry, loyalty and sex too. What 'Ides of March' does best is in showing how it is the smaller stories of human dynamics that really determines the big story.

There are many strands to the smaller stories. In this post, I would like to deal just with the story of sex, because this movie clearly depicts why sex is not a casual thing the present day 'hook-up' culture has made it to be. Sex has big implications in life. There are two reasons. One, sex has procreative powers. Two, God created sex as serious stuff in a way that creates a deep bonding between people that truly care for each other. God did not create sex to be casual stuff.

Ryan Goslin is the campaign manager for George Clooney's Presidential bid. The beautiful Evan Rachel Wood is an intern with the campaign team. Evan finds Ryan sexy and seductive. She tells him that they should have 'casual sex' as and when they find time. They do that. Thankfully, the movie doesn't have any explicit or yukky scenes that make you too uncomfortable.

Though a campaign manager getting caught having sex with an intern could be extremely damaging, Ryan is confident no trouble would befall them. He is right and wrong. One day Evan finds herself pregnant. The father is the Presidential candidate George Cloony himself. Geroge has an unsuspecting wife and kids, not to mention the carefully crafted public image of a good Father and Husband. 

Evan tells Ryan about her pregnancy. Ryan VERY UNCARINGLY tells her that in order to avoid a political scandal she'll have to abort the kid and then quit the campaign team. Evan does not like that option. She says she does not want to quit the team. That would be the end of her life's dreams. Ryan maintains that he wouldn't allow her to work in the campaign. If someone found out about the abortion, that would be the end of George's campaign. He gives Evan cash and drops her off at the hospital to have the procedure done. Evan is terribly sad. She doesn't speak much. You could see an inexplicable sadness in her eyes.   

After the procedure, Ryan discretely picks Evan up and leaves her in her room and tells her she'll have to leave as soon as she could. In the mean time, Ryan gets fired from his campaign on questions of loyalty to the campaign. Ryan comes back to see Evan. Finds her dead. Evan had committed suicide. The last text in Evan's cell phone is to George. NOW the Man in Ryan wakes up. He decides to take revenge on George and bring his campaign down, which is what the rest of the movie is about.

There are two questions here...
1. Initially, Ryan thinks the campaign is worth killing a child in the womb. But when a person outside the womb dies, he decides to bring the campaign down. Why this double standard?
2. Why does Evan commit suicide?

I think the answer to both points to the same - a strong sexy man's uncaring nature.

Ryan is a strong, slick and sexy. He competent enough to build or destroy a campaign, but he doesn't 'care' for a vulnerable life that needs help. Ryan prefers to lose a life (Evan's child in the womb) in order to save the campaign. But when Evan's life was lost, he decides that someone needs to pay for Evan's death. At the heart of this flip-flop is the idea that he doesn't have to 'care' for the baby in the womb. From a Christian perspective, this sort of not caring is TOTALLY wrong.

Jeremiah 1:5 - Before I formed you in the womb I knew (chose) you, before you were born I set you apart.

God created men to be strong and support the vulnerable. But Ryan doesn't 'care' enough to support the vulnerable. In this, he had lost his 'manishness'.

Now to the question of why the beautiful Evan ends her life at its prime best. Evans has been a happy-go-lucky girl for so long, having 'casual sex' in the hook-up culture. When she gets pregnant, she is forced to make serious choices. She realizes that there is more to life than meets the eye. She is vulnerable. She needs support, but there was none to stand by her. Her 'casual' sex partners don't quite 'care' for her. Both the men involved in her life George and Ryan are very powerful men. But they couldn't have loved her less. She feels totally abandoned by men with whom she shared something special - her sexual and romantic self. She had foolishly bargained something very special for something cheap - momentary titillation. To be at a place where one realizes that there is none that cares, is the worst place to be in. Perhaps, it is not terribly surprising that she snapped.

Ryan should have stepped-up to support her and her child when she was alive. He failed to do that. Then after her death he steps-up to have his vengeance. But what is the point? He is just sexy, seductive, strong uncaring man.

I was reading an article that talks about the American college experience. It says that for a college to make a lot of money and be successful, it has to have three things parking for faculty, football for alumni and sex for students. Kate Bolick in her incisive article on the Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/11/all-the-single-ladies/8654/) talks about how in the 1990s, the 'hook-up' culture became pervasive in College campuses and students began having 'casual' sex with multiple sex partners. She goes on to point that sometimes women do it not because they find it erotically or emotionally satisfying, but because it is just a part of 'social conformity'. Being sexually active is often taken as proof that one has it in oneself. She recounts an experience where she talks to some very sexually active college girls and they frankly acknowledge that they can't keep doing this for long.

What we do changes us. It defines us. When sex becomes casual and cheap, men tend to become uncaring.  When people have casual 'safe' sex by suppressing the 'bonding' part of it, it alters the psyche of people involved. Which is why psychologists says that sex in uncaring relationships can be very harmful to the human psyche. Unfortunately, liberal college campuses have become the breeding ground 'hook-up' culture where casual sex is the norm of the day.  God never meant sex to be shared casually. Sex is a serious thing which has serious implications in terms of procreation and in its ability to bond people. Sex was never supposed to be 'safe' either. Sex is dangerous, needs careful handling.

When we take something that God meant for one thing and use it for something else, it will twist our nature. Human nature will lose its humaneness. Which is what happens in 'Ides of March'. Ryan got free sex. He didn't want to say no. If it is free, why should he care about the person who is the gift-giver? He is a strong man that becomes uncaring. He is a creation of this 'hook-up' culture. Abortion is just a by-product of this problem. When men become uncaring, they lose their 'manishness'. They no longer are caring enough to stand by the vulnerable. A society with such men would eventually self-destruct. In fact, one of the causes of the decline of Roman empire was its 'casual' attitude towards sex. The men of that civilization accustomed to getting everything free from sex to food weren't disciplined or responsible or powerful enough to defend it when the Visgoths came down upon Rome.

The story of a civilization would be defined more by the story of uncaring men than by BIG political ideas of democracy or autocracy or capitalism or communism. Stepping outside of God's prerogatives for life will create foolish women and uncaring men. Consequently, a decadent civilization. Just like in 'Ides of March', the success and the failure of a Civilization depends not so much upon the BIG propagandized ideas, but on whether the little stories of the human dynamics is in obedience to God's written laws. It was in light of this that G.K.Chesterton said, "Civilization can stand in one angle. We are now testing angles."

The Christian hope and prayer should be that people realize the vacuousness of the hook-up culture and repent to honor God's cultural prerogatives, starting with matters of sex. Sex is special 1) it begets life, 2) it creates bonds. God created sex to be serious powerful stuff needing careful handling. 'Casual' sex would twist human nature, make people irresponsible and uncaring which would eventually lead to the toppling a civilization. With more than a third of today's children born in single-mom homes, the story of this civilization is likely to be defined by the story of uncaring 'sexy' men than by anything else. 

7 Brides for 7 Brother to Kim Kardashian to Twilight

(Disclaimer: In the write up below, I have tried to do something men generally do badly - analyze a woman thoughts/motives using her spoken words as a guide. The questions I raise in the post is not gender specific though, they are more about general culture. I don't claim to have the answers to the question I raise up on the post... I am just as confused as most millenials I think are. My long write-up below is my attempt to wrap my mind around something that is confounding - love between a man and his woman.)

Over the past few weeks, a few of my friends who love musicals told me that I should watch the 1954 musical "7 Brides for 7 Brothers". I did. It is a very funny romantic comedy. I have the habit of taking something that is funny, and making something 'dead' serious out of it. When I do this, I risk destroying the best part of silliness. Well, I guess you got to break some eggs to make some omelets, hopefully the omelets are worth it.  :)

"7 Brides for 7 Brothers" is a movie about how 7 brothers living in a farm out in the remote farm in Orgeon end up finding 7 brides for themselves from the city. Now, what does "7 Brides for 7 Brothers" have to do with, of all people, Kim Kardashian? We'll get there... soon. Hopefully, I can make the connection...

In the movie, the eldest of the 7 brothers, Adam, has a bright idea. He decides to marry a wife so that the house would be kept clean and his brothers will have better food and standard of living. He goes into town and looks for the most 'industrious' woman. He finds her, the beautiful Milley - a woman working in a tavern who does everything from cutting firewood to cooking to serving food to milking cows. Adam stalks her. He proposes that he wants to marry her, right away. He hasn't time like most people do, to call and court and and cuddle around - he has a farm to take care of.

Upon seeing Adam, Milley falls into a 'love at first-sight'. Milley's friends are very circumspect of the strange Adam. They advise Milley against marrying Adam. It is now upon Milley to justify her reason for wanting to marry him. Here are her words, "I have been proposed to by many men many times. Every time I said 'yes', I got an awful sinking ‘feeling’. But when I said 'yes' to Adam, I felt fine. I was waiting for the sinking feeling, I never got it. I feel so fine, I could cry." None of her friends say another word. Hey, who dares argue against a 'feeling', especially when one is just 'following one's heart'??? None objects and the preacher pronounces them man and wife.

It is Milley's 'following one's heart' into love part brings me to the Princess of Reality TV, Kim Kardisian. Kim married Kris, and then has decided to divorce him after 72 days. The speculation was that she married just to increase her show's ratings. In her interview to justify her marriage and then her decision to divorce she said, "First and foremost, I have to follow my heart". In our life, all of us have a Chief 'value' which we live by. To mother Teresa, her chief value was to see Christ in the other person and serve that person as she would Christ. To Hitler, his chief value was to work towards the ultimate supremacy of the Aryan race. Kim's chief value apparently is to 'follow her heart, no matter what'. She followed her heart into a marriage with Kris, and then followed her heart right out. Steve Jobs said in his famous Stanford Address, "As in all matters of the heart, you'll know it when you find it". From Steve Jobs to Kim Kardisian, from career advice to relationship advice the chief value that people espouse is 'following one's heart'. The Bible on the other hand says...

Jer 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?

But then, we live in a Post-Christian culture where people think they know better than the Bible. When Milley saw Adam she thought her heart was right. But after marriage, Milley realizes how her heart had misled her. Adam doesn't quite love her. She works hard to please him, makes a home of his shack. She gives all she has and gets no affection in return. One evening, she overhears Adam advising his younger brother on finding a wife, "if you don't get this, another will come along. One woman is pretty much like the next". Milley realizes that she isn't any special to him than any woman that is a good caretaker. Hot tears stream down her cheeks. In spite of a loveless marriage, Milley tarries on because she feels bound by 'traditions'. Good for Adam, the jerk.

Milley is no Kim. Milley does not divorce Adam. Milley is a woman of the 50s. Kim is a woman of the 2010s. Yet, there is a similarity. They both 'assess' their love for a man based on 'feelings'. They decide to follow their hearts. The difference between Kim and Milley is that Kim decides to divorce, whereas Milley stays married. I submit that this difference is a difference that is only circumstantial, meaning if both of them had lived in the same society, given their 'feeling' based decision making rationale, they would probably have acted similarly... I'll try to substantiate my claim.

Marriage has two parts.

1. Start loving a person.

2. Continue loving the same person forever.

Kim and Milley use 'feelings' as a basis to start loving a person. Kim goes one step further and uses 'feelings' as a basis to continue (or discontinue) to love the person. Milley on the other hand, shifts her decision making rationale after marriage. After marriage, she uses 'traditions' as the basis to continue loving Adam, even though he acts like a jerk. 'Traditions' die hard, at least in the 50s, back when individualism didn't matter as much as it does today. Both Milley and Kim use 'feelings' as a basis to start to love. But because they were living in societies that differently value individual freedom, their post-marriage decision making has different manifestations. Milley, living in the age entrenched with traditions, 'sucks it up' and continues in the marital relationship, whereas Kim, living in an age of radical individualism and experimentation, decides she deserves to have a better life with someone else and decides to break-up.

Most of us, the millennials, can't imagine getting married to anyone we didn't have the 'right' feelings for. Kim is just taking it a step further and saying she can't continue in marriage with a person if she hasn't the 'right' feelings. The point here is that we the Millennials don't need to be so hard on Kim, we ALL live in an era where we assess love through the 'lens of feelings'. Whether it is the 1950s or the 2000s, we are all on the same slide of being driven by 'feeling' based decisions. It is just that as we get closer to the bottom, we feel the increasing acceleration. We sense something is dead wrong. Celebrities living out the 'feeling' based philosophy to its logical end in a rather public way confirm our belief that something is wrong. The problem is we don't know what to do about it. Feelings are important. Feeling good matters. But what to do marriages that fail left, right and center?

C.S.Lewis says in 'Four Loves' that in the middle ages people feared 'instinctive feelings' they were afraid that giving into to instincts would ruin the individual and the society. In fact this distrust of the human heart was the reason why the Founders of America wanted a very limited government with adequate check and balances. If we would move back a few centuries, marriages were mostly 'arranged'. 'Feelings' were not unimportant, but they did not get to be the decision making factor. Decisions were made based on morality, then feelings followed. As civilization 'evolved' from this 'overtly Christian' middle ages, we moved into the age of Enlightenment rationalism. When this rationalism broke down, unable to substantiate its claim that reason was powerful enough to transform human race, we moved through the age of Romanticism. Romanticism idealized 'feelings' as ultimate in life. People said, "Hey, if ‘thinking’ doesn't get us anywhere, let us at least enjoy the how life makes us 'feel'”. I was speaking with a friend about life, I asked him what he thought about life, He replied, “I don’t think about life anymore, thinking doesn’t get me anywhere. My philosophy of life is to enjoy life as we living the present”. This trend of making feelings as the ultimate value in life isn't new, in Ancient Greece, on the heels of breakdown of Platonic rationalism, the Epicurean philosophy of living for feelings of pleasure flourished.

Around the 19th century Romanticism and the exhalation of feelings, I think writers like Jane Austin played a pivotal role in the shift into 'feeling-based-love' marriage. The usual plot in Jane Austin novels goes like this… It is setup in a society where Social traditions acts as an innate match maker of predetermined marriages. But then, there is a woman and a man who have special 'feelings' for each other which goes against the grain of the society's match making tradition. The (high) society becomes the villian, the 'feelings' become the 'good force' that perseveres until the 'lovers' are united and then live 'happily ever after'! Emily Bronte's work too was deeply feelings based. Then there were Shelley, Lord Byron and their likes who made feelings as the basis for good poetry. What started with romanticism, had now reached its zenith with the Twilight series. In the Twilight world it takes more than a man to make the jaded sense of a girl in her teens to ‘feel’ loved and special. It takes someone strong, manly and exotically alluring as a vampire or a werewolf. Anything less wouldn't sweep her off her feet.

As the western civilization moved from Romanticism into present day Existentialism, 'feelings' have taken greater and greater roles in life decisions, which is most egregiously manifested in starting and ending marriages. 1950s used 'feelings' as the starting point of love but used traditions to hold love together. Men and women of 2000s have gone one step further to use 'feelings' not only as the starting point of love but for continuing to be in (or out of) love too.

The point of this post is not to make feelings as the villain and the root cause of all problems. Feelings are important. Feeling good matters. After all, God created feelings. God grants the desires of our heart Ps 37:4.  People who see 'feelings' as being ultimate have good reasons to do so. In fact, Paul uses their rationale to make a bigger point in the scriptures, "If there were no afterlife, then eat drink and be merry!". The point being that if this life is ALL there is, then 'feeling good' IS the chief value of life.

Going by Paul's rationale, every man has two options…

1.    1. Feeling good in this life

2.     2. Feeling good in the next life.

A person who denies the possibility of the next life has only this life to be happy in. People who do not believe in afterlife, will want to make sure that they ‘feel good’ in this life. If they can’t feel good in this life, then they have lost their ONLY chance to feel good. So to them, ‘to follow their hearts’ and feel good about this life is the chief value of life. What makes one feel good changes from person to person. In one episode of 2 ½ men, after Al and Judith divorce, Judith explains her reason for divorce to her son Jake, “Jake, Mom has a right to be happy”. To one person, marrying makes them feel good, to another depending on who they married separation may make them feel good, to one social service may make them feel good, to another taking a swig of beer and watching NFL would make them feel good.

On the other hand it is an irony that a person believing in the Truth of Next Life, may still be too preoccupied wanting to feel good in this life. How often have we heard people say, “I know I am going to hell, let me as well enjoy what I am doing now”. Illicit sex/romance may make some people feel good, at least for a little while. But it reduces the possibility of one ‘feeling good’ in next life. The Bible is clear that people who are sexually immoral have no place in Heaven. To say no to illicit sex/romance may not make one ‘feel good’ in this life. But it will make us feel good in the next life. Resisting temptation may not always be an easy pill to swallow, but one who sows with tears in this life will reap with joy in the next one. Proverbs 11:18 One who sows righteousness reaps rich rewards. There is nothing wrong in trying to be righteous with an expectation of future reward.

Hebrews 12:

1.     1. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, 2. fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith. For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Even Christ endured the cross for the ‘joy’ that was set before Him in Heaven. Feeling Good matters. Feeling Good is important. But the key question is whether we want to feel good in this life or the next. The wise choose to do things that make them ‘feel good’ in next life. The foolish choose to do stuff that make them ‘feel good’ about this life.

So, the point of this post is not to condemn our wanting to feeling good, but to question which life one should want to feel good in. In other words, the real question is about the ultimacy of this world. As Christians, meditating on the Word of God day and night is the only way to escape the allure of everything from novels to TV shows to Opinion makers, that imbibe a deep sense of ultimacy of this world and incite us to pursue the desire to feel good in this life. What we see and think about WILL define us. The only way to live this world with other worldly values is to have a regular quite time in which we commune with the Triune God.

Psalm 1

2 but whose delight is in the law of the LORD,

   and who meditates on his law day and night.

3 That person is like a tree planted by streams of water,

   which yields its fruit in season

and whose leaf does not wither—

   whatever they do prospers.

4 Not so the wicked!

   They are like chaff

   that the wind blows away.

Those who meditate on the Word of God will be rooted in timeless Truth. They will feel good in the Timeless world of Heaven. On the other hand, those who life by the Spirit of this age, whether it be Romanticism or Existentialism, they will be like chaff blown away into oblivion.

Just to summarize…

1.     1. A love that starts as feelings-based-love will continue as feelings based marriage that can break anytime unless those involved are willing to work hard to not allow feelings the driver’s seat.

2.    2. From Steve Jobs, to Kim Kardashian to the Twilight series, we live in a world entrenched with feeling based assessment and decision making.

3.    3. The best attitude to escape this cultural-conditioning is to look forward to the joys of the Heavenly life and wisely use that as an inspiration to forgo the petty ‘feel good now’ distractions of this life.

4.    4. The only way we can live this life with heavenly values is by having a regular quite time and meditating on God’s Word day and night.

From ‘7 Brides for 7 Brothers’ to Jane Austen to Twilight, I have broken a few eggs, perhaps even misrepresented some of them by over analyzing some specific parts. I will incur the wrath of the ardent fans. But in the process, we have life-giving omelets – the importance of the Word of God. The importance of being immersed in the Word of God cannot be stressed enough, even at the cost of breaking a few eggs.

October Facebook Status Updates

Will Beethoven's incomparable 'Symphony No 9 in D minor' outlast Lady Gaga's say 'Paparazzi'? Or will people 2 centuries into future, make a Beethoven of Lady Gaga?


For knowledge to be received, you got to make two assumptions 1) You exist 2) The Creator of Knowledge exists. Without these assumptions, there can be no study of knowledge.


Oh, Cold Houston! I don't like you! You make it difficult for me to ride my motorcycle. I don't like driving my car. :(


I am sure Heaven will have have 'golden sunsets'... the rays of the orange sun painting a golden lining round the glowing mass of floating moisture.


Well, actually the point of all questions that arise in the course of human existence is whether we want to be grateful or we want to grumble.


Isn't it an irony that the I-pod, I-phone, I-pad the hallmarks of modern materialism should be envisioned by a Zen Buddhist.


Well, time is precious. Time is where the essence of being is reckoned. In that sense 'time' limits our experience of the essence of our being. Heaven being truly 'timeless' is where we'll truly get to experience the essence of our being.


Well, the nights that are truly timeless... when I am trying to find an answer to a question I can't quite put in words. I wish this was a weekend night when I could and go have a 2:00 AM Starbucks coffee and think through the question, but alas! this isn't. Well, life is good! It is good to 'have time' to think. Not many have this luxury. Thanks be to God!


The man that has found the one thing that truly fills him with perpetual joy, eternally, has found himself. Until he finds it he is still 'looking for himself'


I would rather appear foolish than be a fool.


With the I-phone 4G having the AI enabled Personal Assistant 'Siri', you'll probably be talking more to the phone than using phone to talk to someone else. After all, we are evolving away from the long-talking Ents of the Lord of the Rings... Of course, it is all about efficiency!!!


Well, OWS would do better if they could articulate their policy positions without using the word 'greed', after all you can't expect to jail the entire human race, can you?


Oh, I don't like cold weather :( I miss the warm sunny hot Houston already!


True freedom is not just freedom from external tyranny, it is freedom from self. To be caught up in the cob web of the self is a subtle form of tyranny that is too ubiquitous to even be noticed, much less diagnosed let alone being mitigated.


Just finished filing my 2010 tax returns. Thanks to TaxAct Online! It is indeed exciting to pull things off close to the deadlines! It makes you feel free and strong. :)


What would life be without words... after all, didn't someone say words are the vehicle for meaning... If none said, I just did. I think it probably was C.S.Lewis.


Is this how people feel when they come down from a mountain top experience... overflowing with words that probably makes sense to none... Oh, well!


Actually, life is just as good even without facebook. Facebook isn't even icing on the cake. Facebook is just a lens through which you get to see the icing on the cake... There are many lenses, BTW. :)


I think I have decided to come out of my facebook hibernation. :)


Oh, if only emotions can be remembered like words... life would be a lot more enriching... Especially the emotions associated with pain and failure for they are the ones that bring a DEPTH to life besides making the emotions of joy and success, meaningful.


‎A man who isn't a tad bit 'mad' enough to risk some can't be a man, period.


'Fight Club' is a movie that is about so many things that I am at loss for words to describe it. It is the anti-thesis to the ultra-modern platitudes that are so ubiquitous and are seldom noticed anymore, the key platitude being, "Hey, you are special!"


Why am I not infatuated with facebook anymore? I never thought this day would come.


Anything with just a 7 inch screen cannot compete with I-pad, 'Kindle Fire' included.


Anything with just a 7 inch screen cannot compete with I-pad, 'Kindle Fire' included.

A Story of a Strong Father - Brings a Tear to My Eyes

I was reading an article on Vanity Fair about one of the most defining personalities of Great Britain, its only woman Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2011/12/margaret-thatcher-201112 I admire women that exhibit very strong masculine attributes. Below is an excerpt from that write-up.

Margaret Thatcher’s father was the single biggest influence on her life. Alfred Roberts was a grocer who ran two fairly successful shops in Grantham. He was also a Methodist lay preacher, well known for the quality of his sermons, and an alderman, a type of local politician now obsolete. Alderman Roberts had no sons and appears to have harbored for Margaret, the second of his two daughters, many of the ambitions which, had he been born to a higher level of society, he might have been able to fulfill for himself.


Roberts impressed upon young Margaret the importance of knowledge, duty, and hard work, the power of both the spoken and the written word, and the value of public service. The Roberts girls had to borrow and read two books from the library every week, at least one of them nonfiction. They attended church twice on Sundays (where Margaret sang notably well), and Margaret often accompanied her father to political meetings. Because the family lived above one of the shops, Alderman Roberts usually came home for meals with the girls. He and Margaret discussed public events, including the coming war with Germany. Of her mother, Beatrice, Margaret Thatcher said, “Oh, Mother. Mother was marvelous—she helped Father.”

When I read the excerpt above, my eyes were getting filled with tears, quite inexplicably. I think there is something wrong with a man who cries for himself. But here, I wasn't crying for myself. Being human beings, when we see something that signifies something that is exquisitely beautiful or deeply profound we feel 'moved' deep within and some of us that have sensitive souls easily get mushy. Something about the excerpt above 'moved' me very deeply. So I stopped to think through...

There are a few noteworthy points in the excerpt.
1. The father is an industrious man who is also deeply religious, obviously intelligent, capable of giving 'high quality' sermons.
2. He is a father who really understands his kids, tries to bring out the best in them and has BIG dreams for them.
3. Even though he is intelligent, industrious and gregarious, his not being from 'high society' put a glass ceiling above him. But that doesn't make him cynical. He INVESTS in making his Kid's life more fulfilling than his is.
4. The father INVESTS in nurturing his kids with good values, education and real life experiences.

I couldn't help but wonder how Alderman Roberts seems such an anti-thesis to much celebrated men of the likes of Steve Jobs and Larry Ellison. Steve Jobs made it BIG in life, but he was not in good terms with any of his daughters. In fact, one of the reasons he attributed to wanting to have an authorized biography was in his own words, 'to help his kids know who he really was'. Alderman Roberts on the other hand was someone who remained small in life, but he 'poured himself' out into the life of his kids.

There were two reasons I got mushy...
1. The article started off stating Thatcher's political accomplishments and suddenly took a dive in an moving account of a personal nature, it sort of took me by surprise, my emotional guard was down.
2. Alderman Roberts' life depicted a profound masculine strength which is not valued much in the society we live in. Robert's Strength is in not living his life for himself (to chase his 'American Dream', ought I say 'British Dream'??? :P), but in 'pouring himself' into the lives of his kids. The beauty of the relationship between him and his daughter and how it impacted the course of History of Western Europe, brought a tear to my eye. All because one man decided to really understand his kids and pour into their lives.

Contrary to what we are led by our cultural-conditioning to believe, a man's Strength is NOT in what he has achieved in his life, NOR is it in the legacy he leaves behind. A man's true Strength is in how he has been able to pour into other's life, especially those close to him. This sort of Strong man often pours himself out at the cost of losing his chance to prove to the world that he is somebody to be reckoned with. He is the true revolutionary.

Margret rightfully calls her father the greatest influence in her life. Her father poured into Her by being her TEACHER. As per the Biblical model, it is the duty of the Father (also) to be his kids' Teacher. God command Moses and other Prophets that they are to teach the commands and statues to their children and children's children....

Exodus 10:2 that you may tell your children and grandchildren how I dealt harshly with the Egyptians and how I performed my signs among them, and that you may know that I am the LORD.

Exodus 12:26 And when your children ask you, ‘What does this ceremony mean to you?’ 27 then tell them, ‘It is the Passover sacrifice to the LORD, who passed over the houses of the Israelites in Egypt and spared our homes when he struck down the Egyptians.’” Then the people bowed down and worshiped.

Any parent would know that teaching kids is not a easy job. It is a 24/7 'work'. Frank Schaeffer said, "the man who said that parents need to spend 'quality time' with kids is a fool. Parents need to spend LOTS of time with kids". Alderman Roberts did precisely this. In a world where the fathers are busy with work, else are occupied with their own recreation whether in the form of music or gym workouts or garage projects or watching NFL or hanging-out with buddies at the bar, Alderman Roberts depicts one important facet of true masculinity - that of being his kid's Teacher instead of outsourcing teaching to someone that wouldn't care less for his kid.

Being your kid's Teacher is a reflection of an aspect of God's relationship to man too. Christ was primarily called a TEACHER. He poured out his life in teaching and leading people to life transforming Truth. His work is continued by the Lord the Holy Spirit in our hearts as He counsels us and reminds us of the Truth. If a man is not inspired in his Spirit to be Christlike and be a good Teacher to his kids, his negligence will affect his generation and the next one and the next one.

Exodus 34:7 Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.

What Roberts did to his kids was the right thing for the father to do. In a world where more than a third of the kids are born to single-moms and irresponsible fathers, in a world that is so bereft of good models for true masculinity, reading Roberts story feels like coming across an oasis in a desert. It is a story of how one man, a Strong Father who lives not for himself but for his kids; and in reflecting Christ-likeness pours into them and nurtures a personality who impacts lives of millions. It is something that is beautiful and profound that it brings a tear to my eyes.

Anonymous - Words: Voices and Pictures!

'Anonymous' is a movie http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1521197/ about the theory that Shakespeare didn't write the plays which are attributed to his authorship. 'Anonymous' claims that the plays were written by the 17th Earl, Edward Oxford and because he wanted to avoid political repercussions of being a playwright he needed to use someone else, the someone else being Shakespeare. The movie doesn't do a great job of selling this theory, it is probably not worth anyone's money unless one ardently loves historical dramas with a conspiracy angle.

I saw something in the movie that I admired. The 17th Earl is a guy who loves words so much that he was willing to relinquish authorship just to see the words come to live. He is the true artist who had not vested interest, except to see the effect of his words on the 'mob'. He often mentions in the movie that words are powerful weapons. He even tries to use the power of his words to control succession plans of English monarchy.

He depicted a strength - strength to relinquish control for the sake of beauty - a strength to become lesser for a greater cause the cause of 'words coming to life'. He depicted a strength in being himself - an artist instead of being the Earl attending to his investments. In fact, he loses his great wealth and is close to bankruptcy. His exasperated wife, justifiably gets mad at him and asks him why he keeps writing.

The Earl replies, almost helplessly, but with a calm conviction that he hears 'voices in his head' - the cry of the soldier in the battle field, the thoughts of a prisoner in dungeons, the words of a lover to his maiden... and if he had to be sane, he had to write them down. I felt I got my money's worth and some more with that line. After all, don't we all hear 'voices in the head'.

Writing is sort of like painting, but the picture is not on canvas. The writer if he is good will be able to get the reader to paint the picture of the story in his/her mind, many many pictures... Words, are voices in the head of the writer, and pictures in the mind of the reader.  

Joe Frazier, the Papa Gorilla!

I admire men that are strong. That can put themselves in harm's way just to measure the strength of their will. In some ways, Professional boxers are such men. Boxing is a brutal sport. I don't usually watch it. But I like the idea that a man is willing to risk all he has got just to make a claim for raw brutal power. Strength in any sport is admirable.

Since the legendary Joe Frazier's death yesterday, I have been reading bits about him and his famous rivalry with Ali. Joe Frazier has the distinction of being the first boxer to ever defeat Ali. Joe wasn't charismatic as Ali. He was far from good looking. Joe hated Ali for the way Ali taunted him. Prior to the famous trilogy between Frazier and Ali, Ali had called Joe a 'gorilla' and then 'uncle tom' and then many other derogatory names. Apparently, Joe never got over it.

To Joe's credit, Joe helped Ali at one important juncture in his boxing career. When Ali was stripped off his title and banished from the boxing league for refusing military service, Joe helped him get back into the boxing league. Joe even met with President Nixon to further Ali's case. After going through all of this, it really hurt Joe to be taunted by Ali.

I understood where Joe was coming from... but still it seemed odd that a professional boxer should allow such taunts to bother him so much. After all, boxers do that to each other as a 'sales pitch' to get media attention and increase ticket sales. Joe should have been aware of this. Ali had a great sales acumen. It was common knowledge within boxing circles that Ali had a lot of respect for Joe as a boxer.

Given all of this, it was still lost on me why Joe hated Ali for the way he was taunted; until I read an article where a close friend who knew both Ali and Joe explains...

“I told Joe years later that Ali was just trying to sell the fight, but Joe said to me, ‘How do you think I feel when he calls me an Uncle Tom? My kids come home from school and tell me the other kids told them their Dad’s a gorilla.’ Joe just couldn’t get over it.”

Now, I understood Joe better... Joe didn't mind taking a punches Ali, he got loads of it to the point that he couldn't see with his left eye in the last match with Ali. But he DID mind his kids being affected by Ali's 'sales pitch'. He did not want to make his kids pawns in a sales pitch. He wanted to protect his kids from the taunts of other kids.

Joe Frazier was the 'Papa Gorilla'... We often speak highly of 'Mama Grizzlies' but we seldom speak much less understand the 'Papa Gorillas' - the ones that go out into the world with the sole purpose of creating for his kids, a better life - a life where his kids would be proud to have been his kids. Not to take the thunder away from Joe Frazier... Even the most narcissistic guy Steve Jobs, towards the end of his life, when he was asked by Brian Williams of MSNBC as to what Jobs considered the most valuable contribution of his life, he thought a bit and then answered with conviction, "his life with his wife and kids". Brian Williams was a bit surprised but he pressed on, "what about public contributions?". "Well, that is for others to decide" was his terse reply.

As I stated, I admire strong men. But I have a great adulation for strong men that have a soft, sensitive soul. Joe Frazier in spite of being the strong man willing to get punched in the gut and plummel the other guy with powerful jabs, seemsat his heart to be a man with a soft, sensitive soul. It is said that he lost his fortune by his generosity and naivety. When asked, what he did with all the millions he earned as the heavy weight champion, why he wasn't a millionaire as his peers Ali and Foreman, he replied, "In a sense I am rich... I have a family... I have a stack of a few 100 dollar bills". Joe built a close knit family, he trained two of his children to be boxers. He played the guitar. He loved his family.

A man that is a 'Papa Gorilla' will die a rich man, it doesn't matter how much money he has. Riches is in relationships, it takes hard work to build long lasting relationships. Strong relationships are by their very nature, an end in itself. The 'Papa Gorilla' needs nothing more than the satisfaction that he has done for his family what best he could do - he has fought a good fight, run a good race. In an era bereft of traditional values, at a time where most men tend to shun responsibility and commitment, 'Papa Gorillas', rock! They live forever!

Who are the Real X-Men?

Though I am not a fan of the X-men movies, I enjoyed the last one - 'X-men First Class'. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1270798/ It is a captivating prequel that delves into the origins of how the X-men club came into being. I would surmise that the X-Men movies as being about a bunch that says, "Hey, we are cool 'good' folk, there are some 'bad' people out there. Lets go destroy evil and make the world a better place". What makes 'X-men First Class' interesting is that, it goes one step further and shows the complexities of the battle between good vs evil.

Most movies depicting battle between good and evil are fantastic, in the sense that finally the good guys eliminate the bad guys. 'X-men First Class' is a real movie in that, in the end, after the good guys destroy the bad guys, the good guys actually become a new brand of bad guys. This accurately reflects some of the spectacular good vs evil battles in real life. When the 'good guys' who perpetuated the French Revolution destroyed the 'bad guys', the 'good guys' took power and became the new group of bad guys paving way for Napoleon's monarchy resulting in untold number of deaths. Same with the Russian Revolution, the 'good guys' overthrew the Tsars and created a regime of brutal communists who ended up killing millions. History repeats.

X-Men First Class is no different, Eric and Mystique start off being a part of the 'good guys' team. But after the bad guys are eliminated, they become the new villains. Eric, turns into the evil Magneto. A deep hurt from his childhood turns him into a vengeful megalomaniac unable to love anyone. Eric is a Jewish boy with X-men powers. His Nazi captors kill his Mom to experiment on Eric's savant capabilities. Eric woes revenge on the Nazis responsible for his family's death. Once he is done with them, he then directs his anger at anything that smacks of authority. He trusts none. Loves none. He inexorably becomes the evil Magneto.

Mystique realizes that people find her blue body unattractive. She craves for love, but none accepts her with her blue body. She has the ability to change appearance so she passes her off as a beautiful brunet. She becomes a 'poser' and the insecurity that she develops, defines her. When the evil Magneto finds her attractive in her blue body, she gives him her heart. Both Eric and Mystique are victims in the first place, but they end up becoming victimizers themselves.

This is the problem of the 'fallen' world. We get treated badly by other people, and in order to protect us or show ourselves strong or become more acceptable, we end up becoming a part of the same system which abused us. Every man is fallen and in the vast network of fallen beings. We end up hurting each other as broken people and it becomes a viscous cycle. The movie 'Black Snake Moan' too depicts the same pattern of victims becoming victimizers - the girl is abused by her step-dad and she in turn can't help but abuse her boyfriend. The problem of this viscous cycle of victims becoming victimizers has to do with the 'fallenness' of the world.

The redemption out of this vicious cycle has to come from Someone from outside this 'fallen system' who has enough 'capital' to pay for the hurt put an end to this viscous cycle of being victimized and then becoming victimizers. This Someone needs to be victimized by this 'fallen' world, but shouldn't become a victimizer, thus break this vicious cycle. Then He has to pave way for others to reflect His likeness. That is what Christ accomplished on the Cross. He entered the 'fallen' world from the outside, became the victim, but did not turn out to be a victimizer. He battled evil not by destroying it but by subjecting himself to it.

By setting the PERFECT example, He 'draws' to Himself those who will follow Him and emulate Him to break the vicous cycle of the fallen world. He will give these Followers of His a NEW heart and the help of the Holy Spirit to 'comfort' them when they are hurt by others and 'counsel' them in times of crisis. These new born persons will have the assurance of having been TOTALLY forgiven and will be able to forgive others too, thus making this fallen world into a better place than it currently is. The name of this group of followers is, Christians!!!

Graham Staines was an Australian missionary who was working with his family among lepers in Orissa in India. Graham and his sons were burnt to death by some religious fundamentals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Staines The Nation stood flabbergasted when Graham's wife Glady Staines made a public statement she had forgiven the killers. Below are her words to the commission setup to investiage the brutal killings.

"The Lord God is always with me to guide me and help me to try to accomplish the work of Graham, but I sometimes wonder why Graham was killed and also what made his assassins to behave in such a brutal manner on the night of 22nd/23rd January 1999. It is far from my mind to punish the persons who were responsible for the death of my husband Graham and my two children. But it is my desire and hope that they would repent and would be reformed."

It takes more than  'good' person to say this. It is impossible for a mother and a wife to say this without the 'comfort' and the 'counsel' of the Holy Spirit. A friend of mine who visited the place where the missionaries were burnt said that the villages around this place were transformed. The villagers were shocked at how forgiving Glady Staines was. They realized they had killed a man much better than themselves. The blood of martyrs brings change in the 'fallen world'. It brings and end to the vicious cycle of hurt and cruelty.

X-men is a movie about otherwise normal people having some extraordinary capabilities, which when put to good use would make the world a better place to be. In a sense, the Christians are the real X-men. We are the otherwise normal people with an Extraordinary Gift - the Holy Ghost living in us, who'll change the world through us. The question is whether we are intentional about our X-men Gift, or if like 'Mystique' we feel insecure and try to hide and pose, or if like Eric we make it all about ourselves and end up colluding and conforming to the patterns of the fallen world system.

Tree of life - The Reversed Meta-Narrative

The legendary Terrence Malcik's, latest movie 'The Tree of Life' (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_tree_of_life_2011/) is one of the most unique movies I have ever seen. Within 10 minutes of the start, there is a 20 minute visual depiction of creation of life through big bang and subsequent evolution, without a single spoken word. The visuals are so astoundingly beautiful that in spite of the lack of verbal content, I is absolutely engrossed. The 140 minute movie has very few words. Malick communicates a feeling rather than content. 


The movie is about the strained relationship between the father (Brad Pitt) and a son. The movie is sort of a 'dreamy narration' of the grown-up son (Sean Penn), which is probably why I think words are so few and the visuals so vivid. In the movie theatre... Some people loved it. Some hated it. Some slept through it. None laughed. Watching this movie... some may cry and sniffle, some may sigh, some may snore, but none will smile.


The meta-narrative (big story that serves as a backdrop for the main story) of the movie is 'Darwinism'. The resolution for all the pain and suffering in Sean's heart is found in Darwinism. 'God-ism' is made into a minor narrative within the Darwinian framework.


Sean Penn, struggles in reminiscence of his childhood trying to make sense of his cruel nature. He painfully remembers his 'Freudian-urge' to want to kill his father. As a kid, he even went down on his knees in prayer for God's help to kill his father. The other part of Sean Penn's guilt is the jealousy and, at times, even hatred the he harbored against his talented brother who  dies young. Towards the end of the movie, Sean finally seems to resolve his guilt in that his cruel nature can only be explained through the Darwinian 'struggle for survival', where man finds himself 'red in tooth and claw' - and that is the way of Mother Nature. The movie begins with the 20 minute wordless visual sequence elaborating Darwinian evolution. The movie ends with a sort of mystical union with Mother Nature on the 'sea' shore. After all, as per Darwinism the sea (of premodial slime) is the Mother of all life. 


Given the Darwinian meta-narrative, it is ironic that of the few spoken words in the movie, the word 'God' is generously bandied about. The movie starts with the profound verse Job 38:4 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand." The movie ends with Sean's mother raising her hands and committing the fate of her dead son to 'god'. All along the dreamy narration, Sean questions God, why bad things happen. A dear Christian friend of mine said it seemed like a 'Godly' movie. I would beg to differ, not because Darwinism and God are incompatible, but because Terrence Malick does a brilliant reversal of the Christian idea of God. Malick makes Darwinism is the meta-narrative within which he subtly introduces 'god' as the smaller (imaginary) story giving comfort to people dealing with pain and suffering. 


On the surface, though the movie seems so profusely to depict the idea of God, it really talks about a 'mystical god' who is a 'figment of imagination' in the Darwinian human mind. It deals with human understanding of a silent god. The god that is depicted is not a God with a Personality whom one can talk to and get answers from. In the movie, Sean keeps questioning a god within his mind, but only hears silence. Finally, Sean sees meaning in Darwinism. Job 38:4 is brilliantly twisted into the Darwinian context. God of the 'Tree of Life', is no God, but a god-ism - a  'mystical god' who is a creation of the human mind that is going through pain and suffering. That is why even though the movie is so full of god, it is Godless. 


This sort of subtle reversal of the meta-narrative is not a new phenomenon, not among Christians at least. Our Pharisaical lives are so full of 'god-isms' like praying before dinner, seeking blessings, giving tithe, participating in ministries, attending Church, attending Bible Studies, going to marriages, baptisms and funerals... God is a figment in our imagination, we can't live without. But when it comes to dealing with real life issues, Christians, like Sean, hear a silent god. The problem is, sometimes Christians do not see God from within the Biblical meta-narrative. Rather, they see god from within the framework of their 'radical individualism', 'rampant materialism' and 'personal affluence'. Sometimes, Christians are led to believe God saved us to make use feel good. Such Christians worship and 'imaginary' God who supremely exists to bestow the 'Best Life Now' after 'Discovering the Champion in You' (plz. Google if the phrases in quotes don't ring a bell). 


We forget that the Patriarchs in our religion were a bunch of vagabonds who were 'called' to live ridiculously tough lives just to glorify the Name of God. Often it is lost upon Christians that God saves us for the glorification of His own Name. We have to SEE God in the meta-narrative of His glorification. If we don't SEE God in the story of His glorification, we'll end up living our lives in the wrong story - the story of our own personal glorification. In as much as we don't SEE God from within the Biblical framework, we won't know who we are. 


'Tree of life' asks deep questions about pain and suffering, but it does so from within the wrong meta-narrative. Consequently, Malick makes Darwinism the 'Tree of Life', and God as the creation of the human mind. The Christian Truth is the opposite. God is the creator of 'Tree of Life' and Darwinism is the creation of the human mind. The ultimate question  we need to ask ourselves, is whether we SEE ourselves in the meta-narrative that glorifies God, or if we reverse the meta-narrative, and SEE God from within the framework of our own self-aggrandized stories of 'radical individualism', 'rampant materialism' and 'personal affluence'. 

When a Noun Becomes a Verb

I sent an email out to the 'Parish Group' saying that I might not be able to attend the parish and that I wished them a great time of 'fellowshiping' and debating. After hitting 'send', I realized that the properly-spoken English language didn't have the word 'fellowshiping'. I had just made up a very odd sounding verb of a noun. Not that I am a stickler for grammatical correctness, I couldn't care less. Technically, 'fellowship' is itself a verb. But still, I sort of felt embarrassed and wanted to salvage my pride at least by trying to find some seemingly insightful rationale behind it. Or may be, it is a week since I have written anything on my blog and I needed an excuse to ramble on something.

So I started thinking... When 'google' became 'googling', a noun had become a very odd sounding verb. Whenever a noun becomes a verb it signifies a very powerful paradigm shift in how people perceive life. When noun becomes an odd-sounding verb, it morphs into something much BIGGER - in google's case worth billions of dollars too. :P

In order to find a way to restore my fallen (vain) glory, I had to ask myself what paradigm shift the word 'fellowshiping' signified? Was it worth at least 2 cents? Two thought tumbled out... 1) Young urban progressives living in the midst of a very 'fragmented society' have a deep need for fellowship (as a replacement to real family-ties). 2) Friendship/fellowship was never meant to be an end in itself. Any good friendship is always a means to something MUCH bigger.

C.S.Lewis in his book, 'Four Loves' talks about friendship as a relationship in which two people stand side-by-side and look at the same thing admire it the same way. They are not preoccupied with each other (as in the case of romantic relationship), friends are preoccupied with the beauty of 'something' MUCH bigger than each other, 'something' that could potentially be earth-shattering. In fact, the famed circle of friends that C.S.Lewis was a part of , the 'Inklings', also had another prominent writer, the great J.R.R Tolkien. The Inklings shared many a conversation over many a night. C.S.Lewis even read the original manuscript of the 'Lord of the Rings' and discussed it with J.R.R Tolkien.

What C.S.Lewis and J.R.R.Tolkien shared was the friendship of the highest order. Tolkien was very influential in C.S.Lewis' conversion. It is impossible to overestimate the impact of the Inklings on either writers and a thousand other writers that try copycat, the greatest among these being J.K.Rowling who makes no bones of the fact that she owes so much to the above mentioned writers. When noun becomes an odd sounding verb, when fellowship becomes fellowshiping, eventually, there is bound to be something spectacular.

Having thought through this I was sort of happy. I had managed to use the names of some legends using some circuitous logic and reasoning to salvage the damage that my vain ego felt at having coined so queer a word as 'fellowshiping'. Nevertheless, my ambition knews no limits. I was still thinking about how I could further salvage my pride by finding other uses for this inadvertent mistake... Lo and behold! another context came to my rescue. It happened at the parish meeting which I eventually made it to...

The question on the table was about how to engage an 'urban progressive' culture with the Gospel. I made my customary (slightly) long-winded speech about using artistic inclinations of people as a contact point to engage the culture. Kyle, a sharp guy in the group said, "so what you are saying is we need to something like - invite people and screen the movie 'Tree of Life'" (Kyle and I had just had a deep conversation about movie 'Tree of life' and how it related to the gospel). I replied, "precisely! and we need to talk about how the movie is so godless even though it appears to be FULL of the idea of God".

After the meeting was over, I told Kyle, "You know what, we shouldn't JUST screen 'Tree of Life', we should MAKE one like that". Kyle replied, "Yes, something that is deeply metaphorical". My rejoinder was, "Precisely, something that a few will understand, but when they do, their hearts and minds would be on fire!" This conversation made me feel even better about the impulsive coinage of 'fellowshiping'. After all, fellowshiping can have BIGGER goals...

When a noun becomes a verb, it is powerful. The MOST powerful example of this is when the Lord of the Universe changed the meaning of the word 'love' on the Cross. He SHOWED in real-life ACTION how the noun becomes a verb in a very powerful way. When the world go about 'petty ways' of making loads of money off of changing nouns into verbs, there is a huge lacuna for Christ-like ones to step in and SHOW the world how POWERFUL verbalizing a noun can be really be, as in 'fellowshiping', or better still 'truly loving' as Christ loves us! 

Courage Crazy VS True

It takes courage to live a good life, but it takes ‘crazy courage’ to change the world. For better or for worse, it is the crazily courageous ones from Steve Jobs, the founder of Apple Inc. to Hugh Hefner, the founder of Playboy Inc., that can't help but change the world around them.

Most Christians don't usually see themselves as being particularly courageous. Courageous Christianity is often relegated to the ones that get the 'special calling' to go to the frontier and work in some remote tribal village or somewhere in Iran or Egypt or Somalia. Other times, courage is associated with witnessing or going on short mission trips. What the movie 'Courageous' does best is to bring courage back into the everyday aspects of running a family and living a 'normal' Christian life.

When Howard Schultz thought he could sell a cup of Coffee for $4, when a gallon of gas was less than $2, people said he was crazy. Yes, Howard Schultz was crazy indeed. But, he was not JUST crazy. He had a crazy COURAGE to pursue his idea. Lo, and behold! Starbucks was born! This 'crazy courage' that the Howard Schultz-like high-stakes achievers have, is premised on the fact that they SEE something others don't. Schultz's 'crazy idea' has been successful because Schultz correctly diagnosed that urban progressives living lonely lives in a ‘fragmented society’ would gladly pay a premium for the 'third space’ - the (pseudo-)community experience. Schultz courage was based on the fact that he could SEE something others couldn't.

Likewise, the Christians in the movie 'Courageous' are courageous because that they SEE God in ways people in the Godless society don't. What is this special way of seeing God that makes them stand out? 


The one attribute that all the men in ‘Courageous’ share is that, they SEE God as the 'Sovereign Judge' of all of life. In the movie, this idea keeps recurring often taking multiple forms in the life choices of the Christian men in 'Courageous'.

1. Nathan admonishes David that he better be ready to face a Just God who'll see to it that the hurt David caused the girl he impregnated and then dumped, is paid for. (This becomes the segway to present the Gospel - that David did not have the capital to pay for his crime and so Christ lovingly paid it on the cross). Sadly, none told Steve Jobs this truth when he did the same to the mother of his first biological child, the now Ms. Lisa Brennan Jobs.

2. Adam makes the tough call to incarcerate his pal, Shane, who has lost his integrity. Adam then reconciles with Shane explaining that it is not about them but about the Holy God who will judge them all.

3. Seeing God as the Sovereign Judge gives the financially broke Javier the 'spine' to not fall in line with the Boss' crooked plans, even when it meant he would lose his long sought after dream job, and eventually his home too.

4. Seeing God as the Sovereign Judge, who is full of mercy and knows what He is doing, gives Adam the courage to raise his weak hands and thank the Lord for having given him 9 years with his sweet daughter who was hit by a drunk driver (if this scene in the movie does not make you shed a tear, there is probably very few things in life that will make you cry).

Often, SEEING God as the Sovereign Judge causes the modernized to bristle because the word 'judge' is often associated with the word 'judgmental' which rankles in the ears of the egalitarian society we live in. Ironically, even Christians don't like to see God as the ultimate judge. Many find it disturbing. During a discussion about God being the judge in a Bible Study group someone said something that amounted to, "I think of God as love. I don't find it useful to see God as the judge."

Unfortunately, Christians often forget how God being the ultimate judge makes us truly courageous. Courage, is one’s willingness to relinquish something near and dear. God being the Sovereign Judge, means that God is the ultimate ‘valuer' of life – God judges the ‘true value’ of people. In the movie 'Fight Club', Brad Pitt says, "What you have, will own you". Even people who agree with this dictum, still have an obsession to possess things. Reason? Possessing things gives them a ‘sense of value’. A Christian who SEES God as the one who ultimately ‘judges’ his personal value, can courageously relinquish his yearning for processions, prestige and power, which non-Christians crave after. This relinquishing is 'true courage'.

When a Christian realizes that God judges his ultimate value, he will, like Javier in ‘Courageous’, be willing to lose his home and remain poor, instead of colluding with the crooked and get rich. SEEING God as the ultimate judge of his ‘personal value’, gives Javier the courage resist the temptation of illicit riches. The materialistic moto of life, "Get Rich or Die Trying" is a total farce. In the Bible, Joseph saw God as his ultimate valuer which is why he was gladly willing to forgo the chance for illicit sex. Joseph depicted courage in ‘everyday living’ that landed him in prison. He lost something 'near and dear' - his freedom. But isn't this courage to not succumb to the flesh, the greatest sort of freedom? A Christian needs to live everyday lives, by this sort of true courage. This sort of courage shouldn't be relegated to just mission trips and witnessing to non-Christians.

A Christian who SEES the Lord and the Lord only as the judge of his ‘personal value’, will be freed to be truly courageous everyday of his life. Consequently, this Christian will not care for success in this temporal world. This Christian's philosophy is the exact opposite of crazily courageous Steve Jobs when he said in a 1984 interview, "I don't care about what is right or what is wrong. All I care about is success”. The 'truly' courageous don’t shoot for success in the eyes of men, they yearn for success in the eyes of God - they see God as the judge of their success. The 'crazily' courageous change the temporal, the 'truly' courageous affect eternity. Christians belong in the class of the 'truly courageous'. The movie ‘courageous’ shows how. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1630036/

A Man! A Son of the King!

(Disclaimer: Even though the verbiage is explicitly masculine, the spirit and the underlying theology is androgynous)

Life moves
Through a heaviness
Sharp edges
All around

Can't help
But move
Always forward
Always onward

Where's Meaning?
Where's Delight?
Distant Mirages
Rock underneath

Get cut
Bleeding
Get broken
Smashed

Heavy life
Edges, razor sharp
Rock is hard
Cob webs confuse

Take a punch
In the gut
Bear a bullet
In the chest

Oh, the meaning

Oh, the delight

Of being a man

With a spine 

Back up, Standing
With the King's Spirit
Brave and Strong - A man!
A son of the King!

Oh, What do We do With Burdensome Kids? Simple, Don't Have Any!!!

I met a guy who had just become a father for the second time. I was inquiring on the health of his infant son. I was a surprised when suddenly he said, "you know what, babies are costly". Of course, babies are 'priceless'. But he actually meant, "kids are 'high maintenance'".  I replied, "Oh, well... of course, kids cost money. But kids are what we live for... at the end of the day". He replied, "Yes, that is a good way to look at it."

Sometime back, I was talking with a guy from Church. He was well employed and married. He said that his wife wanted kids, but he wanted to postpone it. He said he might be able to hold out for another two years before acquiescing to his wife's wishes.  Once upon a time, I think kids were seen as a 'blessing from God'. But now, by default, kids are seen as a 'liability' to be avoided as much as possible or accepted as the last resort.

Why do we live in a world where kids instead of being seeing as 'blessings' are seen as 'liabilities' monetarily and more. Broadly speaking, pre-modern values dictated the man lived for the sake of his progeny. In the book 'How Then Shall We Live', Francis Schaeffer says that, in contrast to the pre-modern values, the ultra-modern man see two primary values worthy of pursuit, 'affluence' and 'personal peace'. Kids are a threat to both. Today, if you would go and tell an urban 'progressives', "you live for you kids". He/she will probably wonder, "Wow!!! So my life is not about who I want to be? It is about the kids?"

I was chatting with a childhood friend of mine. She had been married for about 4 years. She said that her husband did not want to have kids yet. I asked why. "Oh well, he thinks he is still in his teens and wants to enjoy life more before having kids". Pre-modern man saw marriage as a means to have children. Ultra-modern man sees marriage as a means for 'personal fulfillment'. He'll have kids only as long as he see that as a means to 'personal fulfillment' of some sort.

The young Steve Jobs is a case in point. He impregnated a girl (I believe in his early 20s) and refused to own up to it for 2 years. His court documents state, "that he couldn't be a father because he was 'sterile and infertile, and as a result thereof, did not have the physical capacity to procreate a child.'" Later on in his life, he adored his kids he "procreated" with a different woman. This goes to the point that in the early part of his life, the kid was too burdensome to be fulfilling that he was willing to do anything to disown it, even call himself infertile. Most modern men wouldn't go to the extent of disowning their kids, but they'll do quite a bit to not have them in the first place.

I recently read through Genesis in my daily 'quite time' routine. One thing that really stuck me was how much of Genesis hangs around the idea of offspring. It is almost all of life's meaning is drawn from the life of kids. Right at the beginning God starts talking about 'multiplying' and filling the earth. Then the story is about Adam and Eve and their children. Then Noah and his children. Then Abraham waits so long for a kid. Without Isaac's birth, Abraham would have been a blip in the radar. During the time of Isaac, Isaac does not have kids. He prays and gets Jacob and Eusa. Then the story is more about Jacob and Eusa. During Jacob's time it  about how he gets to have 12 kids and then it is about Joseph. This focus of Genesis on the offspring makes a lot of sense, because, at the end of the day, the baton has to be passed so that the Name of the Lord is ultimately glorified and His blessings is carried forward through all the Nations. Christians of this generation don't appear to be doing enough to pass on this baton.

Sociologists say that for any culture to thrive, each family on an average has to have about 2.5 kids. If it goes below this, then the culture would begin to die slowly. In fact the reason why Islam is spreading much faster than Christianity is because Christians have a lot fewer kids than Muslims.

I, being the disinterested observer, it is easy for me to say people should have more kids. It is easy for me to raise thorny questions. God has given us mandate for procreation and for preservation, and there is a balance between the two. I realize there are no easy answers. Life is hard work. Life is complex. Life is confusing. Nevertheless, I think unless we STOP seeing marriage primarily as a means to 'personal fulfillment' and start seeing it primarily through God's intended purpose of procreation, there is very little in this world to encourage people living in individualistic cultures to have kids. Living in consumerist societies, we want everything cheap, Kids being priceless is something that is out of our league. Sadly so! 

My September Posts in Facebook

Well, Steve Jobs is ok. He is still the Chairman of the Board. Techie journalists - please STOP eulogizing...


A lady and a gentle man with a heavy British ascent stopped me to ask for directions to their destination. The man kept repeating, that he recalled that 'there was a BIG parking space' next to the destination. I wanted to say, "Buddy, that does not help. I don't know about Britain, but in Texas all parking lots are BIG."


I would rather be remembered as a failure than not be remembered at all, for in the scope of Eternity even failure has a purpose.


A warrior that has nothing to worship outside of himself will end up warring against his own self. A man who isn't drawn outside of himself in worship and war will end up self-obsessed and consequently self-destruct.


Life is filled with choices. With choices come multi-pronged 'tensions'. Man, puny as he is has to trust in luck or in God's Sovereignty to 'work it ALL for the ultimate good'. Trust in God's Sovereignty gives a better framework to make brave choices, after all a man trusting in luck will be hard pressed to embrace Martyrdom.


Isn't it a blessed day when you get back from work after 00:00 hours but you still feel so full of energy because work was so exciting!!!

Hedgehog or the Fox - I am Happy to be the Hedgehog

A dear friend of mine commented that it was impressive that I found different ways to say the same thing in my blogs. She meant it as a compliment. It was a compliment that sort of made me self-conscious about all that I write about.

When I look back at my writing, I do realize that I start from different places, juggle disparate ideas but always end at one 'all unifying' theme - - the supremacy of the Lord, His Word and His Work. In fact, I think this started very early in my life. I clearly remember the comments of some of my friends during my college days, that I took everything and turned it into something about God. Later on, I came to know from some a friend that my  tying everything back to matters that have to do with God was pissing off some folks in our class. I toned  down my expositions, but now with the blogs I feel free.

As I thought about this further, I realized the reason why I always tied everything back to God is because I can't help it. It is the one thing that makes me passionate. There was a time when I was sharing my thought about God in emails to people and one of my good friends suggested that I start a blog in stead of bothering people with emails. So I start blogging in addition to bothering people with emails about my thoughts on God.

On the other hand, this realization that all my posts almost have monolithic themes made me feel like I was dumb. There was a point at which I started wondering if I should rather just stop writing and do something more worth my while. That was when I came across a part of Isaiah Berlin's essay 'The Hedgehog and the Fox'. The ancient Greek Poet Archilocus said, "a fox knows many things, a hedgehog knows one big thing". Thinkers have historically fallen under two categories - Universalists and the Paticularists. Universalists come from the Platonic school of thinking in which they are always trying to synthesis ideas to bring it up to one BIG universal idea. Paticularists follow the Aristotelian way of thinking in that they allow the paticulars to remain as they are, categorize them separately, instead of trying to find the Universal idea that ties them together.

Berlin goes on to say that by this classification, Shakespeare was a fox and Dostoevsky is a hedgehog. Shakespeare let things be as they are, was content explaining them as they are without any need to find a metaphysical unity. On the other hand Dostoevsky was always trying to point to something high up above, trying to say there was more to it than met the eye. Shakespeare's work is like a masterful painting. Dostoevsky's is like a towering peak that one had to climb to have the panoramic view of the world from this higher vantage point.

So this meant that I don't have to be apologetic that almost all my posts have one central theme. Foxes have their place. Hedgehogs have theirs. If I am to be a Hedgehog, I'll be happy to be the Hedgehog. I'll continue writing about the central theme of supremacy of the Lord, His Word and His Work!

Not Tired of Steve Jobs... Yet! Ok, But What NEXT?

Last week today, I went home, logged onto facebook, read my friend's status update 'Black Day - Job died' and got warped into a timelessness capsule. I had to add that surreal moment to the will-remember-where-I-was-when-I-heard-it list. The last one on the list was Michael Jackson. (/emmanuelreagan/2009/06/michel-jackson-timeless-or-timeless.html).

Since then, I have spent quite a bit of my time, reading about Mr. Steven Paul Jobs. Even today, a week after his passing, I still can't resist a news article that analyses and praises his deep passion for technology, his prescience in uncovering the deep needs of human nature, his sense of aesthetics etc... It was today that I wondered, why I do not get tired of Steve Jobs? Is it just curiosity? Of course, I am a 'curious cat'. But even when I read things about him which do not add to my knowledge-base and consequently cannot satisfy my curiosity, I still happily read on. Why?, probably because I admire him.

The Christian reads the Bible for similar reasons. We don't just read the Bible because it satisfies our curiosity (which it does by the way, at multiple levels), but because it is about someone who is to be admired - the One Sovereign God who is the most beautiful person ever. There are times when I have said in some Bible Study groups, "God is the most beautiful person ever", and have gotten the Dude-you-are-weird looks from others. I don't care that I look weird, not just because I know I am weird (everyone is weird to some extent, some more than others. God creates diversity. :P), but because I know when it comes to matters of admiring the Lord's beauty, I am in good company .

Psalm 27:4 This only have I asked of the Lord, that I will seek after: that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to gaze on the beauty of the LORD and to inquire in his temple.

It behoves me to note that this sort of seeking to gaze on the Lord's beauty is not easy for fallen men, which is why in the first part of the verse, David pleads with the Lord to make it possible for him to only seek after the Lord... 'This only have I asked of the Lord, that I will seek after'

David's reference to 'House of the Lord' and 'His Temple' refers to life in Heaven as well. Imagine living forever and ever doing nothing but gazing on the Lord and inquiring to know more about Him. Would it be boring after a few days? Heavens, NO! Why? Because the Lord is the most beautiful person ever. He is worthy of all admiration. If a finite man by the name Steve Jobs can inspire me to spend so much time reading about him, how much more can an Infinite God inspire me to spend an Eternity trying to know him more and more and more and more and more... and a thousand, thousand time more!!!

When a Christian reads the Bible and get on his knees to pray, he is just having a foretaste of that Eternal pleasure of getting to know Him, which is what makes the 'Quite Time' the most exciting time of the day. To call the time spent reading the Bible and Praying as 'Quite Time' is I think, a terrible misnomer. I would rather call it 'Pleasure Time' or 'Delight Time' or 'Exciting Time' or 'Gazing on the Lord Time' for that is what it is.

When we read the Bible and Pray we don't get get into some laconic, dull, comatose state. Rather, 'kindled' by the Holy Spirit, we get to do the thing we most enjoy to do - admire the Lord. We get excited - like a jock watching his favourite star play Football - like a nerd reading the Lord of the Rings - like a non-philistine listening to Beethoven's 5th.

Christians are excited to gaze upon the Lord and this is one thing they'll do it in this life and continue doing to a greater extent of pleasure and contentment in the NEXT one too. Steve Jobs did so much towards making this life meaningful and exciting. He famously said, "life is short, don't live someone else's". But honestly, I wonder how much thought he put into the flip side of that exhortation - finding excitement and meaning in the NEXT life after this short one! If Jobs doesn't find his NEXT life exciting and meaningful, this may be the first time his much admired prescience to anticipate future needs and improvise upon it from the present, has let him down. But then death stumps even the Strong!!!

Ps: 'NExT', by the way, is the name of the company Jobs founded after he was originally dumped by Apple. NExT was spectacularly idealistic. It was true to ALL of Jobs' perfectionist visionary ideals of creating the NEXT revolution in computers. It made great products, but wasn't that successful. NExT was bought by Apple and its OS became the core to Apple's successful OS X. But the biggest asset that Apple got with the NExT acquisition was the legend Steve Jobs... Reverting back to the point of this post, having an unbiblical perspective of life makes even the longsighted, short-sighted, the strong, weak and the brilliant, foolish. Steve Jobs famously said in a 1985 interview, "I don't care much about what is right or wrong. I care for success". At the end of the day, when all is said and done, I guess success doesn't matter as much as wisdom from the Lord!

'Courageous' - An Antithetic Story of the Sexy, the Strong and the Sell-able!

(Disclaimer: In some parts of the write-up, I have used a broad brush. Please help yourself to a generous pinch of salt. :P)

Most popular Hollywood movies that I can remember, portray men epitomizing the 'trivial' attributes of manhood. They are either funny and stupid (think Will Farrell) or brash and bulldozing (think Arnold, oh how do I spell his last name - google help! yes, Schwarzenegger) or cocky and surefooted (think Russell Crowe) or in a few instances, mostly from the yesteryears, laconic and mysterious (think Humphrey Bogart). 'Real men' are seldom seen in Hollywood movies. Why? Because in this culture, it is the trivialized man that considered sexy, strong and sell-able.

Hollywood movies don’t celebrate 'real men' - the ones that walk around with a little paunch, try hard to do the right thing for their family, sometimes fail and pick themselves up and try again; they lose, they hurt, huddle to help each other, charge into a battle against evil getting bloodied up, they forgive, forget, reconcile; they are tender, they are tough, they are insecure and confused, yet 'real men' have a spine - they SEE God, they love their family. They are Courageous. 

'Courageous' is Christian movie about 5 men that fall into the latter category of 'real men'. Of course, the wives and kids find these men funny, stupid, brash, bulldozing, surefooted, cocky too, but that is totally BESIDE the point of who they really are - men with a spine that take care of a family. 'Courageous' depicts the struggles that 'real men' face - from losing jobs when rent is due, to losing a loved one in an already stressed family, to having to own up for not having owned up to ones biological child, to incarcerating a dear pal that lost his integrity in a position of responsibility. In contrast to the swashbucklers of Hollywood's commercial successes, 'Courageous' epitomizes real men. 

"The Magnificent Seven" is one of the 'more of the same' Hollywood classics that venerates magnificent heroes who live on horses, fight with guns and are sought-after by women. But, even that movie has its moment of antithetical truth… Yul Brynner is a celebrity mercenary that walks with a swagger, speaks in a baritone and shoots from the hip. He decides to help some hapless Mexican farmers exploited by the bandits. After witnessing Yul's brave stunts, a kid in the villager tells Yul that he is ashamed that his farmer-father is a coward and not as brave as Yul. Yul forbids the kid to ever think his father as being a coward for not fighting with guns. Yul says something that in-spirit means, "it take more courage to handle the plow and serve a family than to handle a gun to fight bad guys". Hollywood, when it speaks in terms of the normative, is seldom right, this is one of the few instances in which it is. As much as flamboyant cowboys are idolized, a life of handling guns and horses isn't really a difficult life. It is an Either/Or! Either you put a bullet into another man's heart or another man does it for you. Pretty simple! You are a man who has got nothing to lose except your life. So in a very ironic way, you are in control of your destiny, if you are good you live or you die. 

On the other hand, to handle a baby in your arms is a whole another equation. It is to subject your destiny to something bigger - something you don't have control over. Such risk taking endeavor takes a 'real man' - one that has a spine. It takes courage to start a family, which on the surface, appears to be lacking an increasing number of emasculated urban progressive men that are born into the 'Hollywood-trivialized-superstars admiring' culture. They would rather be free, look slick and perpetually carry on the persona of the most-eligible-bachelor, than carry a baby and be befuddled by the vagaries of life. 

Recently, I was reading an article written by a school teacher lamenting the problem of teenage pregnancies and the girls who end-up becoming unwed mothers. When one of his own students ended up a teen mom, he observed that she had become the superstar of his class. Apparently, being a 'teen mom' was the new cool thing! Bemused by this phenomenon, he organized a group discussion in his class on being a teenage mom. One of the questions he asked them was, "How do you think being a teenage mom would affect your prospects of marriage in future?" They all acted like this was a dumb question. None knew how to answer. He posted it to the teen mom. The girl sitting next to her blurted out, "Nobody marries anymore, Mister!". The whole class broke out in laughter, cheering the 'good' answer!  

I read another article putting forth the idea that even if the embattled Euro survives and becomes strong, that Europe would still be headed for a decline. Reason? – very few people in Europe get married anymore. From 2000 to 2010, 37% of children in Europe were out of wedlock kids who will be raised in single-mom homes. In Sweden, 54% of kids our out of wedlock kids who will be raised in single-mom homes. The US isn't far behind either. In the 1960, close to 75% of households with kids had a complete set of parents. In 2010, it is just about 51%. This trend sociologist worry, is not likely create a stable society where children are the pillars of the future civilization. Among other things, one important cause for this trend is I believe the flakiness of modernized men, who don't have good role models for real manhood. It takes courage to start a Family, because it takes a sacrificial heart to really serve 24/7.

The fulcrum of the movie ‘Courageous’ is Joshua words, "as for me and my house, we will Serve the Lord". Joshua takes the idea of manhood to a whole new level. Joshua elevates running a family - the mundane routines of changing diaper to paying for school to caring for the sick kid, into something that serves a BIGGER purpose - that of SERVING God. This HIGHER purpose inspires him to do a better job at serving his family.  

Malachi takes man's role in family one step higher. He is specifically addressing the man to not break faith. He is not asking the man to love his wife because she makes him feel good about himself, rather he says... Mal 2:15 Has not the LORD made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring(!!!) So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth. 

Joshua and Malachi SEE God as an intrinsic part of the equation of 'running the family' in a way most modernized men don't. The 'real man' is one who tries to align himself to be true to the Image of God. Even if he fails, he is 'courageous' enough to try again, for he knows his purpose is to conform to the likeness of Christ. Only Christianity has a solid basis to restore 'manishness' back to man. It helps him put context into why he carries with him a weight - a weight that gives him a spine to be the Christ to the family and expend himself in its service. 

One of the effects of living in a Godless, radically individualistic, inexorably insecure, Post-Christian society is that man's essence is trivialized to the point of making him a funny and/or rugged and/or cocky guy whose existence is ultimately pointless, spineless and useless.  'Courageous' is the anti-thesis to this trivialization of manhood. As contrived and longish the storyline is, 'Courageous' is a decent critique of the society. Interestingly, it is also a commercial success. 'Courageous' takes the dumbed-down version of the 'real man' who cares for his family and  expends himself in doing the 'right thing' as a service to God, and makes him look sexy, strong and sell-able. 

Not Ultimate, But Important

I made a case in my blog on 'Lion King' that this world is NOT ultimate and that as Christians, for us the next world is the ultimate one. This is true, but this does not mean that this world isn't important. This world is important because Jesus Christ inaugurated the Kingdom of God in this world and we are a part of the Kingdom of God. In this 'Kingdom of God', each of us human beings have an important part to play and we need to fulfill that role.

As I noted in an earlier blog about Horses and Christians, Christians need to go out into the world and start building hospitals and corporations and orphanages and make good movies, paint beautiful paintings etc... But all of this apart, the most important goal for Christian living is to be conformed to the Image of Christ. Whether you are building a hospital or a corporation or orphanages or good movies, or great paintings, the Holy Spirit is working in you to conform you to the image of Christ and that is what truly determines success in life, this is why this life though isn't ultimate, is important nevertheless. 

Almost 29, yet fascinated with Lion King 3D

I remember crying in the movie theatre as a kid when I watched the timeless Disney animation movie the 'Lion King'. When Lion King came back to the theatres in 3D version the weekend before the last, I most eagerly watched it again. This time, I didn't cry. I just had a clogged nose. During some parts of the movie, I had to breathe though my mouth, least the kids and families be disturbed by sniffling of a 210 pound almost (then) 29 year old bloke.

Even though my emotions hadn't quite changed since I was a kid, my perception of the overall narrative had changed quite a bit. This time I could appreciate the Christian analogy in the movie. A young kid in a 'happy garden' is tempted by the evil one with access to 'special knowledge'. How could that not ring a bell?

Following the advice of the evil one, the kid messes up and then runs away in fear. Wanting to forget the guilt of the 'death causing' disobedience, Simba decides to FORGE his original identity and indulge in the petty distractions of life of comfortable complacency - quite like the 'fallen man' who'll indulge in everything from work to sports to movies to sex to anti-depressants to quell the feeling deep within, that he has messed up his life.

Simba grows up making his new world of petty indulgences as his ULTIMATE world. One day, Simba meets his childhood sweetheart who asks him to return to his 'real home'. Simba shows her his ULTIMATE life of affluence and sees no reason give it up to go back and risk facing his evil Uncle Scar.

Through an unexpected series of events, Simba makes U turn and returns back to his 'real home'. The point of inflexion is a vision he has of his dead Father's spirit.

Father: "Simba, you have forgotten me."

Simba: "No. I have not."

Father: "Yes. You have."

Simba: "NO."

Father: "You have forgotten who you are. So you have forgotten me. Simba! REMEMBER who you are!!!"

As a kid, I kind of took this vision for granted. But now, having gone through my 'quarter life crisis', I see something interesting about this U turn.

When Simba REMEMBERS his Father, he REMEMBERS who he really IS. Then he realizes that the pleasure mongering, affluent world he lives in is NOT ultimate anymore. His ULTIMATE world is his 'real home' and he'll fight to get it back from his evil Uncle, even if he'll have to risk getting killed. He turns from timid philistinism with an other-worldly courage. This reminded me of Christian martyrs.

Being a kid who grew hearing stories about Christian missionaries, the phenomenon of Christian martyrdom has always fascinated me. Why would someone with sane mind willingly give up the pleasures of life to die an ignoble death. Martyrdom is a topic that makes people, especially affluent Christians, uncomfortable. Improvising D.L.Moody into this context would render his famous quote as... "A Christian martyr, who loses his life, loses something he cannot keep to gain something he cannot lose". Christian martyrs are people who like Simba have had the U-turn and realize that this world they live in is NOT the ULTIMATE world and that they are meant to fight for something bigger.

Christianity spread like wildfire during the first century Roman Empire because Christians then REALLY believed that this world is NOT the ULTIMATE one. Perhaps the idea of this world not being ULTIMATE sounds too revolutionary to the Modern Christians living in the world pervaded by ideals of materialism - with the iconic Steven Jobs saying in his Harvard address, "this is too short a life for you to be living someone else’s life", and at the other end, an infamous online adultery site running ads in mainstream media saying, "life is short, just have an affair". The few times I attempted discussing martyrdom in Bible Study groups, it mostly seemed to make people uncomfortable. In one instance, I was asked to stop. May be I was pressing too hard…

On the other hand, I recently read that the 20th century has had more Christian Martyrs than any other century. Perhaps that is because population increase has been exponential in the 20th century. But still it begs the question, why is there an appearance of two groups of Christians? One group is philistine and material, the other is brave and other-worldly. Could that be the difference between ‘the wheat and the tares’ (Matt 13:24-30)? Maybe not... Perhaps to use one’s idea of martyrdom as a dividing line between wheat and tares is too simplistic... Or maybe I am over analyzing this...

Anyways, here is the bottom-line... What really makes a Christian is that, a Christian, like Simba, REMEMBERS who his Father is. The philosopher King says in the Proverbs... 'REMEMBER your Creator in the days of your youth' (Eccl 12:1). Such a Christian knows which world is ULTIMATE - this one or the next one? The answer to this question becomes the basis for his 'world view' that determines EVERY other part of his life. A Christian of this sort would then be unafraid to 'run against a troop or leap over wall' (Ps 18:29).  

Looking back, I think it is ok to be squeamish about meditating martyrdom in our Bible studies. But we cannot afford to or not REMEMBER our Creator EVERY moment of our lives. If we don't REMEMBER who our Creator is, we forget who we are! It MATTERS whether we look at the world through the 'lens' of us being Sons of a Heavenly Father who has built our true homes in the Heavenly realms (John 14:3), or whether we, like the modern materialistic pagans, live as though this world is ALL there is.