Love’s Inevitable Risk

Heartbreak — one of those inevitable disturbances that must happen to everyone as they grow up.  Certainly, it needn’t be heartbreak in a romantic affair: love a dog, and when that dog dies, your heart will break.  Love a gift, a family heirloom, and when you lose that thing you cannot replace, tears will stream down you face (props to Coldplay!).  Actually, I think Coldplay has a lot of wisdom on this subject.  They recognize quite well in their song “What If” that love, by its very nature, is prone to the risk of heartbreak.  Look at what they have to say on the subject (and this is only one verse of the song):

Every step that you take
Could be your biggest mistake.
It could bend or it could break
But that’s the risk that you take.
What if you should decide
That you don’t want me there in your life?
That you don’t want me there by your side?

Coldplay goes on to say that because of this risk, “Let’s take a breath, jump over the side.”  In other words, yes, there is a fundamental risk involved in love, but we can’t let that risk keep us from loving.  I think C. S. Lewis makes this point masterfully in The Four Loves (a book that I haven’t read in its entirety yet, but I will the first chance I get!):

There is no escape along the lines St. Augustine suggests.  Nor along any other lines.  There is no safe investment.  To love at all is to be vulnerable.  Love anything, and your heart will certainly be wrung and possibly be broken.  If you want to make sure of keeping it intact, you must give your heart to no one, not even to an animal.  Wrap it carefully round with hobbies and little luxuries; avoid all entanglements; lock it up safe in the casket or coffin of your selfishness.  But in that casket — safe, dark, motionless, airless — it will change.  It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeemable.  The alternative to tragedy, or at least to the risk of tragedy, is damnation.  The only place outside Heaven where you can be perfectly safe from all the dangers and perturbations of love is Hell.

 Wow, that is a long quote, but Lewis captures the essence of love’s risk so poetically that I had to include the whole thing.  For clarity and profundity, there’s no one that can beat C. S. Lewis!  Before I close this assimilated post of sundry quotes on this topic, I thought I would make one last reference.  I watched Casino Royale a couple of weeks ago and it quickly became one of my favorite movies (thoughts on it are coming soon, I promise!).  One thing in particular impacted me about the movie.  Here is James Bond, agent 007, the nearly-invincible Mr. Macho himself.  Who can hurt him?  Yet, in this movie, Mr. Bond finally finds true love (I’m sure some would debate this claim, but I think this is what the filmmakers wanted to communicate at the end of the film).  How does Bond describe this new love he has found?

I have no armour left. You’ve stripped it from me. Whatever is left of me – whatever is left of me – whatever I am – I’m yours.

Sounds a lot like vulnerability, doesn’t it?  Love is the loss of one’s armor, the opening of one’s heart; what could be more dangerous than that?  Closing one’s self off from love to avoid pain.  As Coldplay melodiously says, “Let’s take a breath, jump over the side.”  Will it hurt?  Most definitely.  But that’s the way it’s done, and there’s no other alternative but Hell.

Abel’s Predicament

To go along with our formal studies in textbooks, 17th century classic texts, and incredibly complex but enlightening scientific experiments for this school year, my family tries to have stimulating conversations during our family dinner times.  Well, during the first week of classes, my ever-pensive younger brother opened his mouth during dinner with a different intent than just putting food into it.  He asked the very interesting question, “Where did Abel go when his brother Cain murdered him?”  (This story can be read in Genesis 4).  After considering the question, my sister and I concluded that Abel must have gone to some intermediate place between death and heaven, a sort of “limbo.”  The reasoning behind this statement was that, since Jesus had not yet died on the cross, Abel’s sins (though temporarily covered by animal sacrifices) were not yet forgiven, for as Hebrews 10:4 says, “It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.”  In other words, the blood of animal sacrifices was representative of the blood of Christ that would be shed on the cross, but animal blood itself had no power to forgive sins, and therefore, Abel’s sins at the time of his death were not forgiven and he could not enter Heaven.  In addition to this, before His death on the cross Jesus said to His disciples, “I go to prepare a place for you” (John 14:2).  If there had been a Heaven before Jesus came to earth, He would not have so clearly stated that He was going to prepare such a place.  It would appear, then, that heaven did not exist before Jesus’ death, for no one would have been able to get in before Christ’s blood was shed for their sins.

Well, in light of this rather complex discussion on where Abel probably went when he died and why he went there, I asked my sister to illustrate this for me.  I know that there are those who better grasp difficult ideas through pictures and other visual stimuli, so I have decided to provide explanatory illustrations.  Anyway, without further adieu, I present to you “Cain and Abel.”

(Cain murders Abel…)

(To Abel’s dismay, he finds that Heaven will not open for a couple thousand years.)

DISCLAIMER:  This post, while presenting a very real Biblical story and situation, is somewhat tongue in cheek in nature.  Of course, the author of this blog does not believe that Abel was left stranded at Heaven’s gate for thousands of years — the situation is illustrated in that way simply to make a humorous statement out of a true fact (the fact being that Heaven did not exist before Christ’s death circa 33 A.D.).  There are differing views on what happened at the death of Old Testament saints, and this post does not offer any conclusive evidence for one view over another.  This post is meant merely to entertain in an intelligent manner.

Vacillations on V for Vendetta

I recognize that my thoughts on this movie are long overdue — I stated in an earlier post that I would reflect on movies I watched during Christmas break soon and it has been nearly a month since then.  Clearly, my definition of “soon” is not that of the common man.  In truth, however, I must say that the delay in these reviews has been because of homework and other responsibilities mixed in with a good dose of laziness towards posting on this blog.  That has all changed, however, and I am adopting a more responsible attitude towards this blog.  Thus, after that brief explanation, let me now get down to the subject matter of this post.

When my older brother came down from college for Christmas break, he had a list of movies he had seen with college friends that he wanted to share with us; one of these movies was V for Vendetta.  Before my brother’s hearty recommendation, I had no desire whatsoever to see this film.  I trusted World Magazine’s description of the movie as “Vile” (subscription required) and was not interested in being brainwashed from the movie screen.  My brother, however, tends to have very good taste in movies, so I had to see V for Vendetta after he listed it as one of his all-time favorite movies.  After seeing the movie, my feelings were somewhat mixed.

I must admit, this is one of the best movies I have ever seen.  Everything I can remember about it was excellent — the storyline, the acting (a main protagonist who wears a mask throughout the whole movie yet still comes across well is quite a feat of acting!), the music, the action, the score.  This is one of the greatest works of cinematic art that I have seen (not that I’m claiming vast experience or anything).  Yet I resist listing it as one of my favorite movies — it can be one of the best in quality without being one of my personal favorites.

The reason for my rejection of this movie as a favorite in spite of its inherent quality is because of the ideas it presents.  As I expected, the movie is a sort of political statement against right-wing, conservative Christians.  Homosexuals are portrayed as an oppressed minority that (in the not-too-distant future) will be slain en masse as a result of the government’s loathing of these people.  Also, my brother made the keen observation that the symbol of the ruling government in the movie (which he claimed is representative of the Bush administration) is nothing more than a double cross (see image above right).  A coincidence?  I think that doubtful.

In the end, I vacillated over whether I was right or not about V for Vendetta.  I was definitely right in that it is, to some extent, a political movie that tries to get you to see the world through a secular humanistic worldview.  But, I must admit, I was wrong to avoid watching the movie because of that.  True, many of the ideas it presents are anti-Biblical and anti-Christian, but that doesn’t mean we have to hide from it.  I recommend V for Vendetta for Christians who want to understand how secular liberals see us — it’s rather a scary image.  I will also close with an excellent quote from the film’s protagonist, “V” — it is one of the best quotes I have come across in any movie I have seen:

People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

It almost sounds like something straight out of John Locke, a modern rendition of the people’s right to dissolve their government.  Perhaps the filmmakers were not that misguided after all — they recognize the importance of freedom and the terrors of tyranny, yet they incorrectly assume that America’s current government and Christians are going to bring about the government portrayed in this movie.  The movie’s premises are good and correct, but its conclusions are ultimately faulty.  Still, it’s a movie worth watching and thinking about.

Another C. S. Lewis Movie

Anyone who is a fan of the film version of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe will probably be fully aware that Walden Media and Disney have started work on the next installment to the Narnia series, Prince Caspian.  This is no surprise — the film is set for a 2008 release.  Having said this, a couple of weeks ago I found an interesting website for reading about upcoming movie sequals and one of the headlines they wrote today surprised me quite a bit.

According to IGN.com, Walden has begun work on a film adaptation (set for release next year) of Lewis’ classic book The Screwtape Letters:

C.S. Lewis may be best known for his Chronicles of Narnia series of books, but with the success of the first Narnia film, it seems Hollywood is ready to start adapting the author’s other works as well. First up: a big screen version of Lewis’ The Screwtape Letters.

I must say I laughed quite loud when I read that.  A movie of The Screwtape Letters?  Of all things!  Lewis wrote many other novels besides The Chronicles of Narnia that would be much easier to adapt into a movie than a collection of letters written by an old, uncle devil to his nephew.  They screenwriters of this movie are going to have to invent a storyline for the movie, I’m afraid.  We shall have to see what the finished result is.  At least the fact that Walden Media is behind the effort gives me confidence that they will make a decent and faithful adaptation of the book.  After Prince Caspian and The Screwtape Letters, though, they really must make a movie of Till We Have Faces.  Now that would be a movie worth seeing!

The Brutalization of Man Is Complete

Since the teaching of evolution and naturalism in today’s world reduces man to little more than an ultra-intelligent, furless ape, I have often wondered how long it would be before man was represented with his fellow “brother apes” in the zoo.  Well, it appears that this last stronghold of human dignity has finally been crossed, as noted in this rather humorous story from Reuters:

An Australian zoo has put a group of humans on display to raise awareness about primate conservation — with the proviso that they don’t get up to any monkey business.

Over a month, the humans will be locked in an unused orang-utan cage at Adelaide zoo, braving the searing heat and snacking on bananas. They will be monitored by a psychologist who hopes to use the findings to improve conditions for real apes in captivity.

I found reading this story rather ironic, since I just read the condemnation that Alexis de Tocqueville heaps upon materialists in Democracy in America:

[Materialists,] when they believe they have sufficiently established that they are only brutes, they show themselves as proud as if they had demonstrated they were gods.

Tocqueville goes on to assert how religion is necessary in democratic societies, if for no other reason, to simply remind men of their immortal souls and their basic human dignity.  It appears that the secularism that has been taking over the world has removed religion from men’s minds and, consequently, has made men forget that we actually do have immortal souls.  It would appear that Tocqueville was right after all: without religion in democracies, human dignity is lost.

A Great and Terrible Quote

Over Christmas vacation, I took a break from the rather difficult books I’ve been reading lately (Locke, Hobbes, and Edwards are not easy pleasure reading material!) and decided to read something for sheer pleasure (I know, naughty, naughty me).  I decided on a book that I had read in my younger days, when I still had time to read exciting novels for hours every day.  The book I selected is Margaret Lovett’s The Great and Terrible Quest.  I  remembered reading this book several years ago and liking it immensely; thus, to satisfy my weary mind with some good fiction, I reread this book during vacation.

First of all, I was not disappointed at all by rereading this book.  I know that sometimes, when we remember something as beautiful and sublime (hmm, Edmund Burke would consider describing something with those two words contradictory, considering what he wrote on beauty and sublimity) when we are young, we are disappointed when we return to it after years have passed.  The wonder and magic that was there in childhood commonly abandons the work once we have left infancy.  That was not the case with this book, however.  If you want to read an entertaining, exciting, and even humorous account of a knight in the Middle Ages, you should read this book.

Without going into the plot or giving a complete review of the book, I just wanted to note one very interesting quote that struck me as I read it.  A young boy is talking to a wise, old woman about his despicable, hateful grandfather and how anyone could turn out as he did.  The old woman replies that the old man is embittered by the hurt his daughter — whom he dearly loved — caused him.  The little boy cannot comprehend this statement at all, and the woman replies by saying,

Ah, you’m too young to know the hate that love flouted can turn to.

I’m not making any arcane statements here, but I did find that quote extremely interesting and profound.  Yes, silly human beings that we are; what we think is love can easily turn to hate if we’re not careful to forgive and forget.  In the words of Coldplay (which has very quickly joined the ranks of my five favorite musical groups),

Oh, what good is it to live
With nothing left to give?
Forget, but not forgive
Not loving all you see?
(From “Swallowed in the Sea“)

Anyway, just a couple of random thoughts that I’ve had lately.  I felt like I should post, since it probably looks like I’ve abandoned this blog.  I’m going to write some thoughts on movies we watched during vacation, including Lady in the Water, V for Vendetta, and Casino Royale.  That’ll be coming soon!  Until then, find a copy of The Great and Terrible Quest and enjoy a great little book!

A Hole God Does Not Fill

When Christians are faced with the pain and aching in the world, I think it is safe to say that they usually blame it all on mankind’s fall into sin.  Indeed, had Adam resisted the temptation to eat the forbidden fruit (Gen. 3:6), there would be no suffering and hurt in this world, would there?  We would all live in a peaceful utopia, just as Adam did before he made his fateful mistake.  I must agree with the general conclusion that pain and sin are results of the fall and the entire world would be much better off if Adam had resisted the hideously beautiful fruit.  Before sinning, Adam had a perfect relationship with God.  There was no pride, hatred, lust, greed, envy — in short, no sin to separate God from His greatest creation.  In fact, the Bible seems to imply that Adam would walk throughout the garden with God during the “cool of the day” (Gen. 3:8).  Adam probably had the closest relationship a man could ever have with God; while Moses may have been the man closest to God after the fall, a post-fall relationship could not compare to the completely perfect relationship Adam had with God before the fall occurred.  And yet, even in this utopia and perfect relationship with God, all was not well.

The Genesis account is filled with God’s proclaiming His creation good, from the Seas and the Earth (Gen. 1:10) to the trees and plants of the field (1:12).  The crowning moment of creation, however, happened when God created man in His own image and then proclaimed His entire work “very good” (Gen. 1:31).  One can only imagine what it must have been like to be Adam, “born” into a perfect world with God as His Parent, walking with Him as one walks with fellow humans.  What more could one ask for?  God, in His wisdom, saw that all was not good.  Moses puts it this way:

And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him” (NKJV, Gen. 2:18).

Despite his perfect relationship with God and the wonderful world he lived in, Adam could not be complete until God made a helper suitable for him.  There was a “hole” inside Adam that even his perfect relationship with God did not fill.  When we’re feeling lonely or rejected, we’ve all heard the consolation from fellow believers that “only God can fill your heart.”  There’s truth in that statement — one will never find complete satisfaction in even the most wonderful love (a lesson powerfully illustrated in Sheldon Vanauken’s amazing book A Severe Mercy).  It is unreasonable, though, to tell people that God will fulfill their longing for another person to love and cherish; God, in His perfect relationship with the first man, recognized that Adam needed another human to love.  Granted, I’m sure God could (and sometimes does — see 1 Cor. 7:37) take away that desire, but He never fulfills it Himself, for another human was meant do to that.  I like how John Locke put it in his Second Treatise of Government:

God having made man such a creature, that in his own judgment, it was not good for him to be alone, put him under strong obligations of necessity, convenience, and inclination to drive him into society, as well as fitted him with understanding and language to continue and enjoy it.  The first society was between a man and wife…

Now, I realize that what I’m saying here could be misinterpreted to an extreme.  I’m not saying that we should first of all seek love — the Apostle Paul warns for him who is “loosed from a wife” to not seek one (1 Cor. 7:27).  In addition to this, God promises that if we seek first His kingdom, the rest will be added unto us (Matt. 6:33) and that the desires of our hearts can be found only be delighting first in Him (Ps. 37:4).  A tragic and horrifying (if somewhat extreme) example of what results when we seek love above God can be read in this recent story at the LA Times.  (Read the story at your own risk — it can get both sexually and violently graphic.) 

In the end, I’m not advocating the idea that we should seek love above God; that is making and idol of a good thing and will only lead to heartache and problems, as illustrated in the LA Times story above.  Still, it is untrue that God will “fill the hole in our hearts” for romantic love when He is the one who put it there in the first place.  We must seek Him first, certainly, but we must not expect Him to fulfill something He never intended to.  All we can do is trust that, if that emptiness is inside us, He will one day bring the only one who can truly fill it.

Impossible Friendships

No one in their right mind will deny that Tolkien was a master storyteller.  Not only is his epic tale The Lord of the Rings one of the most incredible and powerful works of all time, but his children’s story The Hobbit is also very popular.  Clearly, Tolkien knew what it takes to be a successful writer of fantasy.  There is a side of Tolkien, however, that has often been neglected — his role as a father and Christian man.  I admit that I myself do not know that much about this side of Tolkien; perhaps sitting down with a copy of his published letters or reading Humphrey Carpenter’s extensive biography on the man would enlighten me more to his human side.  At present, though, the only thing I have to vouch for Tolkien’s wisdom as a father is a letter published at Albert Mohler’s blog.  I find this letter replete with wisdom that an older Tolkien was handing down to his son on the issues of sex and male/female relationships. 

In this letter, Tolkien not only warns his son about the dangers of the modern world’s view on sexuality, but (as I will focus on in this post) also warns his son that pure friendships are not possible between young men and women.  Mohler put it this way:

Taking the point further, Tolkien warned his son that “friendship” between a young man and a young woman, supposedly free from sexual desire, would not remain untroubled by sexual attraction for long. At least one of the partners is almost certain to be inflamed with sexual passion, Tolkien advised. This is especially true among the young, for Tolkien believed that such friendships might be possible later in life, “when sex cools down.”

Tolkien’s wisdom on this point is priceless.  How many times have we heard the assurance from questioned individuals that a relationship is only innocent friendship?  “We’re just friends, and nothing more,” we like to say.  Yet, if Tolkien is correct, this can never truly be the case between a young man and a young woman.  The trouble is the very nature of friendship.

Friends are people who share common interests and enjoy each others’ company; people who trust each other and are united in a fight for a common goal.  Yet, even more, friends are people who share their hearts with each other — a true friend is a person to whom you can run when you have a problem, knowing that they will support you and help you through that trial.  You can tell a good friend nearly anything and he will be happy to listen and offer you advice.  This is true friendship.

The trouble with boy/girl “friendships” is that it naturally involves a similar sharing of the hearts and affections.  This presents no difficulty for the average same-sex friendship, for friends can share their hearts deeply with each other and want nothing more.  (There are a few queer exceptions to this general rule, but they are not the norm.)  A man and a woman, however, were made for more.  They were not only made to share their hearts as much (and even more) than friends do, but they were designed to share everything with each other.  Thus, when the sharing inherent to friendship occurs, it is almost certain that more sharing will be desired by one of the “friends.”  This is, after all, a natural desire.

Someday, a person will find the spouse with whom they will become best of friends — better friends than they could ever be with a person of their own sex.  The trouble is, it’s very easy to slide into premature friendships with members of the opposite sex before that chosen time.  I’m in no way advocating a total separation of the sexes and no friendship at all between them.  I’m just pointing out the danger of such friendships.  Light, casual friendships are very possible and beneficial between the sexes, but if that friendship ever progresses to something more serious, beware.  Until you have certainly found the person who you will one day marry, keep close friendships only with those of your own sex.  Anything else will only result in desires and expectations that are, most likely, false and misleading, and believe me, you want to avoid such misconceptions at all costs.  So, girls, realize that you can never be “best friends” with a guy and nothing more — it just doesn’t work that way.  And, guys, beware of the temptation to call close girl friends “just friends,” as this friendship it will inevitably lead to something quite different in the end.