An interesting conversation at the lunch table at work today. Three women co-workers and I were (again) bemoaning the fact that clothes just are not being made for women who want to be modest, are no longer teenagers, and have given birth at some point. Then the conversation evolved into the difficulty those of us with teenage girls have finding decent clothes for them to wear. For those who genuinely desire to dress modestly, it is discouraging. Low-rise jeans; midriff-baring, skin-tight t-shirts; bikinis; and shorts that are way too short are the Christian mother and teen girl's nightmare--if they want to be modest.
Our conversation then turned to our speculations about the mothers and daughters who don't seem to be at all concerned about modesty, especially among those claiming to be Christian. We observed that often mothers themselves don't dress modestly, so it only follows that their daughters wouldn't.
I've always been surprised at the excuses Christian parents, especially, make for allowing their daughters to dress provocatively. When confronted, some seem surprised, as though much is being made of nothing. One mother actually told me that the immodest bikini her thirteen-year-old daughter was wearing made her feel more grown-up since she hadn't been as quick to develop physically as her friends.
But today, as we were finishing lunch, a married couple (parents of two teenage boys) joined our table and added their own concerns. The father asked a disturbing, but thoughtful, question: How do I teach my sons to show respect for these girls when they dress so immodestly?
That's a good question, and I do appreciate that there are men out there asking it (especially since I'm the mother of an almost-sixteen-year-old girl). In Designed by God, author Regina Franklin writes about the issues of modesty, beauty, and self-image for young women. She reminds them, "Our value is not determined by what we wear, but what we wear communicates what we think our value is." If we're wearing immodest clothing, she says, we're sending the message that our bodies aren't worth protecting and aren't very valuable. And this is the difficulty for my friend who is trying to teach his sons to respect young women who are not being taught to respect their own bodies and the godly principles that have been set in place for how they should be dressing.
Perhaps mothers need to take more seriously the young men who are receiving the message their daughters are being allowed to send. Franklin quotes from Every Young Man's Battle by Arterburn, et al., where a young man explains the challenge he faces: "Our eyes give us men the means to sin broadly and at will . . . We have a visual ignition switch when it comes to viewing the female anatomy. Women seldom understand this because they aren't sexually stimulated in the same way . . . Because women can't relate, they have little mercy on us and rarely choose to dress modestly."
So as summer approaches with the tendency to wear fewer clothes, perhaps the best lesson we can teach our children is respect--for God's Word, which teaches us to be modest; for our own bodies, which are the temples of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19-20); and for our brothers and sisters in Christ, so that we don't tempt them to sin. Ladies, especially, let's not make it such a difficult task for dads to teach their sons how to treat your daughters in a Christ-honoring way.
And I do recommend Regina Franklin's Designed by God (Discovery House Publishers) to moms and daughters as excellent pre-summer reading.
3/20/07
3/19/07
Not-So-Great Hymns of the Faith: In the Garden
Today I am beginning a new (possibly weekly) feature on Head and Heart: "Not-So-Great Hymns of the Faith." The title of this feature is derived from the popular hymnal called Great Hymns of the Faith, or, in our congregation, "the red book" (as opposed to "the blue book," The Psalter Hymnal). Caution: This feature is not for the faint of heart. Somewhere along the line, I will probably pick on a hymn that is incredibly meaningful to you for some reason--it was your dad's favorite, it was sung at Grandma's funeral, it was the first one you learned to play on the piano. But we must never let our personal experiences define our worship. We must always look to the One we are worshipping and ask ourselves how He wants us to worship Him--and that may not include that old family favorite.
My main concern is whether the songs that we're singing in church really ought to be part of our service of worship. I'm not suggesting these songs should be banished from the earth; they may have their place in our lives. I actually have a pretty large library of contemporary Christian music, and--true confessions--one of my favorites is Steven Curtis Chapman. But it's one thing to be singing along in the car or as I get ready for work, and it's another thing entirely to be in the presence of God, worshipping Him with His people.
So I go back a few weeks ago to a sermon our pastor preached on Exodus 15, the song of deliverance Moses and Israel sang in praise to God upon being rescued from the Egyptian army. (I would suggest you read the text, and if you're really interested, you can probably download the sermon from the Bethany URC site and listen to it; it was excellent.) This song, inspired by the Holy Spirit, establishes a pattern for the songs we ought to be using in worship. One of the important characteristics is that the song is entirely focused on God and His great work. The only time the pronoun "I" is used is at the beginning, when the singers sing, "I will sing unto the Lord," and briefly later on in the chapter when the singers are quoting the enemy in verse 9. Another of my favorites, Michael Horton, says in A Better Way: Rediscovering the Drama of Christ-Centered Worship: "We do not come to church to affirm our faithfulness, our devotion, our praise, and our up-to-the-minute emotional state but to be addressed, undressed, and re-dressed by God. Only when this fact is central are we in any position to faithfully praise God as 'our reasonable service.'" So if we're going to church to worship God, the songs we sing ought to be about Him.
With all that said, the first not-so-great hymn, In the Garden, is based on the Scripture passage where Mary Magdalene meets Jesus in the garden after His resurrection. Here are verse 1 and the refrain:
I come to the garden alone
While the dew is still on the roses
And the voice I hear falling on my ear
The Son of God discloses.
And He walks with me,
and He talks with me,
And He tells me I am His own;
And the joy we share as we tarry there,
None other has ever known.
This, to me, would seem to be one of the most un-Reformed hymns we sing in our church. There is a reason it is in the red book and not in the blue Psalter. (Why we even need the red book is another question entirely.) It definitely does not follow the pattern of Exodus 15, with a focus on the almighty, great, and glorious God. The focal point in this song is the first-person "I," a pronoun that occurs (along with "me" and "we") over and over. This song is only loosely based on the account of Mary Magdelene, because there really is no mention in the Scriptures of roses or dew or, as other verses of the song describe, sweet birds hushing their singing, a ringing heart, and His voice of woe calling. (Why would Jesus' voice be woeful? He is the victorious King who has just conquered sin and death and risen from the dead.)
My next question is why would the rest of us be singing a song about Mary Magdalene's personal experience? Again, who are we there to worship? Mary and her experience? The preponderance of the pronoun "I" would lead me to believe that this is Mary's experience somehow translated to me, here in the twenty-first century. Somehow (time travel?) I'm now sharing this with her. So in this case, now I'm singing about myself in a worship service that is supposed to be devoted to God.
So when we're singing these words, what are we saying about ourselves? The sappy sentimentality of the song suggests the individual's mystical encounter with Christ. He walks with me, talks with me, and tells me I am His own. Isn't this counter to the Reformation principle of sola scriptura, that our understanding and knowledge of God is based on the Scriptures alone--not on a pietistical, mystical experience? We're present corporately in the worship service to hear God's Word declared to us by the minister, and yet we're all singing about our private, subjective experiences with Christ.
Whenever this song is selected, I actually have a hard time singing it, because the whole thing is counter to what I'm supposed to be thinking about and focusing on when I'm present in a worship service devoted to the Triune God. But the song's popularity has lasted--somehow--for almost a hundred years. Certainly God is better worshipped with songs like Exodus 15 that talk about His greatness, His power, His triumph over His enemies than with some human's subjective, mystical, and individualistic experience.
We need to think--take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ--about the songs we are singing in worship. If we truly believe that this is our act of reasonable service and gathering to worship is something that we do in faithful obedience to honor our God, then we need to be sure that the songs we are singing will, in fact, honor Him and not simply please our own musical tastes. Songs like Exodus 15 and the entire book of Psalms are God's inspired songs for His people. We have no excuse for not praising Him in the way that He desires to be praised. He has shown us clearly in His Word what pleases Him.
My main concern is whether the songs that we're singing in church really ought to be part of our service of worship. I'm not suggesting these songs should be banished from the earth; they may have their place in our lives. I actually have a pretty large library of contemporary Christian music, and--true confessions--one of my favorites is Steven Curtis Chapman. But it's one thing to be singing along in the car or as I get ready for work, and it's another thing entirely to be in the presence of God, worshipping Him with His people.
So I go back a few weeks ago to a sermon our pastor preached on Exodus 15, the song of deliverance Moses and Israel sang in praise to God upon being rescued from the Egyptian army. (I would suggest you read the text, and if you're really interested, you can probably download the sermon from the Bethany URC site and listen to it; it was excellent.) This song, inspired by the Holy Spirit, establishes a pattern for the songs we ought to be using in worship. One of the important characteristics is that the song is entirely focused on God and His great work. The only time the pronoun "I" is used is at the beginning, when the singers sing, "I will sing unto the Lord," and briefly later on in the chapter when the singers are quoting the enemy in verse 9. Another of my favorites, Michael Horton, says in A Better Way: Rediscovering the Drama of Christ-Centered Worship: "We do not come to church to affirm our faithfulness, our devotion, our praise, and our up-to-the-minute emotional state but to be addressed, undressed, and re-dressed by God. Only when this fact is central are we in any position to faithfully praise God as 'our reasonable service.'" So if we're going to church to worship God, the songs we sing ought to be about Him.
With all that said, the first not-so-great hymn, In the Garden, is based on the Scripture passage where Mary Magdalene meets Jesus in the garden after His resurrection. Here are verse 1 and the refrain:
I come to the garden alone
While the dew is still on the roses
And the voice I hear falling on my ear
The Son of God discloses.
And He walks with me,
and He talks with me,
And He tells me I am His own;
And the joy we share as we tarry there,
None other has ever known.
This, to me, would seem to be one of the most un-Reformed hymns we sing in our church. There is a reason it is in the red book and not in the blue Psalter. (Why we even need the red book is another question entirely.) It definitely does not follow the pattern of Exodus 15, with a focus on the almighty, great, and glorious God. The focal point in this song is the first-person "I," a pronoun that occurs (along with "me" and "we") over and over. This song is only loosely based on the account of Mary Magdelene, because there really is no mention in the Scriptures of roses or dew or, as other verses of the song describe, sweet birds hushing their singing, a ringing heart, and His voice of woe calling. (Why would Jesus' voice be woeful? He is the victorious King who has just conquered sin and death and risen from the dead.)
My next question is why would the rest of us be singing a song about Mary Magdalene's personal experience? Again, who are we there to worship? Mary and her experience? The preponderance of the pronoun "I" would lead me to believe that this is Mary's experience somehow translated to me, here in the twenty-first century. Somehow (time travel?) I'm now sharing this with her. So in this case, now I'm singing about myself in a worship service that is supposed to be devoted to God.
So when we're singing these words, what are we saying about ourselves? The sappy sentimentality of the song suggests the individual's mystical encounter with Christ. He walks with me, talks with me, and tells me I am His own. Isn't this counter to the Reformation principle of sola scriptura, that our understanding and knowledge of God is based on the Scriptures alone--not on a pietistical, mystical experience? We're present corporately in the worship service to hear God's Word declared to us by the minister, and yet we're all singing about our private, subjective experiences with Christ.
Whenever this song is selected, I actually have a hard time singing it, because the whole thing is counter to what I'm supposed to be thinking about and focusing on when I'm present in a worship service devoted to the Triune God. But the song's popularity has lasted--somehow--for almost a hundred years. Certainly God is better worshipped with songs like Exodus 15 that talk about His greatness, His power, His triumph over His enemies than with some human's subjective, mystical, and individualistic experience.
We need to think--take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ--about the songs we are singing in worship. If we truly believe that this is our act of reasonable service and gathering to worship is something that we do in faithful obedience to honor our God, then we need to be sure that the songs we are singing will, in fact, honor Him and not simply please our own musical tastes. Songs like Exodus 15 and the entire book of Psalms are God's inspired songs for His people. We have no excuse for not praising Him in the way that He desires to be praised. He has shown us clearly in His Word what pleases Him.
3/18/07
Walking in the Light
The text for this afternoon's sermon was 1 John 1:5-2:2. In the first few verses of this book, the focus is on Christ, the Word of Life. The focus of this passage now turns to God Himself.
In telling us that He is light, God is communicating to us a measure of His essence. In Scripture, light is identified with truth and purity. Of course, evil is associated with darkness, and that is why nothing that is dark touches God at all. God has called us to walk in the light, to identify with the God who is light.
John provides a series of three false claims so that we can test whether we are, in fact, walking in the light. The first false claim occurs when a person says that he has fellowship with God, yet walks in darkness. Those who would claim this have no conception that God is light, that there is sin. They do not know who God is, or what His will (His law) is for their lives. In verse 7, the opposite is declared: "If we walk in the light as He Himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin." Here John is contrasting a lifestyle of evil--walking in darkness--with a lifestyle of righteousness--walking in light. The cleansing of verse 7 is an ongoing process that moves us on in a lifestyle of walking in the light.
The second false claim is presented in verse 8: those who say they have no sin. There are actual churches who claim that once we are Christians, we have no sin. But true Christians recognize that they sin, and they confess that sin daily. We must mourn our sins and confess them. We also know that God will bring His child to a point of confession, and when we do confess our sins, we know that He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins (see Hebrews 10:21-22).
The third false claim is by those who say they have never sinned. The true focus of all of this is that we do have an Advocate, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the only one who can truly say that He has no sin, that He has never sinned. This righteous one is our Advocate. The child of God cannot take sin lightly. It must be our desire to walk in the light. We look to Christ, the one who has borne God's wrath for our sin. Through Him our sin is forgiven, and through Him we walk in the light.
In telling us that He is light, God is communicating to us a measure of His essence. In Scripture, light is identified with truth and purity. Of course, evil is associated with darkness, and that is why nothing that is dark touches God at all. God has called us to walk in the light, to identify with the God who is light.
John provides a series of three false claims so that we can test whether we are, in fact, walking in the light. The first false claim occurs when a person says that he has fellowship with God, yet walks in darkness. Those who would claim this have no conception that God is light, that there is sin. They do not know who God is, or what His will (His law) is for their lives. In verse 7, the opposite is declared: "If we walk in the light as He Himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin." Here John is contrasting a lifestyle of evil--walking in darkness--with a lifestyle of righteousness--walking in light. The cleansing of verse 7 is an ongoing process that moves us on in a lifestyle of walking in the light.
The second false claim is presented in verse 8: those who say they have no sin. There are actual churches who claim that once we are Christians, we have no sin. But true Christians recognize that they sin, and they confess that sin daily. We must mourn our sins and confess them. We also know that God will bring His child to a point of confession, and when we do confess our sins, we know that He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins (see Hebrews 10:21-22).
The third false claim is by those who say they have never sinned. The true focus of all of this is that we do have an Advocate, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the only one who can truly say that He has no sin, that He has never sinned. This righteous one is our Advocate. The child of God cannot take sin lightly. It must be our desire to walk in the light. We look to Christ, the one who has borne God's wrath for our sin. Through Him our sin is forgiven, and through Him we walk in the light.
3/15/07
Gay Babies? Whatever...
Today, class, will be a lesson in not necessarily believing what the mainstream media says is true; it is always wise when something sounds not quite right to check the source. It would seem that the media does tend to take conservatives--especially religious conservatives--to task. And I realize that this is not an especially profound or insightful observation, and yet I'm always a little surprised at the audacity of some to twist the words of others and how quickly the public is willing to accept the "he said/she said" accounts they read or watch.
Today during a break at work, I decided to check my AOL account for e-mails. Of course en route to accessing my mail, I saw the day's major headlines flashing before my eyes. As I skimmed through the list, I saw this headline: "Furor Over Baptist's 'Gay Baby' Article." A little surprised to see the words "Baptist," "gay," and "baby" all in the same headline, I decided to look a little further. I learned from the article that Dr. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Seminary, "has incurred sharp attacks from both the left and the right by suggesting that a biological basis for homosexuality may be proven, and that prenatal treatment to reverse gay orientation would be biblically justified." I was a bit intrigued, because I don't know a lot about Dr. Mohler, but I do know that he has been instrumental in spearheading the Founders' Movement among Southern Baptists, in an effort to return this church to its roots as expressed in the London Confession. I also know that he was one of the leaders named last fall in a Christianity Today article who is now making it "cool" to be a Calvinist. (I've always known that was cool.) And now AP reporter David Crary is saying he has written a "Gay Baby" article.
Apparently the religious community is upset with Mohler for saying that scientifc research "points to some level of biological causation" for homosexuality because this leads to the thinking that homosexuals have no moral choice about being homosexual. Gay-rights groups are upset because Mohler says that even if there is a biological basis for homosexuality, it is still sinful. They even claim that he supports medical treatment for babies before they are born that would alter their sexual orientation if it is determined that they are homosexual. Some gay-rights blogs are comparing Mohler to Josef Mengele, the Nazi doctor famous for death-camp experimentation.
My first thought was, Oh, great, another evangelical leader has shot off his mouth again, and now it's one who has even been labeled "Reformed". And then I realized, This is the information age. I bet I can access Dr. Mohler's article and find out if he really is guilty of reckless thinking.
Not only did I read Dr. Mohler's article, but I added his blog to my favorites. The newspaper article was referring to a blog posting on March 2 entitled "Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something about It?" Note that "Gay Babies" is nowhere in the title. Also note that the tone of the article from the start is hypothetical. (The use of the word "if" and the question marks are dead giveaways.) Mohler goes on to report in his blog that scientists who have been researching whether there is a genetic disposition to homosexuality are finding some evidence "that biological factors may at least contribute to sexual orientation."
These scientists are basing their findings on research conducted on sheep.
Mohler also reports:
What makes the sheep "sexual partner preference testing" research so interesting is that the same scientists who are documenting the rather surprising sexual behaviors of male sheep think they can also change the sexual orientation of the animals. In other words, finding a biological causation for homosexuality may also lead to the discovery of a "cure" for the same phenomenon.
To the right: Note that Mohler himself is not making any assertions about whether homosexuality is biologically based. He simply is reporting about and even quoting the scientists who are conducting a study. In fact, in his conclusion Mohler points out that there is no widely accepted proof that any biological basis for sexual orientation exists. He says that given the effects of the fall, it wouldn't be surprising to learn this is true but that the Bible still condemns homosexuality, and the discovery of a "gay gene" would not overturn that moral verdict. In fact, Mohler explains, having this knowledge, if it were true, would enable pastors and churches to more effectively help those struggling with this sexual temptation.
To the left: Mohler reminds us that all humans are made in God's image. "All persons . . . are equally made in the image of God." Again, he carefully couches his ideas about prenatal treatment in a series of hypotheticals, and, in fact, he's basing his speculations on suggestions from the scientists conducting the study: "If a biological basis is found, and if a prenatal test is then developed, and if a successful treatment to reverse the sexual orientation to heterosexual is ever developed, we would support its use as we should unapologetically support the use of any appropriate means to avoid sexual temptation and the inevitable effects of sin" (emphasis added). Sounds a little different than the writer of the AP article put it. And a little more compassionate than Josef Mengele.
So I came away from this experience with a high regard for Dr. Mohler. His article is well written, well reasoned from Scripture, and highly respectful without compromising biblical principle. I would highly recommend that those readers of this blog who enjoy reading the writings of thinking Christians check out Dr. Mohler's blog.
If I could so easily locate Dr. Mohler's on-line article, read and comprehend it, and then quote it accurately here, why couldn't the paid, experienced AP reporter do it?
Find Dr. Mohler's article here: http://www.albertmohler.com/blog
Today during a break at work, I decided to check my AOL account for e-mails. Of course en route to accessing my mail, I saw the day's major headlines flashing before my eyes. As I skimmed through the list, I saw this headline: "Furor Over Baptist's 'Gay Baby' Article." A little surprised to see the words "Baptist," "gay," and "baby" all in the same headline, I decided to look a little further. I learned from the article that Dr. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Seminary, "has incurred sharp attacks from both the left and the right by suggesting that a biological basis for homosexuality may be proven, and that prenatal treatment to reverse gay orientation would be biblically justified." I was a bit intrigued, because I don't know a lot about Dr. Mohler, but I do know that he has been instrumental in spearheading the Founders' Movement among Southern Baptists, in an effort to return this church to its roots as expressed in the London Confession. I also know that he was one of the leaders named last fall in a Christianity Today article who is now making it "cool" to be a Calvinist. (I've always known that was cool.) And now AP reporter David Crary is saying he has written a "Gay Baby" article.
Apparently the religious community is upset with Mohler for saying that scientifc research "points to some level of biological causation" for homosexuality because this leads to the thinking that homosexuals have no moral choice about being homosexual. Gay-rights groups are upset because Mohler says that even if there is a biological basis for homosexuality, it is still sinful. They even claim that he supports medical treatment for babies before they are born that would alter their sexual orientation if it is determined that they are homosexual. Some gay-rights blogs are comparing Mohler to Josef Mengele, the Nazi doctor famous for death-camp experimentation.
My first thought was, Oh, great, another evangelical leader has shot off his mouth again, and now it's one who has even been labeled "Reformed". And then I realized, This is the information age. I bet I can access Dr. Mohler's article and find out if he really is guilty of reckless thinking.
Not only did I read Dr. Mohler's article, but I added his blog to my favorites. The newspaper article was referring to a blog posting on March 2 entitled "Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something about It?" Note that "Gay Babies" is nowhere in the title. Also note that the tone of the article from the start is hypothetical. (The use of the word "if" and the question marks are dead giveaways.) Mohler goes on to report in his blog that scientists who have been researching whether there is a genetic disposition to homosexuality are finding some evidence "that biological factors may at least contribute to sexual orientation."
These scientists are basing their findings on research conducted on sheep.
Mohler also reports:
What makes the sheep "sexual partner preference testing" research so interesting is that the same scientists who are documenting the rather surprising sexual behaviors of male sheep think they can also change the sexual orientation of the animals. In other words, finding a biological causation for homosexuality may also lead to the discovery of a "cure" for the same phenomenon.
To the right: Note that Mohler himself is not making any assertions about whether homosexuality is biologically based. He simply is reporting about and even quoting the scientists who are conducting a study. In fact, in his conclusion Mohler points out that there is no widely accepted proof that any biological basis for sexual orientation exists. He says that given the effects of the fall, it wouldn't be surprising to learn this is true but that the Bible still condemns homosexuality, and the discovery of a "gay gene" would not overturn that moral verdict. In fact, Mohler explains, having this knowledge, if it were true, would enable pastors and churches to more effectively help those struggling with this sexual temptation.
To the left: Mohler reminds us that all humans are made in God's image. "All persons . . . are equally made in the image of God." Again, he carefully couches his ideas about prenatal treatment in a series of hypotheticals, and, in fact, he's basing his speculations on suggestions from the scientists conducting the study: "If a biological basis is found, and if a prenatal test is then developed, and if a successful treatment to reverse the sexual orientation to heterosexual is ever developed, we would support its use as we should unapologetically support the use of any appropriate means to avoid sexual temptation and the inevitable effects of sin" (emphasis added). Sounds a little different than the writer of the AP article put it. And a little more compassionate than Josef Mengele.
So I came away from this experience with a high regard for Dr. Mohler. His article is well written, well reasoned from Scripture, and highly respectful without compromising biblical principle. I would highly recommend that those readers of this blog who enjoy reading the writings of thinking Christians check out Dr. Mohler's blog.
If I could so easily locate Dr. Mohler's on-line article, read and comprehend it, and then quote it accurately here, why couldn't the paid, experienced AP reporter do it?
Find Dr. Mohler's article here: http://www.albertmohler.com/blog
3/13/07
Stranger Than Fiction
Stranger Than Fiction is a recent DVD release that I expected to enjoy, but I ended up enjoying it for unexpected reasons.
With Will Ferrell playing the main character, I was waiting for Elf--a sweet, funny, and somewhat juvenile comedy. But Will Ferrell proved that he could be more than just funny; he actually can act. Ferrell plays IRS auditor Harold Crick, whose life is completely predictable. He knows how many teeth he has and how many times he will brush each one every morning. There is no variation in his life, until one morning when he hears a voice narrating his every action, every move: the voice of novelist Kay Eiffel, except one of the big questions for Harold for much of the movie is whose voice is he hearing, and why.
This movie asks the big questions: Is my life controlled by fate? Do I have anything to do with my destiny? Is the narrator making the events occur, or do they happen first, and she is just giving a play by play? And interestingly, another thread runs through the film about the role the small, seemingly meaningless circumstances of life play in how things turn out. In fact, what sets things in motion for Harold, the voiceover tells us, is his watch. (I'm not going to tell you how.)
As it turns out, Eiffel is a talented, acclaimed novelist who hasn't published in awhile. The hallmark of her novels is that all of her characters die at the end, and this is the problem for her as she tells Harold's story: how to kill him off. So Harold's quest for much of the movie is to found out whose voice is narrating his story, and why. And all the while, Eiffel is trying to create a poetic way of killing Harold off.
I don't want to give anything away here, but as Harold's character evolves from an IRS auditor whose life is, well, boring to someone who learns to live, he seeks advice from a literature professor played by Dustin Hoffman. He also has an interesting encounter with a baker who is making a political statement by not paying all of her taxes.
I don't know that we really get any solid responses to the big questions; the answers seem nebulous. But I suppose that for one whose starting point is not a sovereign God, no real answers is probably a more honest approach. Does fate control our lives? The answer seems at times to be yes. Do we have anything to do with controlling our fate? Yes again--maybe. I think my favorite insight of the movie is how seemingly small things can play a significant role in our lives. I hear echoes of not despising the day of small things, and I think of a God who uses weak things and weak people to display His power.
The movie is a little quirky but not so intense in dealing with the "big questions" to make it an intellectual exercise. For viewers like me who enjoy writers, plot lines, and how stories take shape, this is a fun, often insightful, and entertaining look at the creative process with interesting characters portrayed well. Get it in your NetFlix queue soon!
With Will Ferrell playing the main character, I was waiting for Elf--a sweet, funny, and somewhat juvenile comedy. But Will Ferrell proved that he could be more than just funny; he actually can act. Ferrell plays IRS auditor Harold Crick, whose life is completely predictable. He knows how many teeth he has and how many times he will brush each one every morning. There is no variation in his life, until one morning when he hears a voice narrating his every action, every move: the voice of novelist Kay Eiffel, except one of the big questions for Harold for much of the movie is whose voice is he hearing, and why.
This movie asks the big questions: Is my life controlled by fate? Do I have anything to do with my destiny? Is the narrator making the events occur, or do they happen first, and she is just giving a play by play? And interestingly, another thread runs through the film about the role the small, seemingly meaningless circumstances of life play in how things turn out. In fact, what sets things in motion for Harold, the voiceover tells us, is his watch. (I'm not going to tell you how.)
As it turns out, Eiffel is a talented, acclaimed novelist who hasn't published in awhile. The hallmark of her novels is that all of her characters die at the end, and this is the problem for her as she tells Harold's story: how to kill him off. So Harold's quest for much of the movie is to found out whose voice is narrating his story, and why. And all the while, Eiffel is trying to create a poetic way of killing Harold off.
I don't want to give anything away here, but as Harold's character evolves from an IRS auditor whose life is, well, boring to someone who learns to live, he seeks advice from a literature professor played by Dustin Hoffman. He also has an interesting encounter with a baker who is making a political statement by not paying all of her taxes.
I don't know that we really get any solid responses to the big questions; the answers seem nebulous. But I suppose that for one whose starting point is not a sovereign God, no real answers is probably a more honest approach. Does fate control our lives? The answer seems at times to be yes. Do we have anything to do with controlling our fate? Yes again--maybe. I think my favorite insight of the movie is how seemingly small things can play a significant role in our lives. I hear echoes of not despising the day of small things, and I think of a God who uses weak things and weak people to display His power.
The movie is a little quirky but not so intense in dealing with the "big questions" to make it an intellectual exercise. For viewers like me who enjoy writers, plot lines, and how stories take shape, this is a fun, often insightful, and entertaining look at the creative process with interesting characters portrayed well. Get it in your NetFlix queue soon!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)