Fasting and feasting has long been a part of all the sane religions of the world. YHWH kept the Jews busy with feasting and fasting all the year long, both to remember and to celebrate His work among them and their identity as His people. The Muslim calendar holds its two festivals in lunar equilibrium, keeping a balance not unlike the finely-tuned centripetal motion with which the moon orbits our earth. The Greeks, Romans, and various pagan cults of the world each have acknowledged something of the sanity of the rhythmic motion between celebration and mortification; and the Christian Church, having already celebrated Fat Tuesday, is quite solidly begun upon its Lenten fast, even while eyeing Resurrection Sunday with an ever greater longing—to say nothing of growling stomachs.

It is the modern, secular man who has settled into an unholy and insane destruction of food through dieting. It is modern materialism, or perhaps only reductionism, that describes food as merely fuel for the body and presumes that, whatever life might be, it is not something worth celebrating in the way that most men have always celebrated—with a cornucopia of victuals and a liberality of drink. Such a viewpoint not only runs the risk of dehumanizing mankind and destroying civilization, it will most certainly conclude in tragedy: men will never again relish the simple yet monumental achievement of a Dutch baby browning in the oven while the family gathers in anticipation around the breakfast table on a Sunday morning. (more…)

The Sword and the Shaving Brush

Towards a Biblical understanding of fashion

by Timothy Bartel

Part IV – Relativism, Modesty, Evangelism

It is here that contemporary Christians bring a unique and needed element into the cultural climate, for we ask that clothes be not just practical, but also moral. The moral issue of modesty, then, becomes the second major problem that Christians face in their considerations of fashion. Such an issue is complicated further by the divorce between practical and aesthetic concerns within the discussion. Both the exposed midriff of the sports-bra and the scooping neckline of the prom dress cause the modest dismay, but for opposite reasons. We worry about the minimalism of the running outfit because it largely ignores the factor of physical attractiveness. We worry about the prom dress because it ignores everything else. This concern for modesty in clothing seems to be a unique contribution of conservative religion to the discussion of fashion; it is, consequently, indispensable. Unfortunately, this concern has acted the tyrant, and dispensed with all other concerns. Modesty, for many Christians, has become the only consideration in matters of dress. Fashion is purchased, worn, and discussed with primary regard for modesty of cut or logo.

A dissatisfaction with modesty as the only concern has led some Christians to reintroduce a bastardized aesthetic to the fashion they design, and the problem of Christian branding is born. The genuine desire of the contemporary Christian to evangelize is, for better or worse, applied to the Christian’s fashion concerns. A crew neck t-shirt is both modest and practical, but a crew neck t-shirt branded with a Bible verse or religious slogan is modest, practical, and evangelical. It seems to present Christ to the world through the medium of fashion. While sometimes both commendable and appropriate, this mentality does not actually “preach with fashion.” What is does is reinterpret fashion as a frame for verbal or visual communication and aesthetic activity, rather than seeing fashion as the actual medium of communication and aesthetic activity. Such a reinterpretation threatens the very existence of fashion as an art form. It sacrifices clothing on the altar of evangelism.

(more…)

The Middle East is backwards, benighted, and unable to overcome its age old cycle of violence and corruption—at least that’s line fed to the West by media pundits, opinion-shapers, and new correspondents on both sides of the liberal/conservative line. A surprisingly large number of Arabs (the late Samir Kassir, Lebanese-born professor, historian, journalist and author of Being Arab, for example) seem to hold a similar opinion (albeit with varying degrees of optimism towards change), expressing dissatisfaction with their various nations’ ineptitude in a variety of contexts—most notably political, social, and religious; the constant magnification and scrutinization of these failures across the television screens, radio waves, and front-page stories around the globe only adds to the discouraging outlook.

In diametric opposition to the prevailing characterization, and quite vociferous about what is claimed to be malicious caricature, stand a group of Arabs who are confident that despite the negative press and tragic facts the Middle East is, and will be, self-determining as it presses towards a distinctively Arab panoply of solutions to a variety of social ills. Perhaps most notable among this group stands Edward Said, author of Orientalism and long-time critic of Western academics, politicians, and pundits who attempt to understand the Arab world from an outsider’s perspective.

Given these conflicting attitudes, one given to woebegone pronouncements of fatalism and the other stridently opposed to any Western influence based on the a priori assumption that the Other is unable to understand anything but itself, the prognosis for beneficial interaction between Middle East and West seems a bit dim. However, in his latest book, How Africa Shaped the Christian Mind, Thomas Oden provides a possible backdoor entry for Western, and especially Christian, ideas to take root in the Middle East. (more…)

The Sword and the Shaving Brush

Towards a Biblical Understanding of fashion

By Timothy Bartel

Part III – The Three Aesthetic Problems

How can the Bible inform our understanding of fashion today? Surely the runways of Milan are a different world than the dust floors of the tabernacle, and, as mentioned earlier, our current concerns about clothing are much more complex than those of the ashamed Adam and shivering Eve. Before I examine our current situation regarding fashion, I think it will be important to make a distinction between the word ‘fashion’ and the word ‘clothing.’ Both refer, of course, most basically to garments, to the fabric that humans fold around themselves. Yet ‘fashion’ goes beyond garments; the word implies an aura of taste and preference—the clothes that a culture deems worthy of wear at a certain time. More simply said, fashion is the art of garment making and distributing with reference to cultural taste and custom. Just as words are used in poetry, but not all words are poetry, so clothing is used in fashion, but not all clothes are fashion. By most basic definition, the word ‘fashion’ refers to a fluctuation—clothes go in and out of ‘fashion.’ This is, incidentally, both the lament of the fashion designer, and the reason for their livelihood.

(more…)

The Sword and the Shaving Brush

Towards a Biblical understanding of fashion

By Timothy Bartel

Part II – A Brief History of Clothing

The wool dress I saw at Biola began to work on my mind. The idea of such an ungroomed garment could not long remain in my imagination before I connected it with the Bible. I don’t mean merely the associations of dressing up like a “sheep gone astray” or even of the Pauline assertion that we are clothed in the white righteousness of Christ. As contemporary Christians we are often too quick to transform all physical actions and objects into figures for metaphysical or spiritual truths. Strangely, the first association I made with the wool dress was Genesis 3. As we remember, Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit and consequently realize a strange thing. They are naked. Verse 7 reads: “Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.” When God later asks Adam why he is hiding from Him, Adam answers: “Because I was naked”. It is interesting that Adam’s and Eve’s attempts to fashion clothing for themselves proves insufficient in providing a sense of adequate covering. Surely there a many lessons here to learn about the nature and effects of sin. For our purposes, this lesson may be gleaned: that sin makes one aware of one’s physical nature and the shame associated with nakedness. This leads to the creative activity of garment making, yet for Adam and Eve the covering of nakedness does not provide the desired consolation. But God intervenes. In verse 21 we learn that “the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them.” These verses constitute the first mention of clothing in the Bible, and the starting place, I believe, for any discussion of the art of fashion.

It is interesting that sufficient clothing is not found until it is created by God for Man. God is the victorious tailor of the first fashion show, if you will. And now I may return to the wool dress, for I wondered what such “garments of skin” looked like until I saw it. Perhaps the designer captured in the wool and sticks and splendor the aspect of those first garments. Yet perhaps they were unlike any clothing we have yet seen. Whatever they were, I believe that they must have served their purpose perfectly. Could they also have been beautiful, even the most beautiful clothes ever made? (more…)

The Sword and the Shaving Brush, Part I

Towards a Christian understanding of fashion

By Timothy Bartel

Part I

It was a dress made out of wool—not finely spun wool, not the wool of your favorite sweater, but wool in natural clumps, as if freshly shaved from a shivering sheep. The whole skirt was shaped from this, with sticks, leaves, and bits of lace clinging to it. Even a pine cone rested at the bottom hem as if dragged from the forest. This dress was in an art gallery, draped around a headless mannequin supported by a frame of slate-grey branches. The top of the dress was a cream, silk tank stitched in front with wool, draped around the neck with a gold chain and pendants. This dress was made by Julie Barby, and was featured in an alumni design show at the Biola University art gallery. While several other art pieces in various design mediums caught my eye, I kept looking back at this dress. As I left the gallery I turned and saw it from afar—-now less textured, more regal, it seem the dress of a queen of faeries. I shook this strange sensation away, and saw it again as merely an odd piece of art. I wondered why this dress remained in my imagination after I had left the gallery, why it intrigued me. I then realized that the answer to this wondering would form the rest of this article.

I want to explore what it is about fashion that troubles the modern Christian, what keeps them from serious consideration of fashion, and how that may, perhaps, change. While American Christians today have, for the most part, learned to embrace art in general as a valid area of thought and inquiry, the arena of fashion and dress have not yet been thought or inquired about in an adequate manner. While no single article can do justice to the wide field of fashion studies, I’d like to attempt, in this brief series of articles, a sort of practical and ideological manifesto for the Christian who wonders, as I do, about the world of fashion.

Timothy Bartel is a Califonia naitve and graduate of Biola Univeristy and the Torrey Honors Institute with a BA in philosophy. He currently teaches for Torrey Academy, a classical high school program, and is working on an Masters of Fine Arts in Poetry at Seattle Pacific Univeristy. His academic interests include poetry, aesthetic theory, and classical philosophy. In his spare times he acts and writes fiction and poetry.

I’m still reeling from my exposure to a full two hours of rhetoric without substance at the symposium on “Advances in Global Health by Non-Governmental Organizations.” The radical difference between the conference keynote speaker’s view of the world and my own makes it difficult to find much good in a speech that majored on conclusions drawn from undefended assumptions. Nevertheless, rather than fall into the error I so heartily condemned I offer the following as an attempt to interact with the main thrust of the rhetoric and plea of the contemporary social democrat.

Ideology cannot be addressed by merely practical means. Stephen Lewis, symposium keynote speaker and former Canadian ambassador to the United Nations, gave morbid and shocking details about the various ways some African men exploit women—men who even think of rape as a legitimate strategy of war. The ideology that undergirds the strategic implementation of these horrific actions to achieve political or personal ends is hideous and deserves all the censure and indignation we can muster.

However, to ask in futile exasperation (my paraphrase), “What in God’s name is wrong with this world that preconceived notions exist which permit men to allow this sort of behavior to go unpunished?” and then suggest that an increase of Western funding of food and water projects and public health and education programs in Sub-Saharan Africa is the primary solution is radically short-sighted. (more…)

The air was full of excitement and promise as the hundreds of people attending Pacific Lutheran University’s “Advances in Global Health by Non-Governmental Organizations” symposium last evening, jauntily swagger and glide into the main ballroom of the Greater Tacoma Convention and Trade Center; students and affluent community members alike meld together, their ideological similarities strikingly visible in their dress

The only way to tell the difference between the two groups is by the slight difference in the cut and quality of their otherwise similar vintage (or vintage-lite) threads. The predominant hairstyle is long—on both men and women—with curls and waves seeming most fashionable among society’s self-proclaimed altruists and activists. Scarves and brightly colored accessories highlight the multi-ethnic sympathies of most of the attendees here.

The conference coordinators orchestrated the symposium with mastery. From the ethnic up-scale appetizers and refreshments to the sign language translator in a prominent position next to the keynote stage, nothing was missed in an attempt to accommodate guests of every tongue, tribe, and nation.

The foyer is full of tables offering brightly colored pictures and brochures showing the human face of suffering in the developing world. Next to the slick appeals of the well-funded NGOs stand homemade displays with handwritten or Kinkos produced signs and pamphlets highlighting the plight of those who do not have a voice of their own among the wealthy.

We are here, I am told by the conference leader and provost of Pacific Lutheran University, because we know the role that global health plays in our future and the future of our world. The Pacific Northwest is a center for seeking solutions and shaping policies in global health. Our goal is to engage the world. (more…)

In honor of the Oscars this Sunday, I thought I would devote this week to the five films nominated for Best Picture. So far I have reviewed Juno, Michael Clayton, Atonement, and There Will Be Blood.

No Country for Old Men is not only the finest film I have seen this year–it is a work of cinematic and thematic excellence that will doubtlessly improve upon multiple viewings.

Occasionally, movies cross over the fine line between entertainment and art–when they do, like any book or piece of music, I feel ill-equipped to comment without hearing or seeing it multiple times.  This is one such case.  In my only viewing so far, I gave up trying to ‘understand’ the film; instead, I let it fill me with an unreflective sense of awe and horror at the senseless and unredeemed evil in the world.

To be honest, I’m not sure I have yet gotten beyond that horror, nor will I until I have a chance to watch it again (which will be difficult, given how deeply it affected me the first time).  To fill the “intellectual gap,” however, I commend Matt Zoller Seitz’s excellent essay on the moral vision of Joel and Ethan Coen:

Spiritual but not religious, the Coens are Stanley Kubrick-style secular theologians. Their awe of the unknown is comprised of equal parts humility and philosophical-scientific curiosity. Their films tease our suspicion that powerful, unseen forces move the universe — moral and ethical forces that sometimes seem to be rendering judgment or sending a message.

But at the same time, the Coens insist that no man can verify if these forces actually exist or if we insist they do out of vanity — in order to convince ourselves that our existence matters to anyone but us and our loved ones. The confluence of forces that suggests fate or justice might be evidence of a higher power (represented in the conversation between Bell and the old lawman about what God wants), chance (Anton Chigurh’s tossed coin, which decides if a person lives or dies — an intriguing hint that on some level, this stone-cold psychopath feels guilt and perhaps wishes to reassure himself that his bloody deeds were inevitable) or free will (a subject broached in the scene where Carla Jean declines the coin toss to force Chigurh to accept responsibility for his deeds). Or it could be the result of electrons colliding to produce a result that might have been different had a single electron bounced differently….

Zoller Seitz is clearly on to something.  I wonder, however, about the depths to which their agnosticism about the cosmic forces governing the universe drives their comedic style, which has always seemed to be laced with a touch of cynicism.  Though it is not a comedy, Death’s triumph in No Country for Old Men is final.  The absence of a providential hand to bring goodness from evil lends itself to the sort of dark, cynical comedy that the Coen’s seem to enjoy.  Zoller Seitz continues:

Though they are habitually described as snotty formalists with nothing on their minds but cinematic gamesmanship, the Coens’ body of work is one of the most sneakily moralistic in recent American cinema. To some extent, all of their movies poses questions that supposedly deeper filmmakers have broached time and time again: if we cannot be certain of God’s existence; if there is a possibility that no one’s watching what we do; if, to reference Johnny Caspar in Miller’s Crossing, “morality and ethics” are agreed-upon lies; if the evil can destroy the good with impunity, and if the wicked often die for reasons unrelated to a hero’s good deeds (throughout the Coens’ filmography, bad guys often destroy themselves through vanity or stupidity, or get snuffed out by coincidence or bad luck), then what’s the point of being good? Just because. “There’s more to life than a little money, you know,” policewoman Marge Gunderson tells the dead-eyed killer in the backseat of her police car at the end of Fargo. “Don’t you know that? And here ya are, and it’s a beautiful day. Well, I just don’t understand it.”

The Coens aren’t nihilists. There may or may not be a God in their imagination — the only Coen Brothers films that definitively confirms the existence of intelligent, purposeful, supernatural forces are Hudsucker and The Ladykillers, easily their dopiest, least consequential films — but the lack of theological clarity doesn’t necessarily mean that the Coens endorse their characters’ decision to be indecent or cruel. Quite the contrary, the Coens’ movies strongly endorse the notion that one should honor certain bedrock principles for their inherent rightness (or, barring that, for the benefits such a life might confer). Decency is the Coens’ version of piety. It’s not just a rock to cling to in hard times, but a quality worth cultivating for self-interested reasons, because it makes a character more likely to know love and comfort. The Fargo kidnappers live for the moment, and their existence is defined by cheap motor inns, bored hookers, an increased likelihood of getting shot in the face or stuffed into a woodchipper, and the impossibility of every truly trusting anyone. Straitlaced Marge, on the other hand, goes to sleep each night in a warm bed beside a man who loves her. In the Coens’ world, acceding to certain customs and laws means sacrificing visceral liberties to gain deeper and more satisfying ones: freedom from fear of loneliness and the nagging suspicion your existence is meaningless.

In all, there is much to appreciate in this moral vision.  And No Country is a film that is worth wrestling with.  But it is a film appropriate for Good Friday, for it is a film–like Atonement–that evokes a deep longing for the righteous judgment of God, and the restoration of harmony in the universe.
(HT:  Douthat)

Gary Thomas, founder of The Center for Evangelical Spirituality, graciously answered my critiques of his pragmatic and helpful book, “Sacred Marriage.” The conversation continues below with my thoughts on excerpts of his helpful response.

I’ve read your primary critique once before: that ‘if marriage existed in a sinless world (it did) then it strikes me as fairly obvious that it cannot have been primarily designed to address the sinfulness and selfishness of human beings.’ I’d encourage you to think just a little deeper. You’re assuming that God was caught by surprise by the fall; doesn’t it make more sense that God would design marriage as he knew it would be lived by every couple after the fall? Since Adam and Eve also eventually lived in sin, every marriage has been the journey of two sinners. Does it really seem so odd to you that God wouldn’t prepare for this? I believe God knew the fall would happen; therefore, it ’strikes me as fairly obvious’ (to use your phrase) that he would design marriage accordingly, since that’s the reality of what every man and woman would live in—even including the very first marriage of Adam and Eve (after they sinned). If I’m going to design and build something, I’ll design it for how it is really going to be used, not how it would exist in a perfect world that wouldn’t last for long. You risk describing God as a short-sighted sculptor who makes something beautiful out of metal and then is surprised when it starts to rain and the sculpture starts to rust.”

To say that marriage can’t have been primarily designed to address the sinfulness of human beings doesn’t necessarily rest on the assumption that God was too short-sighted to make arrangements for the Fall. Rather, it relies on the assumption that God did not limit Himself by the actions of man, choosing to create things good and for certain ends that could be realized in a perfect world—even though His creation would eventually twist those things into evil.

I contend that God created many things, marriage included, according to a pattern that conforms to His very nature. The Triune God, ever-blessed in His own divine relationship, created human beings in His image: beings with the capacity to relate to others and to find fulfillment and joy in sharing a mutual love. Marriage, we are told later, offers insight into the very heart of God and His love for His people and is able to help illuminate this God-like love when we grasp its analogical import.

Of course, since God created marriage in accordance with His own nature, it follows that, given His redemptive love and triumph over sin and death, that we might find hints and expressions of this aspect of His nature in marriage as well. It is for this reason that much of what is presented in “Sacred Marriage” is of such benefit to Christians. Marriage is something that can be understood even in the context of sinful humanity. As a minor reflection of God’s own character, it points husbands and wives towards God and towards His sacrificial and redemptive love; it calls those happy few to lay their lives down for each other and press forward in sanctification and the pursuit of holiness.

It does stand to reason that God would use the foundational human relationship to assault the pride of human hearts. However, if what I suggest is correct He is using this relationship in such a way because of what the marriage relationship fundamentally is and not as one of many temporal (arbitrary?) educational devices. If the marriage relationship was created according to the pattern of God’s own nature it, rightly understood, will always strike a blow at sin—for no sin can stand in God’s sight.

I’m not trying to be overly contentious here as I appreciate healthy dialogue and even debate, but I believe your second objection to Sacred Marriage is refuted by your second review. You state, ‘Thomas largely views marriage (and life) as being a training ground for eternity,’ but then in the second review you go on to talk about how I discuss God using marriage to shape our prayer lives in the here and now, and how God uses sexual experience to help us live in the now. You were either prematurely superficial in your first review, or overly generous in your second! In fact, you paraphrase my thinking with something so beautifully worded I wish I had written it myself: ‘All the glory and wonder of entering into the presence of God is shadowed in sexual union.’ Yes, marriage prepares us for eternity, but it is about much more than that. Let’s not fall into either/or thinking in this regard. Scripture doesn’t force us to choose one or the other, but rather encourages us to see both as complementary realities. I talk about how marriage prepares us for heaven, and also about how it affects our relationship with God and others here on earth. If I had to qualify every statement that talks about heaven, Sacred Marriage would be a whole lot longer and much more boring.”

Your point is well taken and I think you are leagues distant from being overly contentious to suggest that I have refuted myself between the two reviews. The idea I critique is subtle, and it is very possible that I have dealt with it in a heavy-handed or a glib manner. Have patience, then, as I attempt an explanation of my complaint that you view marriage as a “training ground for eternity,” while commending your specific suggestions that help Christians “live in the now.”

At stake is how best to understand the purpose of life. Is life primarily an educational experience, opening our eyes to see the truth about God and ourselves? Or is life primarily outwardly focused—active and productive—an experience of action and deed, creating and flourishing?

As you mention, an either/or distinction is probably faulty. Still, I maintain that a view of life and human activity that primarily locates meaning in reference to the education of the individual (perhaps too hastily conflated with a preparation for a future glorified state) will lead to abuses of many kinds.

To dredge up John Piper’s oft-quoted scenario, it seems there is something fundamentally wrong with a man giving flowers to his wife out of a sense of obligation or duty. It seems equally wrong for him to give flowers to his wife as an educational opportunity or for the sake of fitting himself for heaven by acquiring the virtue of humility. There may be times when any of these reasons are appropriate, however the force of the scenario lies in our instinctive revulsion to the idea that men would primarily give their wives flowers for any other reason than because they love them.

In like manner, there is something unsettling about the suggestion that marriage finds its end in furthering the prayer lives of husbands and wives or in educating men and women about the nature of God. These results have their place in marriage, to be sure, and at times ought to be brought to the forefront of the mind as a remedy against the propensity to sin. Nonetheless, the suggestion (perhaps implicit) in “Sacred Marriage” that marriage is best understood as a means to an end is one that I find ultimately misguided.

In honor of the Oscars this Sunday, I thought I would devote this week to the five films nominated for Best Picture. So far I have reviewed Juno, Michael Clayton, and Atonement.

It might be tempting for some Christians to allow the unfavorable presentation of Pentecostal worship services in the trailer to There Will Be Blood to prevent them from viewing the film or appreciating its merits. They do so to their own disservice.

Rather than being a denunciation of faith, There Will Be Blood relentlessly exposes the effects greed and envy have on the human soul, whether that soul is seeking oil or healings.

At the core of the film is a conflict between Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day Lewis), an enterprising oil man, and Eli Sunday (Paul Dano), a young man who claims to be a prophet from God. Though they operate in very different worlds, they are fundamentally the same. While Daniel is hostile toward those around him and is resolute in his irreligiosity and Eli is disturbingly devout, they both have a keen eye for making a dollar and a loathing for those they consider beneath them.

It is, in other words, a dark tale that exposes the corrosive effects of envy and greed. The film’s opening ten minutes, during which there is no dialogue, are a sign of things to come. Daniel Plainview’s closes in on himself, reducing his life to the (unhealthy) silence that comes from an unwillingness to engage in human contact. By the end of his life, he is an empty chest—an oil man who has made millions, but closed himself off from everyone in his life.

The bright spot in the film is his adopted son, who goes deaf partway through the film, and who marries Eli’s sister, Mary. The sequences of Mary learning sign language, the wedding in the Catholic Church, and their playing despite his deafness drive home the fact that it is not the ability to speak that matters, but the kind of speech that one uses. In refusing to speak of anything outside of economic matters, Daniel loses the humanity that Mary and his son so obviously enjoy—a fact that becomes evident by the end of the film.

In all, There Will Be Blood is a strong choice for Best Picture. For one, the screenplay is exceptionally well-written, and Paul Thomas Anderson’s direction is sophisticated without being pretentious (which Juno bordered on). In addition, Radiohead’s Jonny Greenwood’s score and its haunting, disharmonious string sections provide an eerie, yet enormously effective backdrop to the film.

But it is Daniel Day Lewis, who will almost certainly win “Best Actor,” who impresses most with his arresting (though at points slightly over-the-top) performance as Daniel Plainview. Lewis manages to keep Daniel Plainview’s complexities below the surface for much of the film, only to let them rise to the top at the appropriate moments. It is an impressive performance, and worth viewing.

In all, There Will Be Blood is a solid choice for Best Picture and a “must-see” for this movie season.

After reviewing “Sacred Marriage,” an insightful book suggesting that Christians would do well to view their marriages as a means to holiness, I was pleasantly surprised to receive a thoughtful response from the author, Gary Thomas. His remarks are published below.

A Response to the Review of Sacred Marriage on “Mere Orthodoxy”

I’ve read your primary critique once before: that “if marriage existed in a sinless world (it did) then it strikes me as fairly obvious that it cannot have been primarily designed to address the sinfulness and selfishness of human beings.” I’d encourage you to think just a little deeper. You’re assuming that God was caught by surprise by the fall; doesn’t it make more sense that God would design marriage as he knew it would be lived by every couple after the fall? Since Adam and Eve also eventually lived in sin, every marriage has been the journey of two sinners. Does it really seem so odd to you that God wouldn’t prepare for this? I believe God knew the fall would happen; therefore, it “strikes me as fairly obvious” (to use your phrase) that he would design marriage accordingly, since that’s the reality of what every man and woman would live in—even including the very first marriage of Adam and Eve (after they sinned). If I’m going to design and build something, I’ll design it for how it is really going to be used, not how it would exist in a perfect world that wouldn’t last for long. You risk describing God as a short-sighted sculptor who makes something beautiful out of metal and then is surprised when it starts to rain and the sculpture starts to rust.

Consider this very biblical analogy: God created the Old Testament temple and the entire sacrificial system as a precursor of what would be fulfilled in the work of Jesus Christ. Why does it strike you as so odd that he wouldn’t also create marriage looking forward to what would come?

Am I implying that marriage is built as an institution exclusively to address the effects of the fall? Of course not. In my mind, that would be as foolish as suggesting that God designed marriage without taking the eventual fall into account. But it stands to reason, and I believe is consonant with Scripture, to suggest that God would take the foundational human relationship—between a husband and a wife—and use it to assault our primary spiritual failure (pride) as well as invite us to cultivate lives as “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4)

I’m not trying to be overly contentious here as I appreciate healthy dialogue and even debate, but I believe your second objection to Sacred Marriage is refuted by your second review. You state, “Thomas largely views marriage (and life) as being a training ground for eternity,” but then in the second review you go on to talk about how I discuss God using marriage to shape our prayer lives in the here and now, and how God uses sexual experience to help us live in the now. You were either prematurely superficial in your first review, or overly generous in your second! In fact, you paraphrase my thinking with something so beautifully worded I wish I had written it myself: “All the glory and wonder of entering into the presence of God is shadowed in sexual union.” Yes, marriage prepares us for eternity, but it is about much more than that. Let’s not fall into either/or thinking in this regard. Scripture doesn’t force us to choose one or the other, but rather encourages us to see both as complementary realities. I talk about how marriage prepares us for heaven, and also about how it affects our relationship with God and others here on earth. If I had to qualify every statement that talks about heaven, Sacred Marriage would be a whole lot longer and much more boring.

I respect what you’re trying to do with your blog and website, and I certainly appreciate the many kind things you mention about Sacred Marriage, but I also encourage you to reconsider some of your critiques, particularly in regard to their logical conclusions—which may take you places you’d prefer not to go.

++++

Look for a response from Tex later this afternoon…

In honor of the Oscars this Sunday, I thought I would devote this week to the five films nominated for Best Picture. So far I have reviewed Juno and Michael Clayton.

Based on the bestselling novel by Ian McEwan (which I have not read), Atonement is a fascinating and complex movie that is beautifully filmed and very-well acted.

Despite some of the imagery in the film borders on being over-done and blatantly obvious, the story is nothing short of powerful and extremely thought-provoking.

Briony, a young girl with a lively imagination and a penchant for writing, is led through a series of misperceptions to wrongfully accuse Robbie (James McAvoy), a Cambridge educated servant who is in love with Briony’s sister (Kiera Knightley), of raping Briony’s cousin. The accusation lands Robbie in jail, separating Cecilia (Knightley) and Robbie from each other. Robbie is granted parole when WWII breaks out if he joins the Army, further separating Cecelia and Robbie.

Ultimately, the story hinges upon the question of sin. How, if there is no atoning work of Christ, can we find atonement? Briony’s later realization of her error (and her inability to correct it) drives her to reject Cambridge to work as a nurse, where she ends up cleaning bedpans and confronting the reality of sin (through war) directly.

Yet it is not just Briony who is in need of atonement. Robbie and Cecelia find themselves in their unhappy situation because of the illicit nature of their love. Ultimately, their passionate natures make them more like Paola and Francesca from Dante’s Inferno—wraiths floating upon the wind. Their relationship recalls T.S. Eliot’s Prufrock—Cecelia quotes it directly at one point (“that is not what I meant at all”) and when they find themselves reunited before Robbie leaves for war, they sit drinking tea, presumably while others around them are “talking of Michaelangelo.” There is an emptiness to their love that is ultimately dissatisfying, which is only to be expected given that it is expressed only in a fit of passion.

Whether the movie presents a solution to the problem of atonement is an important question. If anything, the movie presents art and the imagination as having a salvific—and damning—power. While the movie clearly points to the need for cleansing (the water imagery, which so recalls baptism, is difficult to miss), its overly optimistic view of aesthetics is clearly a shortcoming.

That said, Atonement may be my favorite film of the year, if only because it is more “watchable” than No Country for Old Men. It is visually and musically gripping. There is a lengthy single-shot scene of Robbie walking through the beaches of Dunkirk that is, to be blunt, stunning. This YouTube clip doesn’t nearly do the whole scene justice.

It is also a deeply stirring film that makes palpable the need for redemption and restoration. The director’s choice of John Greenleaf Whittier’s Dear Lord and Father of Mankind expresses beautifully this longing, and the hope that Christians have that it will yet be fulfilled. I end with the last two verses:

Drop Thy still dews of quietness,
Till all our strivings cease;
Take from our souls the strain and stress,
And let our ordered lives confess
The beauty of Thy peace.

Breathe through the heats of our desire
Thy coolness and Thy balm;
Let sense be dumb, let flesh retire;
Speak through the earthquake, wind, and fire,
O still, small voice of calm.