Most of what I write here is condensed and focused. I proof the articles several times and have my administrative assistant go over them as well. I try to to pick a single topic each week and write something helpful or at least funny. But occasionally I blog the way that most everyone else seems. Today is one of those days.
The firing of Juan Williams from NPR. This was pretty gross. I tend to appreciate NPR so I felt for both parties. On the one hand, I completely disagree with the decision but I suspected (or at least hoped there would be more behind it). We knew that this would become news, right? Especially, very bad news for one of the more grounded sources out there... Certainly Williams comment about anxiety was not something he should have lost his job over. NPR then responded by claiming that he was fired because there was too much opinion in his work. Fox has since offered him a multimillion dollar contract to occasionally appear as a guest journalist. Two thoughts here. First, this man is going to be rich and it seems to me that wealth is a curious bi-product for being a reporter. Second, NPR has never seen so much external publicity. This is an organization that funds programming much the way we do at Saint Francis. A week ago, you could have typed in NPR in any search engine and the only hits you would have gotten would have been directly to stories that they have covered. Now everyone is talking about NPR. What does this mean? Is this a real story or do the sharks celebrate any kind of blood in the water, even when it's their own?
Wikileaks. Is this a trend? Someone seems to be up in arms about the suggestion that there have been suspicious reports about the War in Iraq coming out of Washington. Hmmm. Imagine that. The fact is there have been websites tracking the true cost of the Iraq War for years. As far back as 2008, some sites placed the death toll between anywhere between 100,000 and over a million. Will the Wikileak phenomenon mean that we will have more access to truth? Will it mean that we are more willing to believe it?
Speaking of leaks... Last night I saw the preview for a film called, "Fair Game." It appears that the film actually tells the story about what happened to Valerie Plame and her family. For folks who are sort of into that whole what's really going on around here thing, this might be something to look into. If there is any merit to the increasingly public version of what took place in there, then it seems safe to say that we are living in some disturbing times. Of course, if it's any consolation to Valerie, she now probably has access to the same country clubs that Juan Williams will soon be joining... Spoiler Alert: Sean Penn is in this film.
BofA, Foreclosers, and the new (again) worries over bad loans... Really? Didn't we just suffer through this? I am just a simple man so banking itself is completely confusing to me... But two quick thoughts. First, what exactly is it that now runs our world because it sure can't be people? We have folks who need a place to live and we have institutions that want to make money through the transactions. But don't these folks sort of need each other? How can a ceaseless march to reclaim every possible asset possibly serve the long-term good of either party? What's the value if the bank sells the same property to every possible family? Second, what will happen this time? Did we not just sell the country because the experts threatened us with financial meltdown? So what now? Are we going to do it again? Are those who have so long heralded the blessings of the system finally ready to embrace it's wrath? Isn't this the system that loves to talk about winners and losers?
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Monday, October 18, 2010
Blissfully Bound
I recently had a conversation with a colleague. He had asked me a question about baptism. Apparently a woman in his parish had recently been baptized and and she wanted to know if it would be possible for her grandchildren to be baptized as well. While the woman came regularly and clearly showed conviction and responsibility toward the faith and the life of the church, her own children did not. So the only time her grandchildren were able to come to the church was when the grandmother herself brought them or when there was some kind of drop-off opportunity for the parent such as Vacation Bible School.
My friend explained to the woman that typically he would like to see the parents regularly participating in the life of the church before he would agree to baptize children but that he would think about it and get back to her. He understood that these were unusual circumstances but he wasn't sure what he could or what he should do...
Upon learning that their grandmother had joined the church, the children wanted to be baptized as well. They were old enough for confirmation but there was little chance of the parents getting them there each week for the classes. While my friend certainly wanted to say yes, the theological training that he (and I) had experienced strongly emphasized the importance of the community in the life of the believer. While first and foremost the work of God, baptism is also the responsibility of the congregation and, especially, the parents who are to see that children are raised within the life of the Church. My friend and I had been taught that baptism without parental and communal responsibility is almost nonsensical... It was hard for my friend to imagine himself baptizing pre-teens that he would seldom, if ever, see again. But it was equally hard for him to say no to these children just because their parents didn't care enough to get them to church.
So my friend called me up to see what I thought. Initially I think that he was surprised to hear that I thought he should go ahead and baptize the children. But he was also relieved. I suspect that he felt that way too but needed someone else to confirm his conviction. I suggested that he ask the grandmother to do her best to get the children to worship and Sunday School. In the eyes of the Church, baptized children are the primary responsibility of parents but is it fair to deny children access to the grace of God and the blessings of the church simply because their parents are lazy?
Some time ago, I had a similar experience in my own ministry. I was having a conversation with my wife about a confirmation class that I was teaching. I was concerned because a few parents were not accompanying the confirmands to worship. It seemed that this was a pretty poor example and that it was sending a mixed message to the kids. One of the mothers was a close friend of my wife. So while I was explaining my frustration about all this, she shared with me that she had actually had a conversation with this woman in which the mother made the statement, "Sunday is my only day to sleep in."
The comment struck me as frightfully typical of our time. I call it the religion of the leftovers. Basically, it means that God gets the crumbs. After we've spent all that time and energy at work, the gym and the spa... After we've ran our kids all over town for soccer, piano and SAT prep... After we've spent our rewards at the Mall, Disney and the Country Club... We then take whatever is left to the House of the Lord to make our offering. Or not... After all, Sunday is our only day to sleep in.
And that was pretty much how I responded to my wife's half-defense of her friend's commitment to her son's spiritual health. Diane was somewhat appalled at my sarcastic tirade. She responded, "What do you expect? People have to work. They have to pay taxes. You can't just not pay the government or you go to jail..."
Probably not. Besides, would it really be so bad if we did? What's worse, I wonder, our kids watching us go to jail or watching us sacrifice everything that we've got to a bunch of false gods? Come to think about it, didn't Christians used to be regularly hauled off to jail for their dedication to Christ and to the faith?
I hear my wife's point a lot actually. "Look we have no choice. There's so little discretionary time, energy and resources. Work, school, bills... What can the Church reasonably expect anyway?"
And there is evidence for this... We figure that we have no choice but to work our fingers to the bone, pay the government 25-50%, ensure that our kids are getting all A's and covering those service hours... We sleep in on Sunday because we figure we deserve a break from our very demanding and stressful lives which, indeed, seem to us as very much out of our control.
So then I say, you know, I think you're right. Maybe we're like the Israelites, living in some kind of modern day Egypt. And the truth is that despite all the apparent perks and opportunities, this is , in fact, a slave society and the very people that I am frustrated with are really just slaves, cogs in the wheel of something well beyond their control. Maybe I'm wrong about my expectations of responsibility and what we really need is a savior--Jesus, or at least Moses, to come and deliver us from this mess. As a pastor, maybe I need to be more understanding and more compassionate. After all, the parents of my confirmands are probably just slaves.
So then I try this on. I suggest to people in Bible Studies and elsewhere that what we now have is essentially a slave society. I point out that despite all the rhetoric about freedom and opportunity, the evidence suggests something very different. I note that the capitalist dream that once seemed to promise so much has apparently created a society in which there are now classes of people--masters and slaves.
But then, just as I say something like this... Just as I accept that my people have no other choice but to sleep in on Sunday and offer the Lord whatever crumbs left after a week in the bricks and mortar... They become even more angry, insisting that I am wrong. They shout at me for saying such a blasphemous thing, dutifully citing the merits of the age--the access, the products, the services, the opportunities and freedom... They insist that all is well and that people who are not happy in this perfect world, can only blame themselves. They tell me that this is the best of the best of the best. They explain that they have more power and personal choice then any people who have ever lived. "We are responsible for our own lives.", they exclaim. "We are making our own way, writing our own story and making a name for ourselves. How dare you suggest that we are enslaved! We are not anything like slaves!"
OK, my bad... So then, what is it? What's going on? And which is better? Is it be better to be free and responsible yet selfish and deceived? Or is it better to just be blissfully bound?
My friend explained to the woman that typically he would like to see the parents regularly participating in the life of the church before he would agree to baptize children but that he would think about it and get back to her. He understood that these were unusual circumstances but he wasn't sure what he could or what he should do...
Upon learning that their grandmother had joined the church, the children wanted to be baptized as well. They were old enough for confirmation but there was little chance of the parents getting them there each week for the classes. While my friend certainly wanted to say yes, the theological training that he (and I) had experienced strongly emphasized the importance of the community in the life of the believer. While first and foremost the work of God, baptism is also the responsibility of the congregation and, especially, the parents who are to see that children are raised within the life of the Church. My friend and I had been taught that baptism without parental and communal responsibility is almost nonsensical... It was hard for my friend to imagine himself baptizing pre-teens that he would seldom, if ever, see again. But it was equally hard for him to say no to these children just because their parents didn't care enough to get them to church.
So my friend called me up to see what I thought. Initially I think that he was surprised to hear that I thought he should go ahead and baptize the children. But he was also relieved. I suspect that he felt that way too but needed someone else to confirm his conviction. I suggested that he ask the grandmother to do her best to get the children to worship and Sunday School. In the eyes of the Church, baptized children are the primary responsibility of parents but is it fair to deny children access to the grace of God and the blessings of the church simply because their parents are lazy?
Some time ago, I had a similar experience in my own ministry. I was having a conversation with my wife about a confirmation class that I was teaching. I was concerned because a few parents were not accompanying the confirmands to worship. It seemed that this was a pretty poor example and that it was sending a mixed message to the kids. One of the mothers was a close friend of my wife. So while I was explaining my frustration about all this, she shared with me that she had actually had a conversation with this woman in which the mother made the statement, "Sunday is my only day to sleep in."
The comment struck me as frightfully typical of our time. I call it the religion of the leftovers. Basically, it means that God gets the crumbs. After we've spent all that time and energy at work, the gym and the spa... After we've ran our kids all over town for soccer, piano and SAT prep... After we've spent our rewards at the Mall, Disney and the Country Club... We then take whatever is left to the House of the Lord to make our offering. Or not... After all, Sunday is our only day to sleep in.
And that was pretty much how I responded to my wife's half-defense of her friend's commitment to her son's spiritual health. Diane was somewhat appalled at my sarcastic tirade. She responded, "What do you expect? People have to work. They have to pay taxes. You can't just not pay the government or you go to jail..."
Probably not. Besides, would it really be so bad if we did? What's worse, I wonder, our kids watching us go to jail or watching us sacrifice everything that we've got to a bunch of false gods? Come to think about it, didn't Christians used to be regularly hauled off to jail for their dedication to Christ and to the faith?
I hear my wife's point a lot actually. "Look we have no choice. There's so little discretionary time, energy and resources. Work, school, bills... What can the Church reasonably expect anyway?"
And there is evidence for this... We figure that we have no choice but to work our fingers to the bone, pay the government 25-50%, ensure that our kids are getting all A's and covering those service hours... We sleep in on Sunday because we figure we deserve a break from our very demanding and stressful lives which, indeed, seem to us as very much out of our control.
So then I say, you know, I think you're right. Maybe we're like the Israelites, living in some kind of modern day Egypt. And the truth is that despite all the apparent perks and opportunities, this is , in fact, a slave society and the very people that I am frustrated with are really just slaves, cogs in the wheel of something well beyond their control. Maybe I'm wrong about my expectations of responsibility and what we really need is a savior--Jesus, or at least Moses, to come and deliver us from this mess. As a pastor, maybe I need to be more understanding and more compassionate. After all, the parents of my confirmands are probably just slaves.
So then I try this on. I suggest to people in Bible Studies and elsewhere that what we now have is essentially a slave society. I point out that despite all the rhetoric about freedom and opportunity, the evidence suggests something very different. I note that the capitalist dream that once seemed to promise so much has apparently created a society in which there are now classes of people--masters and slaves.
But then, just as I say something like this... Just as I accept that my people have no other choice but to sleep in on Sunday and offer the Lord whatever crumbs left after a week in the bricks and mortar... They become even more angry, insisting that I am wrong. They shout at me for saying such a blasphemous thing, dutifully citing the merits of the age--the access, the products, the services, the opportunities and freedom... They insist that all is well and that people who are not happy in this perfect world, can only blame themselves. They tell me that this is the best of the best of the best. They explain that they have more power and personal choice then any people who have ever lived. "We are responsible for our own lives.", they exclaim. "We are making our own way, writing our own story and making a name for ourselves. How dare you suggest that we are enslaved! We are not anything like slaves!"
OK, my bad... So then, what is it? What's going on? And which is better? Is it be better to be free and responsible yet selfish and deceived? Or is it better to just be blissfully bound?
Monday, October 11, 2010
Sufficient Grace
...Therefore, to keep me from being too elated, a thorn was given to me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me, to keep me from being too elated. Three times I appealed to the Lord about this, that it would leave me, but he said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness.’... (2 Corinthians 12:7-9)
There is a long and intriguing mystery about Paul's reference here in 2 Corinthians. What exactly was that legendary "thorn?" What was it that the devil used to keep Paul's comfort and joy at bay? That subject of torment...Was it a physical ailment? Was it a psychological disorder or a spiritual weakness? Was it a carnal desire or some deep-seated insecurity? Perhaps it was a loneliness that came from the constant travel. Or maybe it was a steady annoyance inspired by the company that he was forced to keep?
Whatever it was... We don't know. We will probably never know--unless by some chance event we catch the Apostle some day over a cup of coffee in heaven. Fat chance though--something tells me that Paul's heaven will not include time for coffee. I could be wrong though.
But I get the deal. I get the frustration and I get the answer. I live by the answer. My grace is sufficient... For Paul. For Me. For You. For whatever it is that ails us... The Lord has the remedy. And the remedy... it isn't a pill or a fortune or a get-outta-jail-free card.
And that has become the exact thing I was hoping to hear. I first heard it many years ago. I was suffering under my "torment of the year" or decade. At wits end and losing both my youth and strength. Knowing but not really knowing how faith works and all that. And God threw me a line. Pulled my head up out of the mire just enough to get me through. It wasn't complete--and thank God! Who wants to be completely rescued? Of course, I couldn't fully appreciate it at the time but it was enough. Enough to get me through and, more importantly, enough to learn that it is all about enough--just enough to see us through.
There is music in my world. And it's not esoteric harps in my head. It is the music of other people. People who seem awake and able to see and feel the pain and appreciate the wonder.
I don't have a wide list of things that save me but the short list is as precious as oxygen. An honest song or a great story. It's sufficient to see me through another day or at least a few more hours... Patty Griffin and Stephan Jenkins, Noel and Liam Gallagher, Jenny Lewis and Adam Duritz, Tracy Chapman and Jackson Browne... Did God send these folks into the world to keep me alive? No, but their voices have often reached me at the exact moment...
I can only trust that it is the same for the rest of us. Not that you are saved by my music or by any music for that matter. But that there is grace sufficient for you too. In whatever form works. Whatever language can break through the torment that keeps your comfort and joy at bay.
If you follow what I am saying here, here's to hanging on! We've made it through another stretch! If you feel as though the grace in your life is just not quite cutting it...Don't give up. Keep looking and keep bugging God about it. If the journey feels long and weary, let God know about it. You probably won't get the get-outta-jail-free card. But it might just be that you really don't want that anyway.
There is a long and intriguing mystery about Paul's reference here in 2 Corinthians. What exactly was that legendary "thorn?" What was it that the devil used to keep Paul's comfort and joy at bay? That subject of torment...Was it a physical ailment? Was it a psychological disorder or a spiritual weakness? Was it a carnal desire or some deep-seated insecurity? Perhaps it was a loneliness that came from the constant travel. Or maybe it was a steady annoyance inspired by the company that he was forced to keep?
Whatever it was... We don't know. We will probably never know--unless by some chance event we catch the Apostle some day over a cup of coffee in heaven. Fat chance though--something tells me that Paul's heaven will not include time for coffee. I could be wrong though.
But I get the deal. I get the frustration and I get the answer. I live by the answer. My grace is sufficient... For Paul. For Me. For You. For whatever it is that ails us... The Lord has the remedy. And the remedy... it isn't a pill or a fortune or a get-outta-jail-free card.
And that has become the exact thing I was hoping to hear. I first heard it many years ago. I was suffering under my "torment of the year" or decade. At wits end and losing both my youth and strength. Knowing but not really knowing how faith works and all that. And God threw me a line. Pulled my head up out of the mire just enough to get me through. It wasn't complete--and thank God! Who wants to be completely rescued? Of course, I couldn't fully appreciate it at the time but it was enough. Enough to get me through and, more importantly, enough to learn that it is all about enough--just enough to see us through.
There is music in my world. And it's not esoteric harps in my head. It is the music of other people. People who seem awake and able to see and feel the pain and appreciate the wonder.
I don't have a wide list of things that save me but the short list is as precious as oxygen. An honest song or a great story. It's sufficient to see me through another day or at least a few more hours... Patty Griffin and Stephan Jenkins, Noel and Liam Gallagher, Jenny Lewis and Adam Duritz, Tracy Chapman and Jackson Browne... Did God send these folks into the world to keep me alive? No, but their voices have often reached me at the exact moment...
I can only trust that it is the same for the rest of us. Not that you are saved by my music or by any music for that matter. But that there is grace sufficient for you too. In whatever form works. Whatever language can break through the torment that keeps your comfort and joy at bay.
If you follow what I am saying here, here's to hanging on! We've made it through another stretch! If you feel as though the grace in your life is just not quite cutting it...Don't give up. Keep looking and keep bugging God about it. If the journey feels long and weary, let God know about it. You probably won't get the get-outta-jail-free card. But it might just be that you really don't want that anyway.
Friday, October 8, 2010
The Social Network
I don't Facebook. I need to say that right off the bat. A person once sent me an email with links to some photos and the only way that I could view them was to fill out an online form. So I suppose my name is out there somewhere and I do, ocassionally, get "friend requests" but I don't respond to them and I don't use a Facebook account. The reason is twofold.
First, there is sort of an unspoken agreement between my sons and I. Part of this is simply maintaining a healthy distance. There are certain places teenagers just don't want to run into their parents. It's not merely privacy, it is also sort of a "dibs" thing--a belief that there is only so much cool stuff to go around. By the time I learned anything at all about Facebook, my sons were already pretty much insiders. And frankly, it wasn't that hard to pass on the intrigue. At least not for forty-something men. I can see how it is great for younger, single folks and women too because they like communication and all that. But most middle-aged men that I know can only get into trouble with this kind of thing.
The second reason that I don't do Facebook is because it is clearly a time-trap and I already have plenty of those in my life. And it is a unique sort of time-trap because it promotes a sedentary lifestyle. Of course, this isn't just Facebook. Techology generally and computers especially are blackholes for time and attention. There are a few differences between sitting on the couch and sitting in front of the computer but there are a lot of similarities as well. (I realize that we can now do both at the same time.)
While I don't do Facebook; I absolutely do use a computer a lot. And I do think Facebook is cool, just not that cool. So that's the caveat. I am not an expert on Facebook. But I do see a lot of movies. And "The Social Network" is a very good movie.
The story is interesting; the acting is excellent and the truth telling is subtle. The first two are straightforward enough so I will focus on the latter--and without spoiling the film for those of you who have yet to see it.
Good preaching doesn't feel preachy. Good teaching allows you to learn without feeling like you've been abused in the process. In the same way, good film-making portrays a story in such a way as to be both engaging and meaningful. "The Social Network" tells the story of bright, young men. Bright, young men are not gods. They are not even wise, old men. But they have something that neither gods nor old men have. We might call it passion or moxy or creative disatisfaction. But whatever it is, it allows them, sometimes, to do things that the rest of us are unwilling or unable to do. This is what makes Facebook cool and it is what makes "The Social Network" a very engaging film.
What we are really talking about here is adventure. It is taking a path, an uncertain path in a bold direction. For those who are given the chance and take hold of it, a youthful adventure is one of the highlights of human life. (I say one of because it is definitely not the only one. Raising children and seeing grandchildren are perhaps greater highlights. It is just that these are more common and, therefore, generally under-recognized.) Anyway, to set out or step out toward a vision--this is an amazing thing. And while adventure is the subject of countless stories, it is an experience in which only the few actually embrace.
The thing is though, in a true adventure, at least in a true human adventure, there are authentic challenges. Greatness is a mixed bag and the path to it frought with very real struggle and suffering. This is the aspect of "The Social Network" that really caught my attention. Without wallowing in it, the film captures the pitfalls and dark sides of success. It reveals, ever so subtly, the ways in which ambition threatens and even destroys things like friendship and joy.
It's a terrifying consideration really--that the very thing that moves us and motivates us can also potentially destroy us. And this is not some kind of black and white moral decision that we can easily make. It is almost as if the lesson invariably comes after the risk itself. And then sometimes it can be too late... Powerful stuff and real.
The last thing that I will say about the film is less universal but nevertheless connected. The film portrays a great deal of partying. Some of this is because the story is about twenty-something characters. And some is certainly because Hollywood now seems to feel that the best way to get young people to go to movies is to glamorize sex and drugs.
I went to the film with my seventeen year old son. My eighteen year old is already in college. I wonder what they make of all this, really. I wonder what they make of the ambition and the whole idea of success. But I also wonder about the real Social Network. I wonder what they make of the way in which the film portrays friendship, intimacy and sex. Do they imagine that this is what college should be? Do teenagers today believe that the pinnacle of social life is a world where they will have the means to embrace unbridled excess?
I have never considered myself a prude but I found the party scenes unsettling and not just because I was sitting next to my son. The one concrete example that I do want to point out is not to offend or overstate, and it is certainly not a spoiler for the film. It it rather to raise a question about cultural good...
There is a scene in the film in which characters have sex in a bathroom stall. I wasn't exactly sure what to make of the message? I knew how I felt about the scene... But I wasn't at all sure about the rest of the people in the theater. Particularly telling, I think, was that I wasn't even sure how the characters in the story felt about it. Is this evidence of the strength of the film--demonstrating the moral ambiguity plaguing this generation? Or is it simply evidence that I am now just too old and removed from what's going on out there?
Our kids are part of a generation that is being bombarded with a virtually endless range of goods. With so much access and so few boundaries, how can they discern what they should and should not want? "The Social Network" is a story about the most significant thing in many of their lives. I wonder what they made of it.
First, there is sort of an unspoken agreement between my sons and I. Part of this is simply maintaining a healthy distance. There are certain places teenagers just don't want to run into their parents. It's not merely privacy, it is also sort of a "dibs" thing--a belief that there is only so much cool stuff to go around. By the time I learned anything at all about Facebook, my sons were already pretty much insiders. And frankly, it wasn't that hard to pass on the intrigue. At least not for forty-something men. I can see how it is great for younger, single folks and women too because they like communication and all that. But most middle-aged men that I know can only get into trouble with this kind of thing.
The second reason that I don't do Facebook is because it is clearly a time-trap and I already have plenty of those in my life. And it is a unique sort of time-trap because it promotes a sedentary lifestyle. Of course, this isn't just Facebook. Techology generally and computers especially are blackholes for time and attention. There are a few differences between sitting on the couch and sitting in front of the computer but there are a lot of similarities as well. (I realize that we can now do both at the same time.)
While I don't do Facebook; I absolutely do use a computer a lot. And I do think Facebook is cool, just not that cool. So that's the caveat. I am not an expert on Facebook. But I do see a lot of movies. And "The Social Network" is a very good movie.
The story is interesting; the acting is excellent and the truth telling is subtle. The first two are straightforward enough so I will focus on the latter--and without spoiling the film for those of you who have yet to see it.
Good preaching doesn't feel preachy. Good teaching allows you to learn without feeling like you've been abused in the process. In the same way, good film-making portrays a story in such a way as to be both engaging and meaningful. "The Social Network" tells the story of bright, young men. Bright, young men are not gods. They are not even wise, old men. But they have something that neither gods nor old men have. We might call it passion or moxy or creative disatisfaction. But whatever it is, it allows them, sometimes, to do things that the rest of us are unwilling or unable to do. This is what makes Facebook cool and it is what makes "The Social Network" a very engaging film.
What we are really talking about here is adventure. It is taking a path, an uncertain path in a bold direction. For those who are given the chance and take hold of it, a youthful adventure is one of the highlights of human life. (I say one of because it is definitely not the only one. Raising children and seeing grandchildren are perhaps greater highlights. It is just that these are more common and, therefore, generally under-recognized.) Anyway, to set out or step out toward a vision--this is an amazing thing. And while adventure is the subject of countless stories, it is an experience in which only the few actually embrace.
The thing is though, in a true adventure, at least in a true human adventure, there are authentic challenges. Greatness is a mixed bag and the path to it frought with very real struggle and suffering. This is the aspect of "The Social Network" that really caught my attention. Without wallowing in it, the film captures the pitfalls and dark sides of success. It reveals, ever so subtly, the ways in which ambition threatens and even destroys things like friendship and joy.
It's a terrifying consideration really--that the very thing that moves us and motivates us can also potentially destroy us. And this is not some kind of black and white moral decision that we can easily make. It is almost as if the lesson invariably comes after the risk itself. And then sometimes it can be too late... Powerful stuff and real.
The last thing that I will say about the film is less universal but nevertheless connected. The film portrays a great deal of partying. Some of this is because the story is about twenty-something characters. And some is certainly because Hollywood now seems to feel that the best way to get young people to go to movies is to glamorize sex and drugs.
I went to the film with my seventeen year old son. My eighteen year old is already in college. I wonder what they make of all this, really. I wonder what they make of the ambition and the whole idea of success. But I also wonder about the real Social Network. I wonder what they make of the way in which the film portrays friendship, intimacy and sex. Do they imagine that this is what college should be? Do teenagers today believe that the pinnacle of social life is a world where they will have the means to embrace unbridled excess?
I have never considered myself a prude but I found the party scenes unsettling and not just because I was sitting next to my son. The one concrete example that I do want to point out is not to offend or overstate, and it is certainly not a spoiler for the film. It it rather to raise a question about cultural good...
There is a scene in the film in which characters have sex in a bathroom stall. I wasn't exactly sure what to make of the message? I knew how I felt about the scene... But I wasn't at all sure about the rest of the people in the theater. Particularly telling, I think, was that I wasn't even sure how the characters in the story felt about it. Is this evidence of the strength of the film--demonstrating the moral ambiguity plaguing this generation? Or is it simply evidence that I am now just too old and removed from what's going on out there?
Our kids are part of a generation that is being bombarded with a virtually endless range of goods. With so much access and so few boundaries, how can they discern what they should and should not want? "The Social Network" is a story about the most significant thing in many of their lives. I wonder what they made of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
