Stand to Reason Blog

United 93

It is the most devastating movie I've ever seen.

Only "The Passion" has affected me as deeply - that devasted me in a different way (conviction of my sin).

I've read and watched a lot about September 11 and especially United 93, but that did nothing to blunt the impact of the movie.  This movie puts you on the plane and in the air traffic control center.  You experience that day though those who lived it because the movie maker was meticulous in learning about the facts of the day, the people involved, and a number of people in the movie are the people who lived it.  (I don't know how they relived it, but I'm thankful they did for our sake.)  And the actors are unknowns so no one stands out.  You live through it through all their eyes as they struggle to comprehend something that had never happened before.

Some have worried about a backlash against Muslims, that the movie would ignite hatred.  While the movie has moral clarity, it also doesn't objectify the terrorists.  They are humans.  They appear nervous and even frightened at times, but determined.  I felt angry at what they did, but I also felt such sadness that they believed a lie that would motivate them to do that.  God metes out the final justice, not us. 

We learned after September 11 that the co-pilot on American Airlines 11, the first plane to be flown into the towers, was Tom McGuinness, someone who grew in his spiritual life in part because of STR.  So there has been a more personal connection for me since then.  Though that flight isn't the main focus on the movie, I thought about Tom as they began to track this first flight to go astray. 

The passengers on United 93 aren't glorified in the movie.  They are shown as they were, average people.  And the decision to take on the terrorists isn't momentous - it's decent people who grasped their circumstances and resolved to do what had to be done.  Their heroism is understated, but real.  They were people fighting determinedly for their lives, and for those they knew were the target of their plane.  They just did what they had to do.  And that was monumental.

I went to the movie on a Friday afternoon and I wondered who my fellow movie-goers were figuring it wasn't your average movie audience to see this movie on the day it opened.  We weren't there for entertainment.  I noted, too, that there were an unusual number of people there who'd come alone, as I had.  I'm not sure what all that means, but I think it means something about the people there.  And oddly, not long after I left the movie theater it had to be evacuated because of some gas that was released.  (Don't know right now what it was.)

This is clearly the best movie I've seen in a long time.  I'm not familiar with the movie-maker's work, but he clearly is the man to have made this movie.  I can't imagine it having been made better.  The movie isn't sensational, sentimental, or maniputative.  It's reality.

I really hope people don't avoid going to see it because it's upsetting.  Sometimes we should be upset.  It's the appropriate response.  And this is a story it's worth being upset over.

Send Your Kids to Wheatstone

Last night I attended an event hosted by the Wheatstone Academy.  J.P. Moreland started the night off by discussing the current state of our culture, which he believes will get worse before it gets better.  Then John Mark Reynolds spoke about training students and together they took Q & A.  By the end of the night it was clear that more parents and youth leaders need to send their students to one of Wheatstone's conferences this summer.

Wheatstone conferences are distinctive and I do not know of another worldview training opportunity for students like it.  First, students get to spend a week with some of the top Christian scholars in the country.  Second, they spend hours each day in Socratic-style dialogue with students, forcing students to learn how to think.  Third, they engage the kids in cultural experiences by integrating classical concerts, live theater, and art exhibits into the curriculum. 

If you have students between the ages of 15 and 19, you ought to seriously consider sending them to Wheatstone.  It is a financial investment but well worth it (by the way, Wheatstone does provide scholarships to those in need and have never had to turn a student away because of money).  Parents spend thousands dollars on sports camps, academic tutoring, and the like for their kids.  How much more important it is to invest in worldview training for our kids.  Indeed, I have an 11-year old daughter who will be going to a Wheatstone conference when she is old enough.

Ain't Necessarily So

Scott Klusendorf at Life Training Institute responds to a comment left on a post of mine Wednesday  To some extent, the commentator's response to my post are off point because I think he misunderstood the work the response is intended to do. 

In addition to Scott's argument, let me make this point about argumentation.  There's a difference between rebuttals and refutations, or undercutters and defeaters.  A rebuttal has a lower burden of proof than a refutation because all it does is show that "it ain't necessarily so."  A refutation shows it can't be so.  They both are responses to an argument offered - neither is a positive case.

The point about DNA that I quoted is an example of a rebuttal of sorts, not a refutation.. And it has nothing at all to do with what my views about abortion are because it isn't a positive case.  When someone else tries to prove something based on DNA similarity, all I have to do to block his conclusions is to show that "it ain't necessarily so."  In fact, I might even agree with his viewpoint but recognize the weakness in his argument.  (We try to do that here at STR.  We are anxious to get rid of bad arguments Christians use because they don't work and sometimes do damage.)

So when someone tries to make a case for something like animal rights because of the similarity they share with human DNA, all that's needed is a rebuttal that undercuts their case.  In this situation, bringing up the 100% similarity of the pro-born's DNA with the post-born's DNA shows that the argument proves more than the person is willing to concede.  So if he isn't willing to follow his argument through to its logical conclusions, I'm not obligated to follow it where he's like.  It's a rebuttal, not a refutation or an alternate case.  That's all that's necessary sometimes.

"They simply decide they must do something."

John Podhoretz writes about "United 93" opening tomorrow:

In the film's final 32 minutes, the passengers and crew become, as Greengrass has said, "the first people to live in the post-9/11 world." They gather information quickly, including word that a third plane has struck the Pentagon. The men who choose to storm the cockpit don't give speeches about their intentions. They simply decide they must do something, and they know there is a pilot among the passengers who might be able to land the plane. They don't intend to die. They intend to win....

Because the movie reminds us of this, and because it does not seek to wring tears but wants us to have some sense of what might have happened on that plane as it was happening in real time, Greengrass has succeeded in making a movie about September 11 that is both appropriately heartbreaking and quietly triumphant. United 93 is a masterpiece of a kind; but it's hard to say what kind of masterpiece it is, because there's never been a movie like it before, and there may never be one to compare to it again....

There's no reason to fear United 93. It is a riveting examination of an unbearable moment. Not only can we take it, we can also rise to the challenge it presents--both to us, and to those who would treat Americans as though they were hothouse flowers incapable of feeling the "right way" about September 11.

Distant Relatives?

Next time you hear one of those DNA comparisons between humans and animals making the point of the similarities and the moral status that should follow from that relation, Jonah Goldberg has a response:

Lord how hate it when people do those DNA comparisons. I'm all for being nice to monkeys and gorillas, but please. We share a lot of the same DNA with dogs and, if memory serves, a big chunk of our DNA matches up nicely with some fruits and vegetables. What, exactly, should that tell us? We share 100% of our DNA with fetuses -- as Ramesh would likely note -- and yet that never seems to argue much in their favor among the crowd that wants animals to have rights.

Burden of Proof?

An increasingly common ploy (not to insinuate bad motives) by atheists is to claim that atheism isn't a negative statement about God, it's a suspension of belief.  So they have nothing to defend.  Of course, this puts them in the cat bird seat of only making criticisms of theism.  It can be maddening to deal with this approach.

Keith Plummer at The Christian Mind carries on a lot of dialogs with non-Christians, and today he draws on his experience with one such atheist who took this position about his atheism.  Keith makes this fundamental point and then goes into a dialog demonstrating how to deal with this challenge.

One of those dialogue partners frequently engaged Christians in debate yet was reluctant to offer an argument in support of his own position. His rationale for this was that since he was a negative atheist (one who lacks a belief in God but does not assert that God does not exist), he was making no assertion and therefore was under no obligation to offer a defense.

This is a very common ploy but I think it's flawed. Objections to Christianity are not acontextual. They arise from alternative systems of belief which have their own presuppositions about the nature and limits of reality and human knowing, and how it is we should live. What's often needed is for the Christian to unearth the implicit worldview from which objections arise rather than simply responding as though the atheist's starting point is neutral or the default position that does not stand in need of defense.

Questions & Assumptions

A favorite slogan goes "There's no such thing as a stupid question."  Perhaps not, but sometimes the kinds of question we're asking - or not asking - reflect a great deal about our mentality and background assumptions.

A couple of articles and discussions about worship got me wondering about how much our attitude toward worship might be fundamentally influenced by our culture more than the Bible and theology  I'm thinking out loud here, so I'm not offering any conclusions. 

There are some usual questions asked to determine the church we chose or the style of worship a church practices.  And I think those questions focus on us.  What is my preference?  What kind of worship appeals to me?  What style of worship makes me feel close to God?  There are some presumptions behind those questions:  that worship is essentially a matter of preference, that my feelings are relevant in worship, that my personal preferences are relevant to these choices.  I'm at the center of these considerations, and I wonder if it's not then coincidental that many contemporary worship songs make me and my feelings the subject of the songs.

Are those the central questions when considering worship, or are they relevant at all?  What about questions like:  Is there an objective purpose of worship?  Is there an objective category of worship that extols God better than others?  Is there an objective sense of beauty that our worship should reflect that some styles grasp better than others?  If God is the subject of worship, does He give us indications in the Bible about how worship should be done?  Does Biblical worship involve my feelings or my thoughts?  Or both and then in what balance?

I'm not sure of the answer to the second set of questions, but I don't think they get asked much anymore.  And I wonder if the kinds of questions we do ask reflect the influence of our culture on our attitudes and values toward our Christians practices.  I think there's some relevance that we ask the first set of questions and not the second, and I worry that it's because we are very self-centered and not very God-centered.  And if that's the case, then our hearts and minds haven't been transformed enough by the work of the Holy Spirit.  (Romans 12:2)

Reminders

I agree with this columnist's take on the movie opening Friday "United 93."  What took so long?  He quotes the filmmaker:

"This is a rich time for engaged filmmaking precisely because the stakes today are so high," says Greengrass. "We know we have to face choices in our society that have enormous consequences. And perhaps this film will provoke a conversation. I don't want people to come out of the theater shocked or distressed.

"There's a time when silence is appropriate, but there's also a time for us to talk and remember and seek wisdom."

It may sound odd, but I'm looking forward to seeing the movie and I intend to go Friday.  It's important to be reminded of important events.  And I've been struck at the complete void of major films made about September 11 and this war.  It marks a significant change from World War 2, when Hollywood began exploring major world events soon after they took place.

I know it will be hard movie to see, but sometimes it's good to be viscerally reminded of the pain and horror that fades over time.  And I look forward to seeing the heroism the passengers on United 93 displayed that day.  I remember thinking that day that they had been the first to recognize the events for what they were and sacrifice themselves for a greater cause than themselves.  I understand that they probably intended to save the plane, but nevertheless they took that risk to do something great.  And I am inspired by their ability to grasp the import of the moment they found themselves in, come to terms with it, and act.

The passengers of United 93 put me in mind of the commander's final admonition before D-Day:

...I do ask Him, with my whole heart and soul, to give me the moral, physical, and mental courage and strength to do my duty to the utmost.

These citizens passed the test when it came to them.  They inspire me that I might do the same if I ever face a similar test.  (And though I know it's fantasy, that's something that appeals to me about "24.")  Not too many things in life anymore require moral, physical, or mental courage.  I pray I have them when necessary.  And movies like "United 93" help inspire us with examples of heroism.

Treating Equals Unequally

Don't read this if you don't want any clues about what's happening on "24."

Dave Barry (whose "24" blog is hilarious [warning:  occasional somewhat questionable content], and read the comments) raises this interesting ethical question about Jack's choices:

I am not happy with Jack. And I will tell you why.

The week before last, an innocent bank manager bought the farm in a hail o' bullets after Jack kidnapped him to get the Secret Recording that would expose President Manilow for being behind the Killer Kanister Plot. OK, fine, we can live with that. Hundreds of innocent people have died for being so unfortunate or stupid as to be standing within 25 yards of Jack. That is the price that we, as a nation, must pay to be saved by Jack.

But then last week, having gone through all that hassle to get the Secret Recording, Jack HANDED IT TO HENDERSON. Why? Because Audrey was bleeding! Awww. Poor Audrey!

Jack regularly takes calculable risks with innocent people's lives for justifiable reasons.  Sometimes they are hurt.  Barry has identified an inconsistency in Jack's ethical calculation - it seems to only reason he risked the bank manager's life but not Audrey's is that he loves her.  After all, he's sacrificed others in the past when there was no alternative.  Yet he risked the entire mission only because he loves Audrey.  He treated these two people differently, and that's not ethically sound.  It's emotionally understandable, but not ethical, I think.

Abolitionist

Walden Media, the maker of the recent release The Chronicles of Narnia, are making a major-release film about William Wilberforce, the great 19th century abolitionist.  The movie, called Amazing Grace, will chronicle the life and work of this moral warrior who was motivated by his Christian commitment.  I'm looking forward to this one.