Another birthday of note

Billy Graham isn't the only one with a birthday today. The most important person in my life is turning...well, maybe she wouldn't want me to say on this public forum, though to me she doesn't seem a day older than when we met. For some reason I'm reminded of an old Ronnie Milsap song. This one's for you honey...

Billy Graham is 90

John Piper pays tribute

What would Nick do?

Writer/Director Whit Stillman's 1990 indy gem Metropolitan features some of the sharpest film dialogue ever written. He wrote the screenplay off and on during the 1980s while he worked for a Manhattan ad agency, and supposedly sold his apartment to get the cash to make the thing into a movie. One of the ironies of Metropolitan is that it's a film featuring rich Ivy League kids lounging about in Park Avenue apartments, made on a shoestring budget and a prayer. It's a great example of guerrilla filmmaking. I first read about it in the pages of National Review years before I watched it as Stillman was something of a conservative darling back then. Writing in Slate in 2006 Austin Kelley subtitled it "the movie for the conservative in all of us." It might be more appropriate to call it the movie for the snob in all of us. How then is it such an endearing piece of cinema? Let me try to explain.

The "hero" of Metropolitan (and one of my favorite characters ever) is arch-elitist, arch-cynic Nick Smith, played perfectly by Chris Eigeman. Delivering Stillman's lines with absolute conviction he pulls off the impossible -- making us empathize with a lying snob. In contrast to Nick is the "less fortunate" Tom Townsend (Edward Clements), home for the holidays from Princeton, who first shows up in a rented tux at one of the debutante "deb" parties that are still a rite of passage for the daughters of the Manhattan elite. Rented tux says middle-class, but there's a shortage of escorts for the girls so Nick takes Tom under his wing despite the misgivings of Charlie Black (Taylor Jacobs), the elder statesman of the group. Tom and his socialist ideas are a curiosity to this group of monied prepsters who probably won't have to work a day in their lives. Much hilarity ensues and a burgeoning romance between Tom and sweet, insecure Audrey (Carolyn Farina) provides most of the dramatic impetus. Along the way Tom and self-proclaimed untitled aristocrat Nick (he dismisses the titled aristocracy as "the scum of the earth") prove to have more in common than they thought.

For one thing, as it turns out, they're both dealing with parental break-up. The parents of the Metropolitan kids are mostly an off-screen presence -- much talked about but rarely seen. Nick advises Tom, "The one thing you have to remember about parents is...there's nothing you can do about them." Wealth allows these almost-adults to live in a hermetically sealed world without adult supervision or interference, except for Tom who must share a cramped apartment with his mother. Their relationship is uneasy at best, which makes spending his evenings and early mornings with the upper classes seem more and more appealing. This brat pack moves from party to taxi to posh hotel ballroom and back again. The world is their oyster, but there's a palpable sense that that's about to end. Not only will the season end, and they'll have to go back to Yale or Vassar or wherever, but, they fear, the whole edifice of WASP old-money privilege is about to collapse. Nick worries out loud, "with everything that's going on this is probably the last deb season as we know it." Good thing he wasn't around for the meltdown of '08!

By movie's end facades have been stripped away, secrets revealed, insecurities brought to the surface. Tom comes to realize he isn't the anti-bourgeois revolutionary he fancied himself to be. Nick is just, well, lonely. Rarely has a film dealt so perceptively with the challenges of transitioning into the adult world. I might easily have despised these characters because of their privilege and sense of entitlement, but in Stillman's hands I find them likeable and not so different.

Movies are rightly described as a director's medium, but this is a writer's film. Whit Stillman's script is a bona fide classic. Metropolitan isn't a coherent defense of any political ideology, nor is it an apology for class privilege. What it is instead is an exquisite comedy of manners that conjures up nostalgia for a time and place that the opening title card announces is "not so long ago" -- a time and place that feels timeless irrespective of it's obvious 1980s pedigree -- more Jane Austen than William F. Buckley. At a time when change is in the air, it might be fun to ask "what would Nick do?" He would probably tell you to go to Brooks and buy some decent evening wear. After all, deb season is just around the corner. The nicest thing I can say about Metropolitan? It's a lovely film.

One last election post

Francis Beckwith writes:

Like many conservatives of my generation (b. 1960), I came of age when there was a vibrancy and excitement for the works of authors such as Bill Buckley, Russell Kirk, Frederick Hayek, Edmund Burke, Adam Smith, Henry Hazlitt, Hadley Arkes, and George Gilder. Our political heroes included Washington, Lincoln, Churchill, Reagan, and Thatcher.

Sadly, this present generation is rarely put in contact with these leading lights and their works. Instead, young conservatives as well as young liberals are tutored almost exclusively by blogs and bombast, by “stars” whose command of the intellectual roots of conservatism is an inch deep and a mile wide. We’ve come from “Don’t immanentize the eschaton” to “Sean, you’re a great American.”

Even though I firmly opposed Senator Barack Obama, and had hoped that Senator John McCain would have won, I felt a deep sense of patriotic pride welling up inside of me when I fully realized that America had in fact elected a black man. So, unlike 1992, I felt relieved rather than depressed. For something great had happened and I was blessed to have witnessed it.

I'm only 9 years younger than Beckwith. I came of age during the Reagan revolution and still consider Ronald Reagan the greatest President of my lifetime. In high school I was a subscriber to Bill Buckley's National Review and I too eagerly read Russell Kirk's The Conservative Mind and Hayek's The Road to Serfdom. Back then (all of 25 years ago) conservatism was defined by ideas not personalities. Beckwith's piece makes me nostalgic for a time before Rush and Drudge and Fox News. I hold my political and ideological views much looser nowadays "It's the gospel, stupid" (preaching to myself) but I'm still a conservative at heart. Hopefully this time in the political wilderness causes some serious reflection on the part of those who've contributed richly to the current mess we're in. Who knows? It may be that the Obama revolution morphs into something quite surprising to all of us. History can take some funny turns. I think the President-elect has a sense of history, but I suspect many of his supporters don't. Be that as it may...here's my last word on this election -- for now -- quoting again from Beckwith:

For conservatives, there is much work to be done. We not only have to be the loyal opposition when bad policies are proposed, we have to present our views respectfully and intelligently. For those of us who are Christians, we have to remember that the City of God is not the City of Man, that the Kingdom of God is established from the inside out and not from the top down. In other words, we cannot immanentize the eschaton.

Having said that, we have a responsibility to love our neighbors as ourselves, which may require that we support and defend policies and positions that we believe advance the common good, and with which some of our fellow citizens surely disagree. For this reason, especially on issues such as marriage and the sanctity of life, we must be artful and thoughtful in our public advocacy, assertive while not being abrasive.

Like so much of life on this side of eternity, politics must be put in perspective. It is not everything, but it is not nothing either. It has its place. For this reason, it is the better part of wisdom to end my brief comments with the oft-quoted, but not often reflected upon, words from the Book of Ecclesiastes:

For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven: a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted; a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; a time to throw away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; a time to seek, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to throw away; a time to tear, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; a time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace. (Ecclesiastes 3:1-8)

Read the whole thing

The ghost of Mr. Lincoln

I thought both candidates for President performed magnificently last night. John McCain's concession speech was eloquent and struck just the right tone...and his unfortunate running mate was eloquent by her silence. But last night belonged to Barack Obama. Fitting, since he defined and dominated this campaign like few other candidates have done. He gave a marvelous speech. From "hello, Chicago" to "God bless the United States of America" he truly rose to the occasion. As Peggy Noonan said on CBS -- it was "an epic moment." Watching Brian Williams interview an emotional John Lewis brought home what an extraordinarily meaningful event last night was. It was a proud moment. I could sense some of the weight of history being lifted when the Obama family walked onto that stage. The tears were genuine.

The setting and choice of words were perfect. Speaking from the Land of Lincoln, in a park named for Ulysses Grant, the decision by President-elect Obama to invoke the words of Abraham Lincoln was aptly fitting. Hearing him last night I believed he has the potential to be a Lincolnesque type leader. The words he quoted are from the closing paragraph of Lincoln's first inaugural ("Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection"). This was a speech given on the eve of the bloodiest war in American history, when Americans killed each other by the thousands over the issues of union and slavery. The eventual abolition of slavery wouldn't have happened if that young legislator from Illinois had not been willing to challenge the status quo, to say this is evil, and be willing to use the force of moral persuasion and the power of the Federal government to stand up for the voiceless and powerless.

For Barack Obama to be a leader in the mold of Lincoln, he's going to have to stand up and be counted against a great evil and injustice of our time. One that kills over 3,000 white, black and brown human beings every day. He's going to have to stand up and be counted in the fight to defend the voiceless and powerless among us. He's promised to sign the Freedom of Choice Act which is a laundry list of pro-choice measures that would have the effect of sweeping away even the most modest restrictions on abortion. One of its most reprehensible aspects would be to remove legal protections from health care professionals who have moral objections to abortion. With huge majorities in Congress (we now have virtual one-party government for the next two years) there's nothing stopping the Democratic leadership from sending FOCA to our new President's desk in the first days of his administration. Signing it would be to put himself on the wrong side of the defining civil and human rights issue of our time. I hope this is one campaign promise he won't keep. We shall see.

President-elect Obama, be like Lincoln. Appeal to the better angels of our nature. Stand up for the unborn. I'm praying for you.

Rove calls it

The man President Bush refers to as "boy genius" calls it for Obama. The striking thing about Rove's map is that McCain could win Florida and Ohio and still fall well short of 270. On the other hand Rove projects McCain to win West Virginia's five electoral votes, which is significant because since 1916 no Democrat has been elected President without carrying this state. Interesting...

Reflections on a historic day

I didn't wake up thinking about the election. Actually, I woke up thinking about UFO's -- a result of watching one of my perennial favorites last night while Shannon attended her women's Bible study -- Close Encounters of the Third Kind. While she studied the Patriarchs I studied Steven Spielberg's fairy tale of latter-day exodus and apotheosis. It didn't hit me until a few minutes after my feet hit the floor that this was the day (I voted on Saturday).

When I walked outside there seemed to be a sense of something big in the air. This will be a historic day no matter the outcome, but especially if the polls are to be believed and America elects Barack Obama our first black President. I wave hello to my neighbor at the end of the street -- Mister Ed everyone calls him. Mr. Ed and his wife are retired postal workers, and they proudly display a Postal Workers for Obama sign in their yard. My next-door neighbors also have an Obama yard sign, but they've already left for their jobs driving a truck for a construction company and driving a school bus for the county. "Salt of the earth" people and wonderful neighbors are these folks. We went through three hurricanes together. Their daughter returned from a tour in Iraq not too long ago.

Most of my neighbors are African-American and many are old enough to remember when discrimination on account of the color of one's skin was enshrined in the very laws and fabric of this nation. I wonder what they're thinking and feeling today. If Sen. Obama becomes our next President, what a powerful testament to the world of how far we've come in actually living up to our founding ideals. What a powerful statement to a generation of young, black males that you don't have to be a gangster, entertainer or athlete to be somebody. Not only that, the most powerful, respected African-American in the world is by all acounts a model husband and father. Talk about a paradigm shift! A possibility worth celebrating. This is a great day to be an American.

Yet. I can't unreservedly celebrate the possibilities of this Election Day 2008, because there's a tragic irony at the heart of it. Barack Obama, whether he wants to be or not, is a powerful symbol of how far we've come from the evil days when a class of human beings were considered non-persons, unworthy of protection by our laws and Constitution. But Barack Obama, despite all the rhetoric and smoke screens, is on the same side as those who believe unborn children are non-persons unworthy of protection by our laws and Constitution. He's said this issue is "above my pay grade" and has indicated a desire to reduce the number of abortions, but he's promised to sign the Freedom of Choice Act which would erase decades of incremental pro-life progress, supports repealing the Hyde Amendment which would open the door to federal funding of abortion (here and overseas), and believes Roe v. Wade is defensible. I'm sorry, if you want to reduce the incidence of something you don't subsidize it and remove restrictions on it. Bottom line -- he thinks "choice" or a "right to privacy" trumps the fundamental right to life of unborn children in all cases. I say all because he's never seen his way clear to vote for any measure that would indicate he thinks otherwise.

I know there are other sanctity of life issues besides abortion. "The least of these" includes the homeless, the elderly, the disabled, the outcast, but it certainly includes the voiceless unborn child. It doesn't have to be an either/or issue. I've read the "pro-life/pro-Obama" arguments and heard a lot of false equivalence proposed i.e. "this issue trumps this issue, etc." But it's clear to me that on this defining human rights/social justice issue of our time, Barack Obama is AWOL. For that reason, my rejoicing at his election (should it occur) will be mixed with mourning.

This struggle won't ultimately be won or lost in this election. Could a President Obama have a change of heart? Should we pray that happens? Yes and yes! This is going to be a struggle for the long haul. Remember Wilberforce? It may be that standing up for life in our culture is about to get a lot harder. Russell Moore issues a stirring challenge:

The question for us, then, of whether we are truly pro-life or not, has very little to do with how many signs are in our yards or what bumper stickers we put on our cars. Indeed, it may be the case that after this election the abortion debate will be over in this country politically.

But even if that's the case, it's not over. Our churches are to follow in the walk of faith, which means that--like Joseph walking away from stability and comfort--our churches must be different, they must be counter-cultural, the kind of place where the teenage mother is welcomed and loved, where abandoned children are received, and where a culture that is in love with death can come and hear a message saying that life is better than death because there is a man, an ex-corpse, a former-fetus, who is standing as the ruler over all the nations and the universe. And he is not dead anymore.

What we must have is a church in which the gospel we give is the kind of gospel that leads people out of death and despair and toward the kind of life that is found in confessing a name--a name that was first spoken by human lips by a day-laborer in Nazareth, "Jesus is Lord."

If we follow this kind of pure and undefiled religion, it doesn't mean we will be shrill. It doesn't mean we will be culture-warriors. It doesn't mean we'll be belligerent. It will mean that we will have churches that are so strikingly different, that maybe in ten or fifteen years the most odd and counter-cultural thing a lost person may hear in your church is not, "Amen," but is instead the sounds of babies crying in the nursery.

And hearing the oddness of that sound, when they look around at the place in which all of the Lord Jesus' brothers and sisters are welcomed, protected, and loved, the place in which the lies of a murderous and appetite-driven dragon are denied, the lost person might say, "What is the sound of all these cries?" And maybe we'll be able to say with our forefather Joseph, "that's the sound of life. That's the sound of hope. That's the sound of change."

I love songs that lift up the cross...

I need songs that lift up the cross. Like this one.

How deep the Fathers love for us
How vast beyond all measure
That He should give his only Son
To make a wretch His treasure.

How great the pain of searing loss
The Father turns His face away
As wounds which mar the Chosen One
Bring many sons to glory

Behold the Man upon the cross
My sin upon His shoulder
Ashamed I hear my mocking voice
Call out amoung the scoffers

It was my sin that held Him there
Until it was accomplished
His dying breath has brought me life
I know that it is finished

I will not boast in anything
No gifts no power no wisdom
But I will boast in Jesus Christ
His death and resurrection

Why should I gain from His reward
I cannot give an answer
But this I know with all my heart
His wounds have paid my ransom

- Stuart Townend

Imperatives and indicatives

After stating that no one -- not even the holiest among us -- can perfectly obey the Decalogue, Question 115 of the Heidelberg Catechism asks: "Why will God then have the ten commandments so strictly preached, since no man in this life can keep them?"

Answer. First, that all our lifetime we may learn more and more to know our sinful nature, and thus become the more earnest in seeking the remission of sin, and righteousness in Christ; likewise, that we constantly endeavour and pray to God for the grace of the Holy Spirit, that we may become more and more conformable to the image of God, till we arrive at the perfection proposed to us, in a life to come.

In Reformed theology this is called the "third use of the law." The Heidelberg Catechism is built around a trajectory of guilt, grace and gratitude -- and it makes clear that the earnest endeavours of the Christian to "become more and more conformable to the image of God" flow out of gratitude. But before we can properly reckon with how the Christian relates to the Law, we must get clear the difference between Law (the imperative) and Gospel (the indicative). Scott Clark has a short Lord's Day meditation on this, including some links to further reading.

Does “Law” = OT and “Gospel” = NT?

Voting as though we were not voting