(warning - spoilers below - you might want to watch the movie first before reading)

I really liked Star Wars episode VII "The Force Awakens"... I thought it was the best of the series so far.  However, some of the worldview implications were sad (though definitely thought-provoking).  Here are 3 things I noticed: one good, two bad.  (One additional point that I might write about some time are the extreme feminist characterization of Rey...)

 
1. Stormtroopers can be saved too
I liked the plot twist of having stormtrooper "Finn" end up deciding that he's going to leave the First Order, despite growing up loyal to it.  Basically, before this point in the Star Wars saga, stormtroopers were always bad, all the time.  They were 'one-dimensional'.  The idea of a stormtrooper with a conscience, and a choice to decide whether he's going to follow a commander he thinks is gratuitously evil, is an idea that is powerful (think modern bogeymen, like ISIS terrorists...? There is good in all of us, and evil in all of us) and realistic (all of us DO in fact have a conscience and moral choice, implanted in us by God, our Creator.  I see this plot twist as saying, no one is too evil to be redeemed... those who repent can be forgiven and have a new life, regardless of their past...  (cf. my note about Orcs in the Tolkien world... http://tim223.xanga.com/2015/01/05/the-orc-that-nobody-wanted/  )

 
2. "The Force" tries to imply that You (human) are ultimately the most powerful being (in the Star-Wars world, and beyond) (unfortunately this common and comfortable narrative is false...)

The Force obviously plays an important role in the Star Wars story.  This concept of an impersonal mysterious force created-by and permeating all of life pulls ideas from a range of eastern and pagan religions (but is not identical to any of them, to my knowledge).

One reason the Force is so interesting is that it taps into something we are already familiar with in daily life - the "religious" or "sacred".  For example, Han Solo (in the original films) or Rey asked skeptical questions of their elders about whether the Force is real or just a hocus-pocus fable - this dialog is a common theme in our polarized religious/secular world.  Phrases from the movies like "May the Force be with you" and "The Force will be with you, always" are obvious allusions to the Bible (with the Force as a replacement for God), and Rey's "religious experience moment" near the end of SW7 seeks to glorify the Force (it saves her, as she remembers it, rests in it and then utilizes it...)  George Lucas has explained that one of his deliberate aims in adding the Force to the movies is to stimulate a sense of spirituality in young viewers.

(Side tangent #1 - I've often wondered why the characters in the story who sometimes use the Force to do amazing (paranormal/supernatural) feats can't utilize those powers more often... why can they only pull it out once in a while?  There are probably two explanations: in the story world, they simply forget about the Force (and remember in the nick of time), whereas in the movie-making world, it would make the story too simplistic if the heros simply used the Force all the time.)

But interestingly, the Star Wars "Force" is actually instead directly analogous to spiritism and the occult, not the God of the Bible.  How so?  In the story, the key aspect of the Force is that you can control it, or channel it, to do your bidding.  Granted, there are certain individuals in the story which are more "sensitive" to the Force than others (e.g. the Skywalkers, Rey, Palpatine, etc), but in principle it's just a matter of mastering certain techniques to make the Force do what you want it to do.  The Force never disobeys, it only obeys you to a greater or lesser extent.

Similarly, the occult (evil spirits) in our real world provides real supernatural powers to those who surrender their lives to it.  This is connected with what might be called the "universal religion" - all spiritistic or theistic religions (other than Christianity) provide a way to 'gain control over' the spirits and get what you want... or 'put the deity in your debt' so that you can get what you want. Hindus offer gifts to a particular goddess for prosperity, Catholics offer prayers to patron saints, animistic folk offer chickens to their idols, Shintoists offer gifts to their dead ancestors, and even materialistic cultures like the Chinese spend money on all kinds of good luck charms.  Americans holding to "moralistic therapeutic deism" (the dominant 'religion' in America) likewise tend to believe in a false prosperity gospel... 'give to the church, and God will bless me financially'... 'do good works, and God will let me into heaven'.

By contrast, when we pray to God (the Creator, the One True God, described in the Bible), there are no techniques for manipulating Him.  Unbelievers have no connection with Him... and as for us, His children (Christians), we can submit our requests to Him, but He will answer or not answer depending on what He knows is best for us, because of His love for us.  He cannot be tamed or manipulated.

(Side tangent #2 - I suspect that we are being "set-up" for some upcoming supernatural demonstrations, when the Great Imposter (the Antichrist) arrives... As Jesus predicted: Matthew 24:24 "For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect...."  (not that the movie creators are doing this consciously, but the spiritual forces influencing the world may be doing this... imagine what you would think if you saw supernatural powers (like in the movies) being displayed in broad daylight in our world?  Like this, except real? https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=999277153464049  )

(Side tangent #3 - I've been realizing what a large percentage of our modern cinematographic heros are in the same exact story position as ancient gods (Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Babylonian, etc).  Basically, they have superpowers of some kind (supernatural powers), but other than that they are human... they have all the same foibles, lusts, arguments, indulgences, etc.  They are mere "larger-than-life" men/women.  They are on a 'continuum', so to speak... as in the Mormon doctrine "...as God is now, man may be."
This includes Star-Wars Jedi & Sith, X-men, all the Marvel/DC comics - Batman, Superman, Captain America, Thor (perfect fit), IronMan, etc.
(It also includes Tolkien's characters, like Gandalf, Sauron, Elrond, Galadriel, etc... Each of these in Tolkien's saga have "personal power" of greater or lesser degrees.  In Tolkien's saga, there is at least a "God", Illuvatar, who started the universe, but then he never again gets directly and personally involved... so there is a dim step toward accuracy, but not clear.  In the other superhero movies, "God" is eliminated - he is viewed as irrelevant, and mankind's only hope is the various "demigods" such as Superman, Luke Skywalker, etc.)
I think this trend is deliberate... perhaps not on the part of the moviemakers, but on the part of the evil spiritual forces that are constantly trying to pull and push the world and all its humans away from God the Creator.  The same pagan metanarrative keeps popping up, generation after generation: "You don't need God, instead, you yourself can be the supreme power.")

The Star Wars concept of the Force fits perfectly into this narrative which is so comfortable to us as fallen sinful humans... it reassures us that WE are in control... "I am master of my own fate".

However, this is a lie.  God is in control, and we are not Him.  My point is not merely that the Biblical worldview is different than the Star Wars worldview, or that the Force doesn't exist in the real world.  Instead, I am making the case that all religions other than Christianity seek to put man at the center (in the position of control), and that not only does the actual world we live in correspond to a different order (God, not man, is in control), but that it is BETTER this way... that God OUGHT to be in control... that if there was no God and we were really in control, we would royally mess things up.

 
3. "History is cyclic", says Star Wars (and many other epics)

My final point is that in the Star Wars world (as in eastern religions), there is no end to the historical cycle of good and evil.  After each movie's (or set of 3 movies') finale, it seems that "good has triumphed"... but we know it is not permanent.  Evil will always arise again, in some other form.

(Side tangent #4 - Tolkien's LOTR shows the same - the world keeps groaning on, and the happy moments of triumph (Sauron/Morgoth finally defeated, Aragorn finally crowned king) are followed by more pain and sorrow (Arwen loses immortality, then Aragorn dies, then Arwen dies... and even those who go to the Gray Havens, while they get a little peace, end up living with the escapist and callous Valar.... evil is never permanently removed, only put into remission for a while, only to break out again.)

In Star Wars, even the Force, whose 'imbalance' is supposedly connected with the pain and suffering inflicted by those (Sith, Empire, First Order, etc) utilizing the 'dark side of the Force', does not draw toward a conclusion of perfect, permanent, goodness and happiness... but instead toward "balance".  Balance between good and evil?  Unfortunately, yes.

Consider how much more beautiful (not to mention the fact that it's also true!) is the Biblical view - that history is linear... it had a (beautiful) beginning, it was marred in Genesis 3 (the Fall) by sin and the subsequent legacy of pain and death, and it is headed toward an awesomely beautiful ending.

In heaven, there will be no more rebellion.  No more cancer.  No more death.  That is to say, in this world, our world, the real world, the final "End" (which is the beginning of many good and better things) puts a complete end to sin, death, evil, corruption, pain, etc.  To those who might complain that this is boring, please read this: http://tim223.xanga.com/2015/08/13/do-you-really-want-to-live-with-him-forever/

Conclusion

Hooray!  We really do live in the best of all possible worlds.  When I see films like Star Wars, on the surface level (entertainment) I enjoy them.  Great storytelling, great acting, great cinematography.  On the deeper level I loathe the dismal alternate hypothesis they suggest... and I find renewed delight that the actual state of affairs (described in the Bible) is so much better.

Here's a plot for a book that needs to be written!  I'd write it, but I'm not a good enough writer, and also I'm too busy.   Basically, Orcs are always portrayed as 100% evil in Tolkien's world.  In our own real world, God specializes in redeeming the lives of people who are considered too evil to be worth saving.  The God of the Bible corresponds roughly to the "Illuvatar" of Tolkien's world.  So someone needs to write a book which upends the usual storyline, in that an Orc "comes to his senses" and is rescued, to remind us of the incredible riches of the true God's grace and love.   I am fully aware that this plot does not fully "fit" Tolkien's worldview and his use of the race of Orcs.  But I think this 'reversal' of what we commonly expect from Tolkien's plot could be very useful.

Here is a basic plotline.  I'm giving it away for free.  Someone who is a good writer - please write this book!

- initial scene... they're preparing for another battle, no one likes little Naghsk.   they criticize everything about him

- constant fear of Sauron, and his commanders

- he eventually deserts, lives by foraging in the forest, but when he tries to enter a town of Southlings(?) they fight him / try to kill him

- he wanders (be more specific)

- he wonders - why do people/elves/dwarves hate orcs?  why do orcs hate people?

- one night in a dream, Illuvatar appears to him,   ("you're afraid of Sauron? Sauron is nothing, compared to Me.  I made Sauron, and his lord, Morgoth.  I am the one who raises up kingdoms and puts down kingdoms.  You have done many wrong things, Naghsk.  You have hurt my other creatures."   Naghsk realizes that it's true, begins to feel guilty. .. Illuvatar tells him to seek the one particular wizard (Radagast in Mirkwood) for info...

- eventually finds him, eventually convinces him that he really wants the truth (but he keeps saying 'there are no good Orcs!' but eventually relents)  ... Radagast tells him about Illuvatar, the Valar, etc.   Naghsk asks whether 'there's any hope for me?"  to live a peaceful, happy, good life?   Radagast tells him that there is a legend that some day, Illuvatar will Himself come to MiddleEarth to make all things right and end evil forever, and that would be his only hope to live at peace with the Elves, Dwarves, Men, etc. ... but that he (Radagast) doesn't really believe that legend, because it would be too demeaning for the great Illuvatar (it would even be too demeaning for one of the Valar to come, from Numenor... they can't be troubled).

- that night, after he leaves Radagast, a random group of Orcs ambush R, and entrap him.  When Naghsk finds out about it, he is stricken - Radagast would undoubtedly think that Naghsk had betrayed him.  He decides to try to rescue Radagast.

- at the cost of his own life, he succeeds... (he opens the locked door, runs away into the woods to draw the other orcs away, then they chase/kill him)

- dying, he looks up at the sky and begs Illuvatar to help him, or at least 'remember him'..., though he knows he's "not worthy"...   at the end, he suddenly sees a vision of a shining ladder into the sky, and a bright shining figure to lead him up  "welcome home, my child"  ?

I was thinking today about Thomas Kinkade and the fact that I don't seem to despise him nearly as much as many of my friends do, and about art in general, about which we've discussed some thoughts before in the past.

And I was pondering one of my favorite paintings, by Norman Rockwell:

Here is a blurb about this painting:

Some of Rockwell’s most powerful creations came out of his years with "Look." One such piece was inspired by the unjust murders of three civil rights workers near Philadelphia, Mississippi. The painting, “Southern Justice,” was done in 1965 and depicts the horror endured by three young men, two white and one black [James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwermer], who had come to Mississippi in the fight for equality. One man is seen lying dead in the foreground; the next is standing in the glow of the attacker’s torch while defending the third man, who appears near death.

Though this painting is not very "Kinkadian", the question for me is whether the sentiment it expresses is Biblical, and whether it's a skillful work, worth thinking about.   I think so, for two reasons.

First, its goal (as a work of art) is to promote racial equality (Rockwell left the Saturday Evening Post after working for them for 47 years, because they told him "never to show coloured people except as servants".  Rockwell's decision fits with the Bible's portrayal as all the world of ONE race and endowed by the Creator with unalienable human rights, contrary to the racism inherent from the theory of evolution.  And it fits with the mission of "seeking justice" and "defending the fatherless" that God has commissioned His people to engage in.  Our primary task is "making disciples" of Jesus - fishing for men in light of the extremely high stakes of eternity.  But meanwhile we are the salt of the earth, and without a doubt this influence cannot ignore our host country's political structure.

Second, I find so much beauty in the portrayal of the standing man holding up the other man.  I remember standing in front of this painting in the Norman Rockwell museum being literally stunned by the force of the standing man's gaze (he has piercing blue eyes, which are hard to see in the online pictures).  The look in his eye says, "Go ahead.  Shoot me.  But I will not run away - I will not cease from helping this black man who is my friend."  This "rugged individualism" is not really "American" in origin, although it is one of the most beautiful things that the American culture has preserved for the world.  (...though particular strengths are often tied to related excesses/sins...)   Instead, this insistence on doing what is right even when it is unpopular or "goes against what society considers right" is Biblical  (contrast with the atheist/agnostic's relativistic/cultural view of morality if you have some time).

I find myself empathizing strongly with the standing guy.  Of all ways to die, how wonderful it would be to die while helping someone else, seeking justice and the glory of God and others' salvation, in an ending which the world might consider "tragic" but which God remembers with approval.  (Indeed God Himself experienced this... He died on our behalf while saving us from our sins...  He voluntarily submitted to death at our hands, so that He could save those of us who believe in Him...)  Truly "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose."

Yet it is amazing to realize that I can glorify God even in the mundane, everyday moments of life... choosing to die to self and obey God's direction...  and amazing that God will not forget even the slightest act.  Not just the moment of our death, but literally everything is significant and will be scrutinized on that Day.

Soli Deo Gloria - To God alone be glory.   May God be exalted in my life.

"If Satan troubles us, Jesus Christ
You who are the lion of the grasslands
You whose claws are sharp
Will tear out his entrails
And leave them on the ground
For the flies to eat."

-- Afua Kuma, Christian songwriter and poet from Ghana

There may be some humor in the reading of that song, by Christians more used to a different type of CCM... (and maybe more used to thinking of Jesus as a "tame lion" or a velvet stuffed lion)...  but there is also a lot of truth behind the metaphor...

How do you decide what is "good" music, worth listening to?  (or, opening the can of worms even more, how do you decide about "good art" or "good movies", etc?)  Do you have any principles, or do you just listen uncritically to whatever you "like"?

I am not an expert at this, though I'd like to become more discerning.   I tend to enjoy listening to most types of music, from classical to rock to rap and lots in between (though not so much "modernist"/atonal music, jazz, and some related foreign music - I am somewhat irritated by them, maybe by the false worldviews underlying them).  The only type of music I typically buy though (as opposed to e.g. receiving as Christmas gifts) is classical,... because there's just so much to choose from in the rock / ccm spectrum and I have a hard time just picking out a few best ones to buy.

I created a list of a few questions to ask about music before listening to it... (those of you who were in my sunday school class might find this list familiar..   This list is pretty basic and needs revision and/or expansion...  any thoughts?  What Scriptures are helpful to you?  (for movies/art also..?)

Does this song honor God and His ways?  I Corinthians 10:31
Does this song help me think about what is right and true?  Philippians 4:8, Romans 14:22-23
Does this song approve what God condemns, or condemn what God approves?  Proverbs 19:27
Do my parents approve of this song?  Colossians 3:20
Can I worship God with my mind and my understanding through this song?  I Corinthians 14:15
Will listening to this song be beneficial to the people around me as well as myself?  I Corinthians 8
Will listening to this song grieve the Holy Spirit who lives in me?  I Corinthians 6:19-20
Can I listen to this song in the name of the Lord Jesus?  Do the words of this song please Him?  Colossians 3:17, Ephesians 4:29
In a long conversation last night with a friend, I was attempting to delineate three axes or dimensions along which music can be rated - skill, lyric 'truthfulness', and the life example of the artist.  Any music that rates well in all of these areas can then be chosen based on personal taste...

Skill is pretty self-explanatory - is this a three-year old banging on the piano or a Jimi Hendrix or Paganini performing?  (or somewhere in between).

The life-example of the artist/composer is another interesting way to discern.  Would I refuse to support a Hendrix or a Benjamin Britten by buying their music, simply because of their lifestyle?  Or could that be separated / turned into a teaching tool?  Schubert's and Bach's music are both incredible, but their lifestyles were extremely different.  Might the latter's music be somehow "better" because of this?

Lyric "truthfulness" is the most important...   Do the words of the song portray the world "truly?"  Does the message it conveys correspond to the way the world actually is?

My conversation last night turned on whether it's ok to listen to songs that (as we both agreed) emphasize "the problem" rather than "the solution".  Songs that focus on the dark sinful pain that some people in the world are going through... the abused, the molested, the oppressed in genocidal conflicts, the depressed, the suicidal, etc.  And it would seem that the great majority of popular "secular" groups focus on these very issues.  Ostensibly they focus on the problems in order to stir up people to fix the problems.  But does this in fact work?

The same issues are relevant for art and movies.  How much "dirt" is appropriate to watch, for the "truth-value punch" obtained?  Someone once said (perhaps of Victor Hugo, who is a controversial example of these things) that the best artists/musicians/authors are the ones that portray the whole scope of the world with power and truth while using the least amount of "dirt" or titillation.  It's easy to pile up dark and sinful words/images that shock people; it takes far more skill to shock/move people without those words/images.

Last night we discussed Philippians 4:8 and its implications for the Christian: "Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things."

How should we Christians apply this passage?  ...and specifically, does this bear on the type of music we ought to listen to?   By the way, as I've studied this passage, the meaning of the sentence seems to indicate that these adjectives are to be taken together, not singly.  So it's not saying that I can meditate on sinful thoughts as long as they're popular in society ("good repute"), or that I can meditate on atrocities all day long as long as they historically happened ("true").  Rather, my thought life should ascend all of these axes simultaneously.

In fact, the concept of what is "true" is extremely revealing.  What are the most representative "truths"/"true situations" about/in the world?  This reflects on the fundamental nature of reality.  Is the world actually pantheistic/panentheistic/atheistic?   If so, the only real question as the existentialists suggested is whether or not to commit suicide... and the groups which sing about sin and darkness and pain are fundamentally correct in their emphasis.

In fact, Ecclesiastes is very similar.
"Then I looked again at all the acts of oppression which were being done under the sun. And behold I saw the tears of the oppressed and that they had no one to comfort them; and on the side of their oppressors was power, but they had no one to comfort them.
So I congratulated the dead who are already dead more than the living who are still living.
But better off than both of them is the one who has never existed, who has never seen the evil activity that is done under the sun."  - Ecclesiastes 4:1-3

But on the other hand if the problem of evil is only temporary... if though evil is extremely real it is also in the process of being demolished forever by God (i.e. if the Christian/Biblical worldview is in fact true), if though "the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now", someday soon "the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God," well then!

In that case the fundamental nature of the world is (for those who BELIEVE in God) absolutely beautiful.  I think it was C.S. Lewis who wrote (I forget where) about the two types of stories - the "tragic" and the "comic", where the "tragic story" has a sad ending and the "comic story" has a happy ending.  The comic may be full of turmoil, but it still has the ending of joy... and vice versa for the tragic.  Our world is absolutely rent with pain and tears, but for those* of us who have been saved / adopted-into-God's-family, joy is now our deepest and most proper noetic stratum.

If in fact the Hero has stepped into the story and begun his awesome work of redeeming and restoring ("his sheep" John 10:26-27 and somehow "all things" Col. 1:19-20... there are depths upon depths here), then the deepest and most fundamental truth is redemption... the fact that God is literally redeeming people.  Now.   And the most fundamentally "true" songs are the ones that point to / ascribe-glory-to  that Hero.  To emphasize anything else or anyone else would be not only wrong, but pathetic.

Now let's say a Christian Contemporary singer gets up and sings about God's wonderful love and redemption.  There are gazillions of people (e.g. my friend from last night) who will be instantly "turned off" by that, because they interpret the song as "ignoring"/"overlooking" the depths of darkness and pain that many throughout the world are going through.  These people say they want to "dig deeper" - beyond the "platitudes of happy niceness" into the dark and dirty depths of the gritty/real/actual world.  So they say.

But I'm suggesting that they are fundamentally mistaken - they are actually not "digging deep enough"... because the people who suggest this are fundamentally buying into the atheistic mindset (whether they are Christians or not)... they are suggesting that "this world is all there is"... they are neglecting the Hero Himself and putting too much emphasis on the background/setting of His deeds.
Anyway...     what do you think?
I am looking forward to hearing the perspectives (and even the music - please read these links) of persecuted Christians throughout the world as I grow older...  Surely of all people, these dear souls cannot be accused of glossing over the dark grittiness of the world in favor of Christian platitudes.  Whatever truths have gotten them through the refining fire are obviously not platitudes.

Two fascinating articles -

One by Democrat Orson Scott Card, famous author of the "Ender's Game" series and other works, about why he is going to vote for the Republicans this election...

And a thought-provoking justification behind Cox and Forkum's latest (extremely perspicacious) (and hilarious as always) political cartoon...

For an "under-the-sun" perspective, this poem by Edgar Guest (posted in the comments section below) ain't too bad.

Though granted, there is something far better than his version...  living "unafraid" not blindly/naively, nor irrationally/defiantly, but supremely confident in an omnipotent loving Heavenly Father...

Does anyone else see an ironic/amusing parallel between the burgeoning "Space Elevator" project and the ancient Tower of Babel?

Also, goodbye Bob the Tomato... we will miss you.

Did Jill go too far?

"...the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us..." 

Romans 8:18