Augustine on Christian Motivation

During seminary I was introduced to the ethical debate within the Reformed tradition about the biblical motivation for obedience.  Boiling it down, some argue that love born of faith is the only proper motive; others argue that different motives, such as fear, are also acceptable. 

Here's Augustine on the subject.  He's describing the legalistic obedience of some of the Israelites under the old covenant.

"...[they] received the law.  They did not observe what is in the decalogue.  And any who did comply did so out of fear of punishment, not out of love of justice.  They were carrying the harp, but they weren't singing.  If you are singing, it's enjoyable; if you are fearing, it's burdensome. That's why the old man either doesn't do it [obey] or does it out of fear, not out of love of holiness, not out of delight in chastity, not out of the calmness of charity, but out of fear.  It's because he is the old man, and the old man can sing the old song but not the new one.  In order to sing the new song he must become the new man.... If you do it [obey] out of love, you are singing the new song.  If you do it out of fear but do it all the same you are indeed carrying the harp but you are not yet singing....  Anyone who is still singing the old song has not yet come to an agreement with his adversary [God and his Word].  He is afraid of God coming and condemning him.  Chastity has no delights for him yet, justice has no delights for him yet, but it is because he is in dread of God's judgment that he abstains from such deeds.  He does not condemn that actual lust that is seething inside him.  He does not yet take delight in what is good. He does not yet find there the pleasant inspiration to sing the new song, but out of his old habits he is still fearing punishments.  (From "Sermon 9" in Essential Sermons, trans. Edmund Hill, 32-33).  

What struck me in this passage is its similarity to the argumentation in the Reformed tradition used by those who assert that love for God is the only proper motivation for obedience.  Even the use of the image of singing a new song to represent obedience out of love for God is used by Jack Miller in some of his "sonship" teaching.  And the argument that obedience out of fear is actually a form of disobedience (because the person does not yet delight in the law nor hate his sin) is common too. 

Imaginary Career by Rilke

At first a childhood, limitless and free

of any goals.  Ah sweet unconsciousness.

Then sudden terror, schoolrooms, slavery,

the plunge into temptation and deep loss. 

Defiance.  The child bent becomes the bender,

inflicts on others what he once went through.

Loved, feared, rescuer, wrestler, victor, 

he takes his vengeance, blow by blow. 

And now in vast, cold, empty space, alone. 

Yet hidden deep within the grown up heart,

a longing for the first world, the ancient one...

Then, from His place of ambush, God leapt out.

God doesn't save idiots, Eli.

There Will Be Blood is an instant American classic, simply a masterpiece on every level.  Some critics are calling Day-Lewis' performance one of the greatest in film history.  When I left the theater the other night I wondered "is this what it felt like to walk out of The Godfather?"  The movie itself deals with so many American themes at the same time and reminds you (without being repetitious) of great characters, people, novels, and other epic movies from the past.  It felt like I didn't see a movie but a great American novel that was made as a film instead of written as a book.  

(Warning: massive spoilers ahead).

There's alot of controversy about the ending which is the only thing about the movie that even had me wondering if it 100% worked.  Upon more reflection I think it does, in a sort of Flannery O'Connorish way.  Some critics are saying the whole last 1920s part of the movie is off and that's nuts to me. I always thought Daniel would kill Eli; they were playing the same game from different sides.  I expected the oil/blood connection to be made explicitly, even that Daniel would baptize himself with Eli's blood in the last shot of the movie - maybe too over the top? The whole last segment is a brilliant portrayal of what our idols do to us: they turn us into charicatures of ourselves and our appetites.  Daniel becomes greed incarnate, literally 'beating the competition' to death.  He's the ultimate consumer capitalist, sucking the life/oil/blood out of Eli and everyone in his life. 

Something none of the critics I've read comment on is the theme of father-son abandonment that occurs here as in PTA's other work.  This is where Day-Lewis' portrayal (and PTA's writing) of Daniel's character is so careful; for Plainview is far from a monster during the first 2/3 of the film.  He takes the orphaned boy in during the first act, and even though his relationship with "H.W." is far from ideal, he does evidence genuine affection for the boy which becomes apparent when H.W. is hurt by the gusher and when Daniel weeps after leaving him on the train. Of course, H.W. is only the latest in a string of abandoned sons in PTA's films. When Daniel is forced by Eli to repeatedly scream "I've abandoned my son!" it reminded me of Frank T. J. Mackey's breakdown at his dying father's bedside "I hate you, don't leave me!" 

Final thought: PTA is a generation-X film-maker and even though There Will Be Blood is (almost) universally recognized right now as an instant classic, I wonder if it may be resisted by some of the older school film critics and/or the Academy Awards (for everything but Best Actor which almost has to go to Day-Lewis).  I thought about this after reading Roger Ebert's semi-critical review where he said point-blank that he considered No Country for Old Men a perfect movie and that There Will Be Blood is not perfect.  As I posted about last month, No Country blew me away and I do think it is perfect technically-speaking; but There Will Be Blood not only seeks to accomplish more than No Country does thematically, it does so with a few unorthodox twists - the score by Johnny Greenwood, the over-the-top ending.  It's these breaks with classic film-making tradition that mar There Will Be Blood in Ebert's (and other critics') eyes and, at the same time, make it even more powerful to me, someone of PTA's generation.  And I guess that's what fascinates me so much about PTA and this movie: he is telling a classic story, even a classic American story, in a pretty straight-forward way for the most part and doing it with stunning excellence. Yet, even in the midst of working within the epic film tradition, he updates it, not only in terms of style (score, ending, etc) but also in terms of theme (consumerism, father abandonment).  

2007 Finds

You'll get no 'best of' nor 'top ten' lists from me; that's way too much pressure. In the few posts I've been able to manage I've already pointed out a few favorite things from this year.  So here's a couple of things I left out that I ran across this year.

Poet Franz Wright

I don't recall now how I ran across this name but I ended up getting Walking to Martha's Vineyard (which won the Pulitzer Prize) and was blown away.  I haven't read alot of poetry since college, though I do enjoy dipping back into a few of the modernists now and then. But you don't need a class to understand Wright; this is sparse, strong, direct and raw language and his topics range through addiction, abandonment, faith, spiritual yearning, gratitude. Upon finishing Walking I immediately ordered and read God's Silence and The Beforelife, both excellent.  (Then, in haste, I ordered both Earlier Poems and Ill Lit before realizing that each is a collection of Wright's earlier work and that the books overlap quit a bit - though Ill Lit has some translations by Wright that are amazing and which aren't in Earlier Poems).  I'm enjoying Wright tremendously and find myself returning to certain poems again and again; these pieces will be, I sense, lifelong companions.  I recommend starting with Walking to Martha's Vineyard. 

Finally, some good overviews of developmental psychology.  

Being a dad has sparked my interest in child and developmental psychology and for a long time I searched and asked around for a readable overview, to no avail; everything was either too "boiled down" or too specialized.  But this past year I've found a few good resources that have been very helpful in trying to understand my own children and what they're going through as they grow up: 

David Elkind, The Hurried Child, chapter six "Growing Up Slowly." This is the best short overview of child development I've found. 

Chap Clark, Hurt and Disconnected: Parenting Teens in a Myspace World, both of which focus on adolescent development; very helpful description of early, mid-, and late adolescence. 

Erik Erikson, Childhood and Society and Identity and the Life Cycle.  From what I can gather Erikson is sort of the father of developmental psychology and his eight stages were enormously influential on succeeding generations of theorists. 

This American Life podcast. 

I've known I would like this if I ever got into it and the free podcast has been the perfect opportunity to do just that; I still can't believe these things are free.  It seems that about every third or fourth show simply kills me.  A few favorites so far: #317 Unconditional Love, #69 Dreamhouse, #188 Kid Logic, and #322 Shouting Across the Divide. 

No Country for Old Men

It's rare for things to come together as beautifully as they do in this film. 

Subjectively speaking, you have the pairing of two of my favorite artists: Cormac McCarthy and Joel and Ethan Coen - one of the greatest living writers paired with the Coens, one of the greatest film-making teams around. This is a match made in heaven; I'm not sure I've ever seen an interpretation of a novel as fitting and wise as this one. The Coens faithfully translate McCarthy to the screen: his land-scapes, narrative pace, the rural characters and their speech.  They avoid trying to do the impossible, which is to completely reproduce the longer speeches of the Sheriff in the book.  The casting is perfect in the cases of Moss and Sheriff Bell; but Javier Bardem as Anton Chigurh is a visual incarnation of the kind of mythic evil that shows up so often in McCarthy's fiction. 

The ending is stunning; again, captures McCarthy about perfectly. 

Go see it. 

(Warning: it is violent).

Coming up for air

So would you guess that we just had a fourth child? 

Irene's age reflects the nearly 6 week hiatus I've taken from this blog. 

Here's a few pics from a day recently when my mom came to visit and an old friend (John Harper) just happened to be in town.  Another friend showed up bearing a mullet wig (don't ask) and the result was the picture here of my son Isaac sporting the wig during a game of street football.  (Note that this wig was also referred to as a "meth" wig).  You'll also see me in this photo proving that (as some onlookers were heard to say) "he's still got it."

 

Irene Fairley Jones

Born October 7th at 6:15 a.m.
6 lbs, 12 oz.
Momma and baby are doing great.