Noblesse oblige

Anne Frank spent 2 years hiding in an attic and we’ve been home for just over a month with Netflix, food delivery & video games and there are people risking viral death by storming state capital buildings & screaming, “Open Fuddruckers!”

— Patton Oswalt (@pattonoswalt) April 18, 2020

1. Pampered Hollywood celebrities like Patton Oswalt have no idea how comments like this come across to average people. Celebrities are too disconnected from reality. They've evidently forgotten (if they ever knew) what it's like to be an average person. Oswalt sounds more like Marie Antoinette telling peasants: "Let them eat cake!"

2. An obvious issue is many people can't afford Netflix, video games, and getting food delivered to them if they don't have a job.

3. As far as "risking viral death". In fact, some or many people would be willing to risk their own health in order to provide for their families. I'm not suggesting people in general should risk their health or their lives, but it's certainly not something Oswalt should so readily disdain and dismiss.

4. That said, I think it might be prudent if protesters took a lesson from Hollywood by ensuring their protests have good optics. Not to give media any fodder to depict protesters as an angry or unruly mob or somesuch. For example, keep a safe distance from other protesters while protesting, wear a surgical mask, etc.

5. Another recent example is Nancy Pelosi's "let them eat ice cream" moment:

Itchy ear biscuits

Rhett (from Rhett & Link) responds to his critics. I want to comment on these paragraphs:

However, being misrepresented and having your motives not only questioned but confidently assumed, does. Link and I have been accused of walking away from the faith in pursuit of cultural acceptance, never truly grasping the undeserved grace of God through Christ’s sacrifice, and never having had a sincere interest in seeking the truth. We’ve been reduced to convenient illustrations that can be nicely folded into twenty minute sermons, held up as examples of exactly what can go wrong with your children if they aren’t properly grounded in the faith, and cast as two more sad cases who followed the tired Hollywood script of putting fame and fortune before the pursuit of God...

I understand that neatly condensing me and Link down to theological footnotes is the easiest way to deal with us. If we simply fell victim to the seductive ways of the world and our doubts were based on misunderstandings and false information, then the youth group faith-grounding curriculum pretty much writes itself. But if you take our stories at face value or recognize the sincere nature of our journeys, things get complicated and cumbersome. We become significantly more inconvenient if we went from having a rich and personal faith, and then, after a long and painful grappling with legitimate questions, made the excruciating decision to depart.

1. From the perspective of progressives, I think one of the worst sins someone can commit against them is if people "reduce" their life-stories into convenient labels. If we don't "understand" them. If we can't entirely grasp or appreciate their "rich and personal" stories. However, at the end of the day, what unique stories do Rhett & Link have to tell about their leaving Christianity? How do their stories depart in significant ways from the stories of other apostates from the same or similar background as them? I don't see any fundamental differences, only differences at the eye level, so to speak. Think about it this way. If their story (including "deconstruction") was made into a movie, what would be all that unique about it? That's not to say it wouldn't be a good movie, just like how there are many good Marvel superhero movies, but Marvel superhero movies are formulaic too.

2. On the one hand, it sounds like Rhett wishes to build a bridge so he can have a conversation with people. His words appear to be kind and gracious to some degree. On the other hand, he's actually erecting a wall with this kind of attitude. That's because it sounds to me like Rhett is using this kind of rationale as a reason not to have to engage with the actual reasons and evidences for Christianity - which is what the actual issue should be. It's as if we first have to better "understand" his "story" as the "rich" individual that he is before he'll hear us. Otherwise, he acts like we're just "reducing" him to a label and that's not fair!

3. However, if I'm mistaken, then here's a way forward. Why don't Rhett & Link interview Christian intellectuals on their show? Not popularizers, but intellectuals. Talk to them for however long they want and ask them whatever questions they want. After all, Rhett & Link have invited scores of celebrities onto their show. Why not invite Christian intellectuals too? I'd recommend Rhett & Link consider asking people like: James Anderson, Greg Welty, John Frame, Vern Poythress, Jeremy Pierce, Paul Manata, Tim Hsiao, Tim McGrew, Lydia McGrew, Jonathan McLatchie, Esther O'Reilly, John Lennox, Neil Shenvi, David Wood, Rebecca MacLaughlin, Amy Orr-Ewing, Doug Groothuis, Bill Dembski, Stephen Meyer, Luke Barnes, Sarah Salviander, Richard Klaus.

Deconstruction

My comments on this Facebook thread: Unbelievable? March 3 at 5:40 PM 

"If y'all had been listening to Ear Biscuits, you would know that Rhett and Linc's desire is a search for truth, and that my dears is what Christianity is all about, so get off your high horses and actually pay attention."

Christianity is not about a search for truth that terminates in rejecting Christianity. And truth is worthless without an ultimate good.

Rhett & Link's buddy system

I realize the irony in my doing another post on Rhett & Link given what I say below and what I've said in the past about them. The context is I was responding to another Christian's analysis of Rhett & Link.

I think we as Christians are spilling way too much ink over Rhett & Link's apostasy. For one thing, their objections to Christianity are (largely) jejune.

More to the point, Rhett & Link could have gotten answers if they really wanted to since they are well poised to get answers from others. Certainly more so than most other people. For example, why don't Rhett & Link reach out to someone like Jonathan McLatchie or any number of Christian apologists and put them on their show so they can ask whatever questions they wish? Indeed, Rhett & Link have had tons of guests (celebrities) on their show, so why not a Christian intellectual too?

Of course, I suspect one reason they don't do this is because that might cause Rhett & Link to lose credibility with their largely secular audience if they were to host a Christian apologist on their show. However, if they really want to know the truth, why not do it? If they're not play-acting or somesuch, but really want to know the truth, then why don't they care far more about asking questions of potentially eternal significance than they care about how many YouTube subscribers or Twitter followers they have? Besides, as far as this objection goes, even if they lose one audience, who knows? They might gain another.

Instead, it appears Rhett & Link have done several videos (like 5 or 6 hours' worth) featuring themselves talking about themselves, agonizing about how it might affect them in this or that way, wringing their hands over their apostasy, etc. That's what it looks like when I watch clips, but I have no desire to sit through all their videos. Anyway I think it'd be much better if they used that time to interview people who could answer their questions. For example, Ben Shapiro has invited Christian apologists and intellectuals onto his show to ask them why they believe and otherwise ask them a bunch of questions. Rhett & Link could do the same if they really wanted to know.

If, as Christians, we don't care for Rhett & Link, per se, but we want to help others like them, then even within Rhett & Link's own hipster demographic it's not as if they all have the same kinds of questions as Rhett & Link do. Not all of them were raised in fundy environments in rural areas or small towns where everyone was told to be a YEC. If anything, I suspect most come from a far more secular background where ideas like atheism or agnosticism and neo-Darwinism predominate.

Forsaking Christianity

For anyone who still cares about what's happening with Rhett & Link, here is a post which looks like a fairly comprehensive overview and discussion of their background and apostasy. I haven't read it, just skimmed it.

Speaking for myself, I admit it's hard to care a whole lot about Rhett & Link's apostasy except as a lesson for others. My thinking is there are many other people who never had the opportunities and never enjoyed the circumstances Rhett & Link enjoy who could benefit from our focus. But Rhett & Link do serve as good object lessons, I suppose. And I do hope they turn back to God someday.

Chic apostates

It's striking to compare the Christians who persevere despite dispossession, imprisonment, torture, family separation, and martyrdom to chic celebrity apostates feted in social media who had all the advantages the suffering, faithful, persecuted Christians lack.

Sorry, bud, but your loss isn't my loss

Celebrity apostates are the flip side of celebrity converts. Recently there's been a spate of celebrity apostates. From what I can tell, these are fair-weather Christians who lost their faith (such as it was) when Christianity ceased to be hip and cool. As the power elite turns against Christianity, there's a natural winnowing process.

These most recent, publicized case is Rhett & Link, whom I've never heard of before. I don't have anything to say about them. I just don't care. You're just one of 7 billion people, many unreached, who never had the opportunities you squandered. 

I'm simply using it as an occasion to make a general observation: Christianity has some aspects of a team sport as well as an individual sport. The team aspect is the church. The corporate dimension of the Christian faith. The fellowship of believers. Ideally, we drawn strength from one another. Share our joys and sorrows. Pray for each other. Encourage one another. The church is meant to be a spiritual family. 

So that's true up to a point. There is, though, another sense in which Christianity is more like an individual sport. In a team sport, no particular player, even if he's the star player, wins or loses. The team wins or loses. 

That cuts both ways. On the one hand, weaker players lower the ceiling of what stronger players could achieve. On the other hand, stronger players raise the ceiling of what weaker players could achieve. If you have loads of athletic ability, there's a sense in which it takes a certain amount of humility to play a team sport because you could go farther on your own. Less able teammates slow you down. They fumble opportunities. 

In an individual sport, you win or lose on your own. When you lose, that's not a loss for the team.

I suspect many unbelievers are gleeful about celebrity apostates because they think this is demoralizing for Christians. As if the Christian team takes a hit every time a teammate walks away from the Christian faith. Especially a  high-profile figure.

But theologically speaking, that's not how it works. This isn't a competitive team sport. You cross the finish line individually or you drop out of the race individually. The "winners" and "losers" are ultimately independent of each other. 

Salvation and damnation are individual outcomes. Tragic for the individual, and sad for onlookers. The apostate will suffer as an individual. 

A passenger ship is a traditional metaphor for the church. If you jump overboard, the ship won't sink. The ship won't stop. It will keep right on going to its appointed destination. 

Publicly recanting the Christian faith can be exhilarating for celebrity apostates. Temporarily, they get lots of kudos from infidels. 

But as you're splashing around in the water, you watch the stern of the ship recede towards the horizon. You're alone. The sun is edging towards the horizon. Soon it will be night. You will splash around in the silence and darkness and isolation. 

Unbelievers can gloat all they like over celebrity apostates, but Christianity continues to sail full steam ahead. Christians aren't hostage to apostates. We each have our own pilgrimage. 

The ship doesn't wait for you and me. I must be on time or be left behind. 

Christians are there to help each other on the journey. But there's always been an attrition rate. Some travelers begin the journey as unbelievers and finish as believers. Others begin the journey as believers, then end up as unbelievers. Some travelers suffer a crisis of faith during the journey, but return to the faith. 

Good mythical morning

Apparently Rhett and Link became apostates.

Kenny Boyce offers some observations about their apostasy. I don't entirely agree with Boyce (e.g. I'm not a YEC but I think mature creation may be more defensible than he does, I'd want to unpack what he means by "a less theologically conservative view of the nature of Scripture"), but he does say a lot of useful things. It's worth a read.

Anyway, I highly doubt it's all intellectual for Rhett and Link. It's not just about fundy Christianity, YEC, do we take the Bible "literally", etc. I think it's also about the seductive draw of the world. Moving from rural North Carolina to Southern California. Finding fame and success in the entertainment industry. Meeting Hollywood execs. Gaining wealth and influence. Rubbing elbows with celebrities. Getting invited to attend film premieres and after-parties. It's hard to resist these pulls and temptations. Especially if one's Christian faith is already threadbare. If one doesn't already have deep roots in theology and apologetics.

At the same time, it's not as if Rhett and Link can't reach out to Christians who can offer intelligent answers to their questions. They have more luxury to seek than many other people do. And it's not too late for them even now.

Sacred cows

Here's Joaquin Phoenix's acceptance speech for his Academy Award for Best Actor:

We have to continue to use our voice for the voiceless. I've been thinking a lot about some of the distressing issues that we are facing collectively. I think at times we feel, or were made to feel, that we champion different causes, but for me, I see commonality. I think, whether we're talking about gender inequality or racism or queer rights or indigenous rights or animal rights, we're talking about the fight against injustice. We're talking about the fight against the belief that one nation, one people, one race, one gender, or one species has the right to dominate, control, and use and exploit another with impunity.

I think that we've become very disconnected from the natural world, and many of us, what we're guilty of is an egocentric worldview — the belief that we're the center of the universe. We go into the natural world, and we plunder it for its resources. We feel entitled to artificially inseminate a cow, and when she gives birth, we steal her baby, even though her cries of anguish are unmistakable. Then, we take her milk, that's intended for her calf, and we put it in our coffee and our cereal, and I think we fear the idea of personal change because we think that we have to sacrifice something to give something up. But human beings, at our best, are so inventive and creative and ingenious, and I think that when we use love and compassion as our guiding principles, we can create, develop and implement systems of change that are beneficial to all sentient beings and to the environment.

Now, I have been a scoundrel in my life. I've been selfish. I've been cruel at times, hard to work with and ungrateful, but so many of you in this room have given me a second chance. And I think that's when we're at our best, when we support each other, not when we cancel each other out for past mistakes, but when we help each other to grow, when we educate each other, when we guide each other toward redemption. That is the best of community.

When he was 17, my brother wrote this lyric. It said: "Run to the rescue with love, and peace will follow."

1. For the purposes of this post, I'm going to assume - am I being naive? - that Phoenix is no longer in character as the Joker.

2. So a rich Hollywood celeb argues for speciesism and for veganism. I use "argues" very loosely. Frankly it's more like assuming and asserting rather than arguing. For starters, I didn't see an argument for why it's wrong to eat beef. Or an argument for why it's wrong to drink cow milk.

3. At best, I gather he's supposing "sentience" is somehow the reason not to eat meat. We shouldn't kill and consume cows because they're "sentient" and to kill sentient creatures would be immoral. However, he doesn't define "sentience", nor does he explain how cows are sentient, nor does he argue how a cow's moral status is derived from or relevantly connected to its sentience.

Is sentience indexed to self-consciousness? So would comatose humans be non-sentient? Would humans come in and out of sentience when they're asleep and awake? Is sentience indexed to intelligence? So that less intelligent people are less sentient than more intelligent people? Is sentience indexed to moral decision-making? Can animals like cows reason about morality? Is sentience indexed to the ability to feel emotions like pain? What about humans who have congenital insensitivity to pain? Are they less sentient than normal humans? And so on.

4. In addition, even if we accept Phoenix's argument (such as it is), it could prove too much, for it could apply to some plants as well. After all, there are scholars who argue some plants are sentient. So will Phoenix refuse to eat plants too? If he's not going to eat animals, plants, or their products, what's left? I guess non-sentient creatures like insects? But from what I've seen, there are some who argue insects might be sentient!

5. I notice Phoenix uses emotionally manipulative language like "steal[ing] her baby". In addition to anthropomorphizing animals (e.g. "even though her cries of anguish are unmistakable"). What makes Phoenix think animals feel pain like we do?

6. Of course, I'm not suggesting we should treat animals with cruelty. I'm all for treating animals well. Indeed, Christianity has a theology of creation care. However, why should we treat animals well according to Phoenix's worldview? Which, evidently, is the following:

I don't believe in God. I don't believe in an afterlife. I don't believe in a soul. I don't believe in anything. I think it's totally right for people to have their own beliefs if it makes them happy, but to me it's a pretty preposterous idea.

Nature is red in tooth and claw. Is it immoral for lions to hunt down and eat gazelles? Given Phoenix's speciesism, should lions turn to veganism too? Why only humans?

7. I don't have a problem with inventing novel food sources if necessary. But what does Phoenix have in mind? Vegan burgers like Monty's burgers in Koreatown? Sure, that's fine, and some vegan burgers taste alright, and I've eaten CPK cauliflower pizza crust that tastes like bread, but it's not like the average person has the time and resources to live a vegan lifestyle like Phoenix does. Besides, how far does Phoenix want to go? Does he want people to be able create artificial cows? There are limits even to human ingenuity.

8. As an aside, some might be interested in an earlier post I did on the same topic.

Parasites

"Workers of the world, unite!"

Ironic to see Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels' The Communist Manifesto quoted by rich elitist celebrities who wouldn't be seated anywhere near the second-class bourgeoisie passengers let alone among the proletariats in steerage. No, they'd instead be in the stateroom enjoying the luxurious lifestyle of the 1%. And this is just the tip of the iceberg in the ridiculous progressive activism on display at the Oscars last night.

That said, it's interesting to see the Korean film Parasite receive four (of six) wins - Best Picture, Best Director, Best Original Screenplay, and Best International Feature Film. The film's writer-director-producer Bong Joon-Ho won all of them. Furthermore it's the first foreign film to win Best Picture. And Parasite is the third film to concurrently win the Oscar for Best Picture and the Palme d'Or (Best Picture at the Cannes film festival). The other two were 1945's The Lost Weekend and 1955's Marty. All in all, quite an accomplishment for S. Korean cinema.

Prior to this, I think the best Asian cinema had done was nearly two decades ago when Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon won four (out of ten) Oscars (Best Foreign Film, Best Original Score, Best Art Direction, and Best Cinematography).

Today there are plenty of other critically acclaimed Asian movies and shows. Take for instance The Farewell as another recent critically acclaimed film. There are lauded tv sitcoms like Fresh Off the Boat and Kim's Convenience too. I'm sure we could multiply examples.

There are many reasons for the ascendancy of Asian cinema in recent years. However I just want to note it looks to me most the best aspects of Asian cinema have arisen in democratic Asian nations like Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and S. Korea. It's not often one sees (say) communist China produce high quality films. Especially before it embraced a capitalist market economy, albeit state-controlled. Probably Zhang Yimou is one of the few standouts in mainland Chinese film, but even his films have been censored by the Chinese government.

Yet we have moralizing Western elites lecturing average people about the horrors of Trump and conservatives, and the greatness of progressivism and socialism, while they're likewise benefiting from the fruits of a nation where film and the arts have the ground soil in which to flourish. In other words, the same moralizing celebrities wouldn't likely enjoy the life they currently enjoy if they had worked in show business in Cuba, N. Korea, or communist China. Who are the real "parasites" again?

Too bad these progressive Hollywood celebrities didn't take to heart Ricky Gervais' monologue at the Golden Globes last month:

So if you do win an award tonight, don't use it as a platform to make a political speech. You're in no position to lecture the public about anything. You know nothing about the real world. Most of you spent less time in school than Greta Thunberg. So if you win, come up, accept your little award, thank your agent, and your God, and [bugger] off, okay?

Update: I finally watched the movie Parasite. I review the film here.

David Fincher films

For better or worse, I think I've seen most of David Fincher's films. Below are my notes or briefs on Fincher's films (in chronological order).

A few preliminary observations and comments before the main event:

1. In general, I wouldn't necessarily recommend Christians watch his films. That might risk cultivating the opposite mindset to Phil 4:8. And there are likely better ways to spend your time. However, if you've already seen his films, then this post might be useful.

2. Philosophically, Fincher's films reek of nihilism. Perhaps anarchism too. At least there seems to be a rebellious "punk" streak.

3. As a director, I think Fincher's film-making reflects superb technical craftsmanship. However, Fincher's films often come across as cold and impersonal.

4. A consistent theme in most of Fincher's films is there's more than meets the eye when we look at people. There may be a surface beauty that's rotten to the core. This in turn reflects a biblical truth: "For the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart" (1 Sam 16:7).

5. These are my interpretations. Others might have better interpretations.

All the world's a stage

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez should've opted for a career in Hollywood rather than politics. In fact, I'd say she deserves an Oscar nomination for her acting! For example:

1. Look straight into the camera for heightened dramatic effect. Sad, angry eyes, heavy with grief. A challenge to the audience.

2. Weep woeful tears, tears of shame and guilt for great wrongs done, vicariously experiencing the same tragedy the illegal immigrants are experiencing. (Alas! If only these "refugees" could somehow have turned around, then they wouldn't have ended up becoming "prisoners" in "concentration camps" at the border.)

3. A final forlorn glance, eyes staring off in the distance, in deep contemplation over the horrors she has witnessed, the unbearable weight of the world upon her shoulders.

4. And let's not forget the cameraman and other crew who captured AOC in all this - finding the right angles, the best lighting, positioning AOC in the proper poses and postures. Surely they're in the running for a Pulitzer prize for photography!