Saturday, February 6, 2010
No Greater Love Movie (Release date: Valentine's Day 2010)
Valentine's Day 2010 will see the DVD release of Lions Gate Entertainment's No Greater Love (2009) directed by Brad Silverman. Thanks to its inclusion in Amazon.com's streaming video selection I can provide a bit of commentary having seen the film in its entirety.
I was glad to see it. While recent Christian films, such as Sherwood Pictures recent releases (Flywheel (2003), Facing the Giants (2006), and Fireproof (2008)), Five & Two Pictures' Time Changer (2002) and Advent Film Group's Come What May (2009), are not generally known for top of the line acting, No Great Love has raised the bar just a bit higher. It tells a compelling story and the actors are generally better at their trade. If you have enjoyed any of the above films, you will almost certainly enjoy No Greater Love as well.
Having seen most of the six Christian films listed above I would like to offer a critique of the genre as a whole, focusing on No Greater Love as the most recent addition and perhaps best example of that genre to date.
SPOILER ALERT
While some may find the following unapprovably harsh, I have chosen to focus my critique on what I believe to be potentially the greatest weakness of the genre as a whole. Therefore, if you come away from this commentary disturbed, simply know that I am writing not as one who has found nothing to appreciate in the films above, but as one who, having appreciated much about the films themselves, finds the genre itself a most disturbing manifestation of what passes for contemporary evangelical Christianity. Those who would not be disturbed need read no further.
As it happens, I write today as one who was both born and raised an evangelical Christian. However, as the following will aptly demonstrate, I am not without concern for evangelicalism. As I interact with it in films such as these I am left, at best, puzzled in my attempts to reconcile the religion displayed on the screen with the religion expressed in the Christian Bible. Perhaps you should be too.
Perhaps much of the puzzlement can be expressed in the following question to Christians:
"Which is of greater value, to be able to defend one's actions, decisions and choices based on the spirit of the law, or the letter of the law?"
In this case I am speaking merely of defending choices to oneself when one first doubts the integrity and soundness of a particular course of action. Each of us have second thoughts at times, and in that moment, as Christians, we will look in one direction or the other to find confidence and support for the choices we have made.
Regardless of how one answers the question, which way do the films above answer that question? I submit that the genre of contemporary Christian movies characterized by the films above answer the question rather pointedly in one direction over the other. Let us briefly consider the story No Greater Love.
The film opens with a young couple's argument and shows the young woman sinking into alcoholism and depression before finally abandoning her husband and infant child. She severs all ties of communication with her husband, moves to a different state, and creates a new life for herself. Ten years later, after hitting rock bottom she has become a Christian, gone through rehab, and committed herself to full-time Christian ministry.
Meanwhile, her son is now ten years old and her husband is minutes away from proposing to his girlfriend when circumstances bring them to the same church event and the former couple momentarily glimpse one another through the crowd before each going their separate ways. After this chance encounter the fundamental question of the movie becomes whether or not the couple should get back together again. They are told by the church that as the woman is now a Christian, but the man is not, they cannot be married according to the Bible.
However, even though the couple no longer wear wedding rings, the man brings up the fact that he never actually filed a certificate of divorce at the local courthouse, so they aren't technically divorced. At this the church reverses itself, responds that they are still married, and orders the wife to submit to her husband and to go and live with him.
Now the newly discovered husband, not being a Christian, thinks this is pretty bizarre (me too), and so he fills out the divorce paperwork and signs it so that his new "wife" is no longer religiously obligated to come and live with him. As her former lover, even though he is not a Christian, he cares about her and only wants her back if she actually wants to come back. He even begins to question whether or not there is actually something to this thing called Christianity and confesses that "he wants what she has". The story ends with her throwing the divorce papers away, digging out her old wedding ring which she still has, and letting herself into the man's house with a spare key he had given her shortly after their chance encounter (and before the Church had told them they could not live together).
Sound confusing?
I actually think bizarre is a better description myself.
As a very pointedly evangelistic film, is this the picture of Christianity we now present to those outside the church? Is this what Biblical Christianity has become?
I'm left scratching my head. The moral decision that the film centers around is whether or not a man and a woman should live together and sleep together. Fine. Of course there are other important moral choices we face in daily life, but this certainly qualifies as one and I'm glad to see a film take up the challenge of tackling it. Next we are told that the Bible is to be our guide in answering the question of whether or not the decision is right or wrong. Again fine. I think the Bible is the right place to go in questions of moral turpitude.
So far no bizarreness.
But how are we told to apply what we find in the Bible to life today? It is here where the Christian producers of this film (and others like it) present a way of life to the world that is not only strange, different, and unique, but is in fact incoherent to the Christian and non-Christian mind alike. In valuing the "strange, different, and unique" qualities of Christianity, we sometimes fail to draw the distinction between these things, which can be good, and incoherence, which is neither admirable nor worthy of emulation. Think Christians. Think.
At the beginning of the film we are not given any reason for why the couple should not get back together, only that a Christian and a non-Christian should not live together "because the Bible says no".
Then we are not given any reasons for why the couple should get back together (other than because the man wants to and the woman's job is to do what he wants) except, again, "The Bible says to".
Absent reasons, the entire moral of the film, and the question that the film is dedicated to answering, devolves simply to opening a magic holy book, finding a magic holy formula for morality, and following it without asking any questions.
Is this what Christianity has become?
Is this what the great writers and expositors of the Christian faith over four millennia now culminate in? "Open the book, find the answer, and blindly follow it"?
Perhaps this recipe, and the God who wrote it, would not come off looking quite so capricious if marriage itself were not reduced to nothing more than a piece of paper at the county clerk's office. Yet consider whether this is not exactly the effect of taking this film to its logical conclusion.
Consider the pertinent moments in the film:
First, we are told that they are not married.
Then we are told that they are married because he technically never signed the divorce papers.
They we are told that they are married because he signed the divorce papers but she threw them away.
With this film as our guide, let us consider the question of whether or not the couple is married:
1. In the story a couple gets married and has a child. According to the pastor in the film, they are married. ✔
2. In the story a married couple gets in a fight. According to the film, they are still married. ✔
But then the story takes a turn.
3. The wedding rings go away when the woman runs away to start a new life. (Yet, we are told in the end that even though the rings went away, the couple was still married).
4. Ten years pass without the woman talking or interacting with the man and boy in any way.
5. Unknown to the man, the woman becomes a Christian (the man assumes she is dead).
6. The man gets a girlfriend and they have a long-term relationship (Still, we are told that the couple is still married because he didn't sign the papers).
7. The man decides he wants to marry the girlfriend. (Still married)
8. The man asks the son if he approves and would like the girlfriend to become his mom. The son says "go for it." (Still married)
9. The man buys a ring. (Still married)
10. The man shows the ring to others and says he's gonna marry the girlfriend. (Still married)
11. The man takes the girlfriend out to dinner so he can propose. (Still married....because he didn't sign the papers)
Is this not sounding just a wee bit bizarre?
The man is living his life entirely independent of the woman, and the woman is living her life entirely independent of the man. When she left to start her own life, he packed up her things and started his own life as well, moved to another state, and decided to marry another woman.
But simply because he did not file the divorce papers at the county clerk's office....the marriage exists.
Is this sort of technicality the true linchpin upon which questions of morality should turn? The answer to the question of whether or not a couple are married? Sufficient evidence that it is right, ethical, moral, and Christian for them to sleep together? Live together? Raise a child together?
If that is truly the linchpin upon which the question (and therefore the movie) turns, I have a question.
What if the clerk at the courthouse lost the marriage paperwork?
[In the movie, the court lost contact information for the man and boy. The story tells us that because the court did not keep track of that information the woman had no way to contact them.]
What if when the pastor went down to the courthouse to check their file, there was no marriage license on file because the court had lost or misplaced it? What if there was a fire and that paper got burned up?
What moral wisdom should we give our couple in that case? Is the man then free to marry his girlfriend in such a case?
I have only one word for this modern depiction of Christian morality. Bizarre.
Monday, October 5, 2009
A Runner and a Doctor
We were in attendance at two lectures this morning; the first given by Sir Dr. Roger Bannister, and the second given by Dr. Rikky Rooksby. One sought to acquaint us with the substance that makes England, England, excepting geography of course. The other sought to introduce us to the role of Sport in International Relations (Note: In Britain the word "sport" is left singular, while in America we refer to it in the plural).
Who better to give a lecture on sport than the very first Sports Illustrated Sportsman of the Year, Roger Bannister? As might be expected, the upcoming 2012 Olympics in London were discussed, as well as the results of the Olympic bid made public on Friday. Over the course of the lecture we reviewed not only Olympic highlights, from Athens to the present time, but also numerous anecdotes from the life of one of the world's most preeminent athletes, who also happens to be an Oxford don.
It was in 1946, at the age of seventeen, that Roger began at Oxford; a time when the majority of his classmates were combat veterans returning from the Second World War. As it happens, it was his status as a non-veteran that first inspired him to become an athlete at Oxford. He felt unqualified, as though his other classmates had done their part for the nation, and he had yet to do his. So he set out to make his contribution on the track.
After graduating from high school at seventeen, and starting at West Point two weeks later, I was able to identify very much with what he felt at the time. Today at my school, you have a good number of freshmen who have already returned from serving multiple combat tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. In contrast, those of us straight out of high school can only look at ourselves and wonder "who am I compared to that?"
Sir Roger's only experience in the Olympics took place in 1952 in Helsinki. Had he won the Gold Medal there, he is certain he would have ended his athletic career on the spot and returned to medical school. As it happens, he did not win the Gold. He came in fourth in the Men's 1500 Meters, three-tenths of a second away from the Bronze Medal. His performance in that race challenged him to continue as an athlete, even while a full-time medical student at Oxford. The rest, as they say, is history.
It was at Oxford, on May 6th, 1954, that Roger Bannister accomplished what had been loudly proclaimed "not humanly possible" when he became the first person in history to break the 4-minute mile. I asked him, as a neurologist and now also an eminent scholar, if he regretted any of the time he had invested in the, decidedly non-academic, field of sports. He replied that the time he spent as an athlete permitted him to visit and speak in America, and broadened his horizons in many other ways. He never gave his life over to athletics, and though his success on the track made it initially quite difficult for him to be perceived as a legitimate scholar and medical professional at times, he did not regret any part of it.
After the talk he came over to where I was sitting to talk with me and encourage me to continue in my athletics (formerly swimming, and now martial arts). Now from a man who pursued both athletics and scholarship and succeeded far and above his peers in both, that means something.
This is Oxford. The place where the 4-Minute Mile was broken. The home of Sir Roger Bannister, Richard Dawkins, and more than a few other notables. This is the place where they boast about having an expert in everything, so much so that if you desire to study a course not currently in the course catalog, they will create a course just for you, and find someone on the Oxford faculty who is more than qualified to teach it. As we were walking to our next event at the Bodleian Library I overheard three American students affirming to one another the worthlessness of the lecture and the necessity of their having slept through portions of it. At that, I had to smile. Like so much of life, the treasures here at Oxford are of the kind you have to seek in order to find.
Monday, September 28, 2009
The Public Construction of Meaning
David Weinberger observes: "...the public construction of meaning is the most important project of the next hundred years."*
Simply put, to humankind has been given the task of drawing distinctions in the world around us. Distinctions permit us to organize and categorize what we see, and with further distinctions we determine significance and meaning.
I would take Weinberger's assertion even further. I believe that the public construction of meaning, the distinctions we draw and the meaning we assign to those distinctions, has always and will always be the most important project assigned to humankind. Beginning with the first task given to Adam in the creation story, until the last breath drawn by a living human being, mankind has always and will always be about the business of drawing distinctions.
The delicate process of naming often captures this entire process. In the creative act of naming we select a slice from the world around us and draw distinctions on every side, separating it from every other thing not like it. And in determining that name it is quite common to assign a measure of significance in terms of what a thing means to us; from a loved one's pet name, to the names we assign to our firstborn child.
One man believes we should draw a legal distinction on the basis of race, but not sex. Another draws the distinction at sex, but leaves the category of race undefined and undistinguished. On the basis of prevailing wisdom, how can one say which of the two is right? More to the point, how can one draw a distinction that declares one to be wrong?
In the private sphere, perhaps such mutually exclusive distinctions can coexist peaceably. But the public sphere, where Weinberger focuses his attention, affords us no such privilege. The public sphere, if it were to remain neutral in this, must immediately refuse to draw distinctions of any kind. Yet this is not what we observe taking place in the halls of government today, and the world would function no better tomorrow if governments eradicated law, which -- by definition -- serves no effect if not to distinguish legal conduct from illegal conduct on the part of the citizenry.
We draw distinctions and give names, both to those we agree with and those we do not. To the one who draws distinction on the basis of race, in a situation in which we do not, we give the name “racist.” To the one who draws distinction on the basis of sex, in a situation we do not, we give the name “sexist.”
Is the one who gives significance to divisions of race superior to the one who gives significance to divisions of sex? Can decisions informed by some genetic features take the place of decisions informed by other genetic features?
Inevitably, distinctions reflect the way we see the world and the facets of it on which we focus our attention. At risk of being named an essentialist I choose to give greater meaning and significance to some genetic features, particularly those I do not see. But do we not all do the same in the distinction we draw between which human features to cover and which to leave open to the naked eye? It seems a powerful waste of disposable income if we could simply get away with covering the top of one’s head and forgo the expense of additional clothing.
The eyes are trained by what they see, and discernment is trained by the distinctions we choose to practice. Inevitably the distinctions we draw will reflect our personal values. I find therefore that the most important project of humankind is nothing more, or less, than preferring the highest values and putting that preference into action every day of our lives.
But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil. (Hebrews 5)
* David Weinberger, "Everything is Miscellaneous: The Power of the New Digital Disorder", Holt Press -2007, p. 222.
Simply put, to humankind has been given the task of drawing distinctions in the world around us. Distinctions permit us to organize and categorize what we see, and with further distinctions we determine significance and meaning.
I would take Weinberger's assertion even further. I believe that the public construction of meaning, the distinctions we draw and the meaning we assign to those distinctions, has always and will always be the most important project assigned to humankind. Beginning with the first task given to Adam in the creation story, until the last breath drawn by a living human being, mankind has always and will always be about the business of drawing distinctions.
The delicate process of naming often captures this entire process. In the creative act of naming we select a slice from the world around us and draw distinctions on every side, separating it from every other thing not like it. And in determining that name it is quite common to assign a measure of significance in terms of what a thing means to us; from a loved one's pet name, to the names we assign to our firstborn child.
One man believes we should draw a legal distinction on the basis of race, but not sex. Another draws the distinction at sex, but leaves the category of race undefined and undistinguished. On the basis of prevailing wisdom, how can one say which of the two is right? More to the point, how can one draw a distinction that declares one to be wrong?
In the private sphere, perhaps such mutually exclusive distinctions can coexist peaceably. But the public sphere, where Weinberger focuses his attention, affords us no such privilege. The public sphere, if it were to remain neutral in this, must immediately refuse to draw distinctions of any kind. Yet this is not what we observe taking place in the halls of government today, and the world would function no better tomorrow if governments eradicated law, which -- by definition -- serves no effect if not to distinguish legal conduct from illegal conduct on the part of the citizenry.
We draw distinctions and give names, both to those we agree with and those we do not. To the one who draws distinction on the basis of race, in a situation in which we do not, we give the name “racist.” To the one who draws distinction on the basis of sex, in a situation we do not, we give the name “sexist.”
Is the one who gives significance to divisions of race superior to the one who gives significance to divisions of sex? Can decisions informed by some genetic features take the place of decisions informed by other genetic features?
Inevitably, distinctions reflect the way we see the world and the facets of it on which we focus our attention. At risk of being named an essentialist I choose to give greater meaning and significance to some genetic features, particularly those I do not see. But do we not all do the same in the distinction we draw between which human features to cover and which to leave open to the naked eye? It seems a powerful waste of disposable income if we could simply get away with covering the top of one’s head and forgo the expense of additional clothing.
The eyes are trained by what they see, and discernment is trained by the distinctions we choose to practice. Inevitably the distinctions we draw will reflect our personal values. I find therefore that the most important project of humankind is nothing more, or less, than preferring the highest values and putting that preference into action every day of our lives.
But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil. (Hebrews 5)
* David Weinberger, "Everything is Miscellaneous: The Power of the New Digital Disorder", Holt Press -2007, p. 222.
Friday, September 18, 2009
The Duke of Marlborough
"Wouldst fashion for thyself a seemly life?--
Then fret not over what is past and gone;
And spite of all thou mayst have lost behind,
Yet act as if thy life were just begun.
What each day wills, enough for thee to know;
What each day wills, the day itself will tell.
Do thine own task, and be therewith content;
What others do, that shalt thou fairly judge;
Be sure that thou no brother-mortal hate,
Then all besides leave to the Master Power."
~ Goethe
The passage above was the life motto of the 9th Duke of Marlborough, Charles Spencer-Churchill, childhood friend and cousin to Sir Winston Churchill. I learned today that the Duke and Winston grew up together and were very nearly the same age. Winston Churchill's father was the younger of two brothers, hence the title of Duke fell to Churchill's cousin instead of to him. Churchill included the above passage in a very kind obituary he wrote for his friend upon his passing in 1934. I read the obituary this afternoon while wandering the halls of Blenheim Palace, birthplace of Sir Winston Churchill and residence of the current Duke of Marlborough.
Blenheim Palace itself, listed as one of 93 World Heritage Sites within the United Kingdom, owes its continued existence to the life and persistent efforts of the 9th Duke. In his obituary, Churchill observed that the Duke was born in 1871 and served as a conservative statesman in a time when a mere 300-400 families controlled the entirety of politics and governmental affairs in the United Kingdom. The Duke's original title and the palace itself were given to the Churchills by Queen Anne after the Duke's ancestor, John Churchill, saved Britain by defeating Spanish and French armies through an unbroken string of military victories during the War of the Spanish Succession (1701-1714).
Over the course of his life, Winston Churchill's cousin watched the aristocracy of his birth utterly swept away. Alert to the changing times and determined to pass the property on to his posterity, the Duke devoted much of his adult life to preserving the estate that we enjoyed visiting today. To those of us who visited, today it stands as a tribute not only to the life of Great Britain's beloved Prime Minister, but also to the Great Britain of his birth, a time when Dukes and the nobility of the land were entrusted with the future of the nation. If by chance you ever have occasion to visit the Palace, may I commend the Rose Garden to you? I assure you, a visit there will not lead to disappointment.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
To Be or Not to Be
[written 9/8/05]
An article in The Washington Post, reprinted in today's Stars and Stripes, talks about the role of chaplains in the military, and focuses on Christian evangelical chaplains especially. The tone of the article seems to be, "Why can't those Christian chaplains just treat their role as a job like everybody else….why do they have to go interject their faith into everything? It's so very unpatriotic."
Welcome to yet another segment of the ongoing culture war here in America. The article went on to list a number of ways that Christians in the military are violating long established traditions and values, and subverting both our military and the nation. Christian chaplains at the Air Force Academy were criticized for encouraging Christian students to witness to their fellow classmates. Another "violation of decency" occurred during a funeral of a Christian sailor when the Navy Chaplain present mentioned, in passing, that those who do not accept Jesus are doomed for eternity. To add to their list of violations, Christian chaplains-in-training were also chastised for daring to pray in Jesus' name….of all the nerve! The article closes with the statement, "Could there possibly be a worse time for this fundamentalist Christianity to be pushed in our military, when we're in a war and the people we are fighting are recruiting their members by saying we're Christian crusaders?"
You see, it's fine to say you're a Christian. By and large, throughout history, it always has been (not to ignore the horror of those times when it has not). But you better not act like a Christian! The Christians hurled to the lions in the Coliseum were not murdered for saying that they were Christians. Christianity was a religion protected by the Roman Empire. The rub came when they failed to acknowledge the deity of Caesar. Hey, call yourself whatever you want, but you better be able to temporarily put aside your religious differences and worship Caesar when the time comes.
It wasn't for claiming to be Christians, that thousands upon thousands of Christians were tortured and murdered in Communist Russia. Article 124 of the Constitution of the USSR explicitly guaranteed all Russian citizens freedom of conscience. It was only when they began to act like Christians that men and women came into direct conflict with the Soviet state. It was not for being Christian, that men and women were slaughtered during the time of the Reformation. It was not for claiming to be Christian, that pastors were rounded up and murdered by the Gestapo in Nazi Germany. Adolph Hitler himself stated publicly that "Christianity is the unshakable foundation of our people's ethical and moral law." And yet, any pastors who refused to pledge fealty to Hitler, who refused to endorse him in their sermons, were thrown out of their church and made to feel the terror of the Nazi regime.
It was not for claiming to be Christians that three Sunday School Teachers were sentenced to 3 years in jail earlier this week – their mistake was that they actually allowed children to come to the Sunday School. You can be a Sunday School teacher, just don't actually try to teach anyone. Sure, "be a Christian," just don't try to teach children at a Vocational Bible School in China right now. You can say you're a Christian all you want. You can write it on Christmas Cards, you can put Bible verse references under your name at the close of every letter you write. You can pray before meals, and even go to church (in China the government actually provides a church for you to go to---you can attend church right alongside some of the local Communist leaders). But it's not about looking like you're a Christian, it's about letting it affect how you live your life.
There have been times in history when merely claiming to be a Christian was indeed as good as a death sentence, but such cases are the exception rather than the rule. You can visit the Voice of the Martyrs Website any day of the week to see a list of a number of believers currently in prison for their faith. They aren't there because they registered as "Christian" in the latest census, or stamped "Christian" on their military I.D. Tags. They came into conflict with the government when they dared to act according to their faith.
It is not what you believe that separates you from the rest of the world, "You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless ?" (James 2:19-20) It is not a faith in God that causes enmity between Christians and tyrants the world over. It is a faith in God that is immovable when push comes to shove; a faith that will not bow the knee on command; a faith that will not edit the graduation speech when ordered to do so; a faith that will not remove reference to the name of Jesus in a prayer; a faith that will not hold back from telling another person about the true condition of their soul. Daniel wasn't thrown to the lions for being a Christian. He was one of three rulers over the entire Kingdom of Babylon. The King planned to make him ruler over the entire kingdom. His position was secure. There was just one little thing that he had to do: not pray for a month. Actually, when you think about it, all he really had to do was close the window when he prayed. That's it! That's the one little thing that he was asked to do. Was it too great a request?
Daniel did not conform. To him, that one little thing was worth the lion's den. He was given the chance to keep himself in the clear with the Babylonian government, and he missed it! What of Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego? They were rulers over the entire province of Babylon. Again, their position was secure. They were "in tight" with the powers that be, and they knew it! The request put before them was even easier than the one put before Daniel: The moment you hear the music, bow before the golden image. That's it! All they had to do was bow one little time, to one pagan, government-sanctioned, idol. To them, that one moment's disobedience was worth an excruciatingly painful and agonizing death in a furnace of fire.
Those that do not know God, simply don't get it. They assume that your faith is like everybody else's; important, but not that important when push comes to shove. A pseudo-form of Christianity is all many Americans know; a faith able to be turned off and on when circumstances require. After all, those that follow other religions can turn their faith on and off as needed, why should "evangelical Christians" be any different? You remember the speech by the man who came within a handful of votes of being our nation's current president? Do you remember when he was asked about abortion and responded, "personally I'm against it, but…"? That's the kind of Christianity that America has come to expect; a Christianity that can claim to be genuine without having any effect whatsoever on the way we live or the decisions we make. The communists in Russia, or in China, or in Vietnam, would have had no quarrel with such sentiments. (Perhaps that's why that candidate's picture was on display as a hero in a communist-run museum in Vietnam during the opening months of his campaign) Such Christians are "safe" in communist countries. But how important is it to be "safe?" How important is it to accommodate the voices of secular society that say, "this is a really bad time to be a Christian….we have enemies in Muslim countries that don't like Christians right now."
Martin Luther was put on trial, not for being a Christian, but for having the moral courage to follow through on what he learned from studying scripture. To him, the price was worth it. He went on to say, "If I profess with the loudest voice and the clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God, except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved."
The question remains: To be or not to be? Which kind of Christian will you be today?
An article in The Washington Post, reprinted in today's Stars and Stripes, talks about the role of chaplains in the military, and focuses on Christian evangelical chaplains especially. The tone of the article seems to be, "Why can't those Christian chaplains just treat their role as a job like everybody else….why do they have to go interject their faith into everything? It's so very unpatriotic."
Welcome to yet another segment of the ongoing culture war here in America. The article went on to list a number of ways that Christians in the military are violating long established traditions and values, and subverting both our military and the nation. Christian chaplains at the Air Force Academy were criticized for encouraging Christian students to witness to their fellow classmates. Another "violation of decency" occurred during a funeral of a Christian sailor when the Navy Chaplain present mentioned, in passing, that those who do not accept Jesus are doomed for eternity. To add to their list of violations, Christian chaplains-in-training were also chastised for daring to pray in Jesus' name….of all the nerve! The article closes with the statement, "Could there possibly be a worse time for this fundamentalist Christianity to be pushed in our military, when we're in a war and the people we are fighting are recruiting their members by saying we're Christian crusaders?"
You see, it's fine to say you're a Christian. By and large, throughout history, it always has been (not to ignore the horror of those times when it has not). But you better not act like a Christian! The Christians hurled to the lions in the Coliseum were not murdered for saying that they were Christians. Christianity was a religion protected by the Roman Empire. The rub came when they failed to acknowledge the deity of Caesar. Hey, call yourself whatever you want, but you better be able to temporarily put aside your religious differences and worship Caesar when the time comes.
It wasn't for claiming to be Christians, that thousands upon thousands of Christians were tortured and murdered in Communist Russia. Article 124 of the Constitution of the USSR explicitly guaranteed all Russian citizens freedom of conscience. It was only when they began to act like Christians that men and women came into direct conflict with the Soviet state. It was not for being Christian, that men and women were slaughtered during the time of the Reformation. It was not for claiming to be Christian, that pastors were rounded up and murdered by the Gestapo in Nazi Germany. Adolph Hitler himself stated publicly that "Christianity is the unshakable foundation of our people's ethical and moral law." And yet, any pastors who refused to pledge fealty to Hitler, who refused to endorse him in their sermons, were thrown out of their church and made to feel the terror of the Nazi regime.
It was not for claiming to be Christians that three Sunday School Teachers were sentenced to 3 years in jail earlier this week – their mistake was that they actually allowed children to come to the Sunday School. You can be a Sunday School teacher, just don't actually try to teach anyone. Sure, "be a Christian," just don't try to teach children at a Vocational Bible School in China right now. You can say you're a Christian all you want. You can write it on Christmas Cards, you can put Bible verse references under your name at the close of every letter you write. You can pray before meals, and even go to church (in China the government actually provides a church for you to go to---you can attend church right alongside some of the local Communist leaders). But it's not about looking like you're a Christian, it's about letting it affect how you live your life.
There have been times in history when merely claiming to be a Christian was indeed as good as a death sentence, but such cases are the exception rather than the rule. You can visit the Voice of the Martyrs Website any day of the week to see a list of a number of believers currently in prison for their faith. They aren't there because they registered as "Christian" in the latest census, or stamped "Christian" on their military I.D. Tags. They came into conflict with the government when they dared to act according to their faith.
It is not what you believe that separates you from the rest of the world, "You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless ?" (James 2:19-20) It is not a faith in God that causes enmity between Christians and tyrants the world over. It is a faith in God that is immovable when push comes to shove; a faith that will not bow the knee on command; a faith that will not edit the graduation speech when ordered to do so; a faith that will not remove reference to the name of Jesus in a prayer; a faith that will not hold back from telling another person about the true condition of their soul. Daniel wasn't thrown to the lions for being a Christian. He was one of three rulers over the entire Kingdom of Babylon. The King planned to make him ruler over the entire kingdom. His position was secure. There was just one little thing that he had to do: not pray for a month. Actually, when you think about it, all he really had to do was close the window when he prayed. That's it! That's the one little thing that he was asked to do. Was it too great a request?
Daniel did not conform. To him, that one little thing was worth the lion's den. He was given the chance to keep himself in the clear with the Babylonian government, and he missed it! What of Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego? They were rulers over the entire province of Babylon. Again, their position was secure. They were "in tight" with the powers that be, and they knew it! The request put before them was even easier than the one put before Daniel: The moment you hear the music, bow before the golden image. That's it! All they had to do was bow one little time, to one pagan, government-sanctioned, idol. To them, that one moment's disobedience was worth an excruciatingly painful and agonizing death in a furnace of fire.
Those that do not know God, simply don't get it. They assume that your faith is like everybody else's; important, but not that important when push comes to shove. A pseudo-form of Christianity is all many Americans know; a faith able to be turned off and on when circumstances require. After all, those that follow other religions can turn their faith on and off as needed, why should "evangelical Christians" be any different? You remember the speech by the man who came within a handful of votes of being our nation's current president? Do you remember when he was asked about abortion and responded, "personally I'm against it, but…"? That's the kind of Christianity that America has come to expect; a Christianity that can claim to be genuine without having any effect whatsoever on the way we live or the decisions we make. The communists in Russia, or in China, or in Vietnam, would have had no quarrel with such sentiments. (Perhaps that's why that candidate's picture was on display as a hero in a communist-run museum in Vietnam during the opening months of his campaign) Such Christians are "safe" in communist countries. But how important is it to be "safe?" How important is it to accommodate the voices of secular society that say, "this is a really bad time to be a Christian….we have enemies in Muslim countries that don't like Christians right now."
Martin Luther was put on trial, not for being a Christian, but for having the moral courage to follow through on what he learned from studying scripture. To him, the price was worth it. He went on to say, "If I profess with the loudest voice and the clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God, except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved."
The question remains: To be or not to be? Which kind of Christian will you be today?
Saturday, July 18, 2009
False Starts and a 4-Minute Mile
Some things stick with me for a long time.
...Like watching the final heat of the Men's 100m Dash on July 27, 1996 (televised).
It was one of many events at the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, but for me it was the most memorable. And even though I have never spoken with anyone about it, or looked for the story in the newspaper the day after, or even so much as done an online search since the event itself -- I've never forgotten it.
Regardless of what others thought, for me it had been a historic moment; not unlike the day that Deep Blue first beat Garry Kasparov, a mere five months earlier. To the delight of newspaper reporters, the race to determine "The World's Fastest Man" was beset with controversy. The reigning Olympic, World, European and Commonwealth champion was disqualified for leaving the starting blocks after the gun was fired.
Wait....can they do that?
Having just turned fifteen years old, unfamiliar with the way the world sometimes works, I didn't think they could......until I watched it happen.
They DQ'd him. I couldn't believe it.
Though varsity cross country is as close as I've ever come to track and field, as a competitive swimmer I knew quite well what it meant to experience a DQ. Like runners, swimmers have their own starting blocks and compete under very similar rules. Upon the command "Step Up!" you step up to the starting block. When the starter shouts "Take Your Mark!" you move your feet and hands into starting position, the gun sounds, and YOU'RE OFF! Or is it not that simple?
Apparently not.
That summer my family and I watched as Linford Christie, of Great Britain, left the starting blocks with a perfect start only to be disqualified by Olympic officials for having a start time that was considered too fast to be humanly possible.
He refused to leave the field.
A furor ensued.
Today was the first time I have had reason to go back and revisit what happened. You see, I am considering using that event as an illustration and wanted to make sure I had the details to go along with it. The general facts come readily to mind, but I like to be specific when I'm gearing up to make an argument or teach a lesson. The topic I am looking at is how we go about measuring human potential. The flip side to the coin is how we identify cheating.
After all, when it comes to a specific case with a specific person, we have no way of effectively measuring how far "off" their actual potential they were at a particular moment in time. The only thing we can say with confidence is that in that specific instance their performance was, to whatever degree, slower than their collective previous performances would indicate was their actual potential. In the end, there's actually no affirmative reason to define a specific person's potential because the only possible consequence would be to cause someone not to reach theirs. Accordingly, the only practical benefit to having a defined "potential" would be rather negative...to assist in the discovery of cheating.
Now, while cheating itself is a negative, the discovery of cheating is a rather good thing, and we can consider it of positive benefit to both the individual and the community whenever it is correctly identified and brought to light. But sometimes that is easier said than done. How much is society willing to invest in identifying and prosecuting cheating? Is it possible to reach a point of diminishing returns, when love of the game or love of the sport would oblige us to go no further? And if we succeed in identifying such a point and determine to go no further in defining actual cheating, is it worse at that point to set the bar too high, or too low? Is a false positive worth just as much as a false negative? Whose welfare ought to be considered first, that of the athlete, that of the sport, or that of society at large? Is it possible that these things should ever come into conflict, or can we assume that what is good for the athlete is also good for the sport and therefore for society as well?
Absent the application to our modern day, here is an outline of the lesson I am putting together:
The disqualification of Linford Christie has never sat well with me. People once said that it was inhumanly possible to run faster than a 4-minute mile. Then in 1954 it happened. Roger Bannister, another Briton coincidentally enough, ran the "miracle mile." Within two years, six men has done it. Since then over 850 men have each accomplished the impossible. Now the record stands at 3 minutes, 43:13 seconds.
Where do people come up with what is "humanly possible" anyway? Does a lab tech determine it based on what he sees in a Petri dish? Or a neurologist when he reads an EEG printout? And why should his theory of the data become the be-all-end-all when it comes to human knowledge about what is or isn't possible?
Scientists theorize about what is possible by looking at statistics. They reach conclusions based on past data. This is how it was determined that no human, Roger Barrister or any other man, could ever run a sub-four minute mile. No one had done it before, therefore it seemed safe to assume that no one ever would.
And in most cases, with most people, that's exactly right. I am never going to run a sub-four minute mile. In fact, 99.9% of the world's population are never going to run a sub-four minute mile. Statistically, it's all but impossible that anyone ever would.
So what???
Who said that every aspect of the world has to be governed solely by statistics?
Why do we so often permit others to dictate reality to us based on what others have been able to do in the past and what seems statistically probable or likely? Worse, why do WE participate in it when we in turn treat others in like fashion? What is the cost that we pay in doing so?
Here is my issue with Christie's disqualification:
I look for potential in things; in people, in organizations, in communities. I would rather people lived up to my expectations, than down to them. This approach to life comes at a price. People don't always live up --- In fact, some people persist on living downright sideways sometimes.
But that's alright. There are other times when all that someone needed was simply a single, solitary friend who believed in them before they themselves went on to accomplish the "impossible." I've known both kinds.
But my conviction is not based on the potential existence of people that fall into the latter category. I know they're out there -- many of them. But even if they weren't, even if I had never met a one, I don't think that would alter my approach to life.
Fundamentally, I believe that my way of life is a better way of life; that it is somehow closer to the way that life is supposed to be lived. And what's more.....I like it.
I find great pleasure in watching the underdog come out on top in the end.
I find equal pleasure in watching someone's expectations be destroyed....for the better.
I love watching the light come into someone's eyes when they realize and come to see that the world--and life itself--is a bigger, better, more beautiful place.
As it happens, it is these very loves and joys that inspire me to work diligently to uncover the instances of cheating and corruption and perversion within my own sphere of influence. A love of goodness and beauty obliges one to protect both. And part of that task is sometimes peeling back a pleasant facade to expose the moral corruption that lies festering beneath. When exposed to the light of day, each of us is given a choice as to how we respond to the corruption in the institutions, organizations, and individuals we associate with; yea, even in our own lives. But while the lights remain off, the rats meander about the cellar at will, and we are not even afforded the privilege of being brought to the realization that the choice even exists and that we have been de facto making it. How can the world ever become better if we go around already telling others, and being told by them in return, that this is as good as it's gonna get; that we have reached the zenith; achieved our potential and (in so many words) now simply need to hold on to what we've got?
"Everytime I hear people say it's never gonna change,
I think about you..."
As an optimist, I want to see the world record broken yet again. I want to see Christie win the Olympic gold not just once (1992), I want to see him with back-to-back golds. In the Olympics I want to see athletes fly higher, jump farther, and run faster than they ever have before. And who's gonna tell me I can't see that?
The idea of a +.110 or +.100 false start rule just naturally grates against everything I am yearning to see as a fan.
Here we are at the World Olympics - Atlanta, GA.
The stage is set for history to be made:
These are the fastest men in the world;
Competing in the fastest sprinting event in the Olympics;
With the best shoes manufacturers can make;
On a track constructed using the very best materials available;
The single-most anticipated racing event in eight men's lives.
If ever the stage were set to see what is truly humanly possible, is this not it?
If ever the "impossible" were to have a chance of happening, would it not be now?
I'm here to see what humanity is athletically capable of. As a former athlete I am with the runner on the starting blocks. The very idea of a computer telling me that I can't go faster than "X" speed is anathema to my love of the sport. I block the computer from my mind.
Yes, I know that being able to "anticipate the start" has become something of an art among high level athletes. I know, objectively, that cheating should always be exposed for the cancer it is. I'm all in favor of substance testing for Olympic athletes. But there's a part of me that looks at what happened in 1996, and then again in the same event at the 2003 World Championships when Jon Drummond was likewise disqualified, and I understand why neither athlete left the field. They couldn't do it. For the love of the game, there is something deep within me that wants both athletes to be right and the rule done away with. In the end, I want the definition of cheating to be right even more. But still, is there truly an irreconcilable conflict between these two desires?
Current USATF Competition Rules define a false start as starting less than 100/1000th of a second, or .100 seconds, from the activation of the starting device.
Yes, I know that there is substantial grounds for concluding that the 0.100 second rule is correct in nearly every case and is therefore immanently rational. But are there no possible exceptions?
Yes, I know that sound travel from the inner ear to the brainstem and then to the auditory cortex can take up to 65 mSec. I now know that the auditory ERP's can take up to 200 mSec to then pass data on to the motor cortex and then the central nervous system, and then the athlete's muscles themselves. That's not the point. These are high-end values. I want low-end values. In fact, I don't just want any old low-end values. I want low-end values of test dummies who have competed in the Olympics! And then I want the rule to be even lower than that! :)
Computerized post-start DQ's are intended to eliminate the "what-if" factor. But I like the what-if factor! To the general public, isn't that what dreams are made of? Experts tell us that start times of better than .120 are not repeatable, and therefore not "trainable" or attributable to unnatural ability. Fine--They're not repeatable. Fine, you can't expect an athlete, even an elite athlete, to be able to do it consistently.
You can't expect an athlete, even an elite athlete, to compete in the Olympics consistently either. The Olympics are a non-repeatable event. Can we equate them with other scientifically repeatable events? The Olympic Games is the one place, if any, where miracles are supposed to be able to happen, like the US besting the Soviet Ice Hockey Team in the 1980 Winter Olympics. It couldn't happen. But it did.
Linford Christie was disqualified for having a .086 second start-time. It "wasn't possible". He had to be disqualified. Statistics say he couldn't have done it. Ergo, he didn't do it; he false-started. At the 2003 World Championships Asafa Powell had a .086 second start-time and was disqualified as well for the same reason. Tim Montgomery, however, was not disqualified when he broke the world record in September 2002 in Paris. His start time was .104 seconds. Bruny Surin, Canada's fastest sprinter, ran a start time of .101 seconds at the 1999 World Championships at the height of his career. He wasn't disqualified either.
Montgomery set the world record in the 100m at 9.78 seconds. Surin ran 9.88 seconds. Christie ran it in 9.87 in 1993 (we'll never know what he would have run at the 1996 Olympics). But the point is not who was fastest and by how much. The point is that each of these three men were, in their time, the best in the business. They didn't just meet statistical human potential, they exceeded it. That's what it means to break a world record. And they did.
In our efforts to accurately calculate human potential, one of them was disqualified. He started too fast. He cheated. Or so they say.
Looking back on the event, Christie still sees it differently: "It was not a false start. My reaction time was positive, but it was less than 0.1, which counts as a false start. We train to react like that..."
However, this topic isn't important to me simply because of a good or bad call made by an official, as important as that may be to the athlete. It's important to me because of how we go about defining the "impossible", and therefore cheating, in all areas of life. It's also important because the definition of the word "miracle" is also at stake. If we acquiesce in handing over the pursestrings to our bag of marbles to the lab tech, he will be quick to tell us that--as far as science is concerned--miracles don't happen. Sorry Tootles, no more marbles for you. You have to grow up now. You have to "get real".
And why is that term universally understood to be a negative one? Is there something about "reality" itself that obliges us to assume a negative outlook on life? Think about it. Within a Christian worldview, "getting real" obliges us to assume a positive outlook on life. Within a secular worldview, it obliges us to assume a negative one. The lab tech cannot validate an occurrence of the miraculous because science predicated on a materialistic understanding of the universe has no way to account for them. Ergo, they don't exist. And if we permit scientists to become the priests of our own modern day, and science and statistics the sole power to determine true knowledge, we end up losing far more than a single race. We lose the reason we even have for holding races to begin with. Under the promise of "more credible" knowledge, we intentionally eliminate the what-if factor. We settle for a cold and unsympathetic, secular, "rational" view of life itself. Dreams? What for? Faith? Yeah right. Hope? Don't even get me started.
Why is a race that occurred eleven years ago important to me? It's important to me because the person who tells me that Christie cheated, and Montgomery and Surin didn't, is dangerously close to falling into the same mire that David Hume climbed into two hundred and fifty years ago. He's coming awfully close to saying that "miracles can't happen because I haven't seen one (and I of course haven't seen one because every intelligent person in the world knows they can't happen)." It's a silly argument. Rather, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Regardless of whether or not miracles do in fact occur, we can be certain of one thing: David Hume was not going to be seeing one.
And therein lies the danger.
Such assertions as his get us no closer to the truth in the end. They simply push us farther away from it. What is the cost of such self-fulfilling prophecies? What is the effect simply on human behavior when a person is told, "you can't run that fast," or (like Christie) "You're too old to run any faster," or the even more common "you can't do that -- nobody can"? What is the effect on a child when she is taught that miracles can't happen? What is the effect on a boy when his parents tell him he's not Wild Bill and he certainly shouldn't act like he is in "civilized" society? What happens to Never-Never-Land?
You can't make a difference. The world is the way it is. Nothing you can do about it. It's never gonna change.
It's the perpetual nay-saying of the enchanted. Like in the story, the nay-people's role is to corrupt hope, to instill fear, to nourish apathy, to discourage responsibility, and to do anything and everything they can to quench the fire. They can be powerful foes of the Kingdom.
I have watched as some of those I love have become captivated by their Sirens song. If you haven't noticed, the no-people are recruiting today. They're always recruiting. They are making others into their own image. Will you, too, be assimilated?
...Carry your candle, run to the darkness;
Seek out the lonely, the tired and worn.
Hold out your candle for all to see it,
Take your candle, and go light your world...
If you do not, you will almost certainly find yourself in the business of blowing out candles. After all, it's the rational, logical thing to do in a world without hope...without meaning...without purpose. Unfortunately, if you are in the business of blowing out candles, you will soon discover that you and I are at war. And I love my candles dearly. And even if there were no hope...even if there were no Aslan...I fancy that I would go on about my business all the same. Because it's what I was made to do.
The question of how we strike a balance between rational judgment and a vision for something beyond a materialistic, deterministic universe is of course a bit more than can be answered in this short missive. It is an important question. In answering it I find that we walk an increasingly narrow path today; with chasms, as it were, on either side. Make no bones about it, the world can at times be a fearful place.
Today I speak to the dangers of falling off one side of the path. I speak from personal experience as one who's been pushed. It seems that Peter Pan and miracles are on the outs today. Attempting to do better than anyone has ever done before is no longer cause for celebration. Rather, it is now cause for concern, skepticism and frequent ridicule from the "more enlightened" masses. Well meaning people see nothing wrong in grabbing you by the suit tie and yanking you back to "reality"; their reality; their cold, sterile place of existance. We are modern day crabs, so diligent in our efforts to pull others down that even a shallow tub is sufficient to keep us in captivity for all time.
Some within the church today would sooner take you down with them into their own chasm, than see you continue to walk the narrow road with the attendant risk of falling off the other side. In their ignorance, they suppose their way is "safer". I've got news for you -- life is risk. Without risk, it ceases to be real life. No thank you. There's more to this life than that. I'm not here to gather around me the security and comforts of this life. Life means too much to spend it on such short-lived pursuits. Here I take my stand, atop the ridge as it were. And I happen to like the view. When you get right down to it, it's an awfully nice way of life.
Again, today I speak to the dangers of falling off one side. Perhaps at some point in the future I will speak to the dangers of falling off the other...But why would I when there are already so many other voices out there doing it for me? We've no shortage of voices telling us to "get real." How about a few telling us to take this life for all it's worth and to never settle for half a life when the whole may be won? I rather like Erin Mae's slogan this week: Enjoy Life. It comes only once.
Who do you have to be – To be here? ~ Investigator Anton
Well naturally our standard is beyond that of the common citizen.
~ Mission Director Josef
Well amongst your people you must have varying levels of excellence. Yet you still closely monitor performance?
~ Investigator Anton
We have to ensure that people are meeting their potential.
~ Mission Director Josef
...and exceeding it. ~ Investigator Anton
No one exceeds his potential. ~ Mission Director Josef
If he did? ~ Investigator Anton
It would simply mean that we did not accurately gauge his potential in the first place. ~ Mission Director Josef, dialogue in the film Gattaca (1997).
...Like watching the final heat of the Men's 100m Dash on July 27, 1996 (televised).
It was one of many events at the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, but for me it was the most memorable. And even though I have never spoken with anyone about it, or looked for the story in the newspaper the day after, or even so much as done an online search since the event itself -- I've never forgotten it.
Regardless of what others thought, for me it had been a historic moment; not unlike the day that Deep Blue first beat Garry Kasparov, a mere five months earlier. To the delight of newspaper reporters, the race to determine "The World's Fastest Man" was beset with controversy. The reigning Olympic, World, European and Commonwealth champion was disqualified for leaving the starting blocks after the gun was fired.
Wait....can they do that?
Having just turned fifteen years old, unfamiliar with the way the world sometimes works, I didn't think they could......until I watched it happen.
They DQ'd him. I couldn't believe it.
Though varsity cross country is as close as I've ever come to track and field, as a competitive swimmer I knew quite well what it meant to experience a DQ. Like runners, swimmers have their own starting blocks and compete under very similar rules. Upon the command "Step Up!" you step up to the starting block. When the starter shouts "Take Your Mark!" you move your feet and hands into starting position, the gun sounds, and YOU'RE OFF! Or is it not that simple?
Apparently not.
That summer my family and I watched as Linford Christie, of Great Britain, left the starting blocks with a perfect start only to be disqualified by Olympic officials for having a start time that was considered too fast to be humanly possible.
He refused to leave the field.
A furor ensued.
Today was the first time I have had reason to go back and revisit what happened. You see, I am considering using that event as an illustration and wanted to make sure I had the details to go along with it. The general facts come readily to mind, but I like to be specific when I'm gearing up to make an argument or teach a lesson. The topic I am looking at is how we go about measuring human potential. The flip side to the coin is how we identify cheating.
After all, when it comes to a specific case with a specific person, we have no way of effectively measuring how far "off" their actual potential they were at a particular moment in time. The only thing we can say with confidence is that in that specific instance their performance was, to whatever degree, slower than their collective previous performances would indicate was their actual potential. In the end, there's actually no affirmative reason to define a specific person's potential because the only possible consequence would be to cause someone not to reach theirs. Accordingly, the only practical benefit to having a defined "potential" would be rather negative...to assist in the discovery of cheating.
Now, while cheating itself is a negative, the discovery of cheating is a rather good thing, and we can consider it of positive benefit to both the individual and the community whenever it is correctly identified and brought to light. But sometimes that is easier said than done. How much is society willing to invest in identifying and prosecuting cheating? Is it possible to reach a point of diminishing returns, when love of the game or love of the sport would oblige us to go no further? And if we succeed in identifying such a point and determine to go no further in defining actual cheating, is it worse at that point to set the bar too high, or too low? Is a false positive worth just as much as a false negative? Whose welfare ought to be considered first, that of the athlete, that of the sport, or that of society at large? Is it possible that these things should ever come into conflict, or can we assume that what is good for the athlete is also good for the sport and therefore for society as well?
Absent the application to our modern day, here is an outline of the lesson I am putting together:
The disqualification of Linford Christie has never sat well with me. People once said that it was inhumanly possible to run faster than a 4-minute mile. Then in 1954 it happened. Roger Bannister, another Briton coincidentally enough, ran the "miracle mile." Within two years, six men has done it. Since then over 850 men have each accomplished the impossible. Now the record stands at 3 minutes, 43:13 seconds.
Where do people come up with what is "humanly possible" anyway? Does a lab tech determine it based on what he sees in a Petri dish? Or a neurologist when he reads an EEG printout? And why should his theory of the data become the be-all-end-all when it comes to human knowledge about what is or isn't possible?
Scientists theorize about what is possible by looking at statistics. They reach conclusions based on past data. This is how it was determined that no human, Roger Barrister or any other man, could ever run a sub-four minute mile. No one had done it before, therefore it seemed safe to assume that no one ever would.
And in most cases, with most people, that's exactly right. I am never going to run a sub-four minute mile. In fact, 99.9% of the world's population are never going to run a sub-four minute mile. Statistically, it's all but impossible that anyone ever would.
So what???
Who said that every aspect of the world has to be governed solely by statistics?
Why do we so often permit others to dictate reality to us based on what others have been able to do in the past and what seems statistically probable or likely? Worse, why do WE participate in it when we in turn treat others in like fashion? What is the cost that we pay in doing so?
Here is my issue with Christie's disqualification:
I look for potential in things; in people, in organizations, in communities. I would rather people lived up to my expectations, than down to them. This approach to life comes at a price. People don't always live up --- In fact, some people persist on living downright sideways sometimes.
But that's alright. There are other times when all that someone needed was simply a single, solitary friend who believed in them before they themselves went on to accomplish the "impossible." I've known both kinds.
But my conviction is not based on the potential existence of people that fall into the latter category. I know they're out there -- many of them. But even if they weren't, even if I had never met a one, I don't think that would alter my approach to life.
Fundamentally, I believe that my way of life is a better way of life; that it is somehow closer to the way that life is supposed to be lived. And what's more.....I like it.
I find great pleasure in watching the underdog come out on top in the end.
I find equal pleasure in watching someone's expectations be destroyed....for the better.
I love watching the light come into someone's eyes when they realize and come to see that the world--and life itself--is a bigger, better, more beautiful place.
As it happens, it is these very loves and joys that inspire me to work diligently to uncover the instances of cheating and corruption and perversion within my own sphere of influence. A love of goodness and beauty obliges one to protect both. And part of that task is sometimes peeling back a pleasant facade to expose the moral corruption that lies festering beneath. When exposed to the light of day, each of us is given a choice as to how we respond to the corruption in the institutions, organizations, and individuals we associate with; yea, even in our own lives. But while the lights remain off, the rats meander about the cellar at will, and we are not even afforded the privilege of being brought to the realization that the choice even exists and that we have been de facto making it. How can the world ever become better if we go around already telling others, and being told by them in return, that this is as good as it's gonna get; that we have reached the zenith; achieved our potential and (in so many words) now simply need to hold on to what we've got?
"Everytime I hear people say it's never gonna change,
I think about you..."
As an optimist, I want to see the world record broken yet again. I want to see Christie win the Olympic gold not just once (1992), I want to see him with back-to-back golds. In the Olympics I want to see athletes fly higher, jump farther, and run faster than they ever have before. And who's gonna tell me I can't see that?
The idea of a +.110 or +.100 false start rule just naturally grates against everything I am yearning to see as a fan.
Here we are at the World Olympics - Atlanta, GA.
The stage is set for history to be made:
These are the fastest men in the world;
Competing in the fastest sprinting event in the Olympics;
With the best shoes manufacturers can make;
On a track constructed using the very best materials available;
The single-most anticipated racing event in eight men's lives.
If ever the stage were set to see what is truly humanly possible, is this not it?
If ever the "impossible" were to have a chance of happening, would it not be now?
I'm here to see what humanity is athletically capable of. As a former athlete I am with the runner on the starting blocks. The very idea of a computer telling me that I can't go faster than "X" speed is anathema to my love of the sport. I block the computer from my mind.
Yes, I know that being able to "anticipate the start" has become something of an art among high level athletes. I know, objectively, that cheating should always be exposed for the cancer it is. I'm all in favor of substance testing for Olympic athletes. But there's a part of me that looks at what happened in 1996, and then again in the same event at the 2003 World Championships when Jon Drummond was likewise disqualified, and I understand why neither athlete left the field. They couldn't do it. For the love of the game, there is something deep within me that wants both athletes to be right and the rule done away with. In the end, I want the definition of cheating to be right even more. But still, is there truly an irreconcilable conflict between these two desires?
Current USATF Competition Rules define a false start as starting less than 100/1000th of a second, or .100 seconds, from the activation of the starting device.
Yes, I know that there is substantial grounds for concluding that the 0.100 second rule is correct in nearly every case and is therefore immanently rational. But are there no possible exceptions?
Yes, I know that sound travel from the inner ear to the brainstem and then to the auditory cortex can take up to 65 mSec. I now know that the auditory ERP's can take up to 200 mSec to then pass data on to the motor cortex and then the central nervous system, and then the athlete's muscles themselves. That's not the point. These are high-end values. I want low-end values. In fact, I don't just want any old low-end values. I want low-end values of test dummies who have competed in the Olympics! And then I want the rule to be even lower than that! :)
Computerized post-start DQ's are intended to eliminate the "what-if" factor. But I like the what-if factor! To the general public, isn't that what dreams are made of? Experts tell us that start times of better than .120 are not repeatable, and therefore not "trainable" or attributable to unnatural ability. Fine--They're not repeatable. Fine, you can't expect an athlete, even an elite athlete, to be able to do it consistently.
You can't expect an athlete, even an elite athlete, to compete in the Olympics consistently either. The Olympics are a non-repeatable event. Can we equate them with other scientifically repeatable events? The Olympic Games is the one place, if any, where miracles are supposed to be able to happen, like the US besting the Soviet Ice Hockey Team in the 1980 Winter Olympics. It couldn't happen. But it did.
Linford Christie was disqualified for having a .086 second start-time. It "wasn't possible". He had to be disqualified. Statistics say he couldn't have done it. Ergo, he didn't do it; he false-started. At the 2003 World Championships Asafa Powell had a .086 second start-time and was disqualified as well for the same reason. Tim Montgomery, however, was not disqualified when he broke the world record in September 2002 in Paris. His start time was .104 seconds. Bruny Surin, Canada's fastest sprinter, ran a start time of .101 seconds at the 1999 World Championships at the height of his career. He wasn't disqualified either.
Montgomery set the world record in the 100m at 9.78 seconds. Surin ran 9.88 seconds. Christie ran it in 9.87 in 1993 (we'll never know what he would have run at the 1996 Olympics). But the point is not who was fastest and by how much. The point is that each of these three men were, in their time, the best in the business. They didn't just meet statistical human potential, they exceeded it. That's what it means to break a world record. And they did.
In our efforts to accurately calculate human potential, one of them was disqualified. He started too fast. He cheated. Or so they say.
Looking back on the event, Christie still sees it differently: "It was not a false start. My reaction time was positive, but it was less than 0.1, which counts as a false start. We train to react like that..."
However, this topic isn't important to me simply because of a good or bad call made by an official, as important as that may be to the athlete. It's important to me because of how we go about defining the "impossible", and therefore cheating, in all areas of life. It's also important because the definition of the word "miracle" is also at stake. If we acquiesce in handing over the pursestrings to our bag of marbles to the lab tech, he will be quick to tell us that--as far as science is concerned--miracles don't happen. Sorry Tootles, no more marbles for you. You have to grow up now. You have to "get real".
And why is that term universally understood to be a negative one? Is there something about "reality" itself that obliges us to assume a negative outlook on life? Think about it. Within a Christian worldview, "getting real" obliges us to assume a positive outlook on life. Within a secular worldview, it obliges us to assume a negative one. The lab tech cannot validate an occurrence of the miraculous because science predicated on a materialistic understanding of the universe has no way to account for them. Ergo, they don't exist. And if we permit scientists to become the priests of our own modern day, and science and statistics the sole power to determine true knowledge, we end up losing far more than a single race. We lose the reason we even have for holding races to begin with. Under the promise of "more credible" knowledge, we intentionally eliminate the what-if factor. We settle for a cold and unsympathetic, secular, "rational" view of life itself. Dreams? What for? Faith? Yeah right. Hope? Don't even get me started.
Why is a race that occurred eleven years ago important to me? It's important to me because the person who tells me that Christie cheated, and Montgomery and Surin didn't, is dangerously close to falling into the same mire that David Hume climbed into two hundred and fifty years ago. He's coming awfully close to saying that "miracles can't happen because I haven't seen one (and I of course haven't seen one because every intelligent person in the world knows they can't happen)." It's a silly argument. Rather, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Regardless of whether or not miracles do in fact occur, we can be certain of one thing: David Hume was not going to be seeing one.
And therein lies the danger.
Such assertions as his get us no closer to the truth in the end. They simply push us farther away from it. What is the cost of such self-fulfilling prophecies? What is the effect simply on human behavior when a person is told, "you can't run that fast," or (like Christie) "You're too old to run any faster," or the even more common "you can't do that -- nobody can"? What is the effect on a child when she is taught that miracles can't happen? What is the effect on a boy when his parents tell him he's not Wild Bill and he certainly shouldn't act like he is in "civilized" society? What happens to Never-Never-Land?
You can't make a difference. The world is the way it is. Nothing you can do about it. It's never gonna change.
It's the perpetual nay-saying of the enchanted. Like in the story, the nay-people's role is to corrupt hope, to instill fear, to nourish apathy, to discourage responsibility, and to do anything and everything they can to quench the fire. They can be powerful foes of the Kingdom.
I have watched as some of those I love have become captivated by their Sirens song. If you haven't noticed, the no-people are recruiting today. They're always recruiting. They are making others into their own image. Will you, too, be assimilated?
...Carry your candle, run to the darkness;
Seek out the lonely, the tired and worn.
Hold out your candle for all to see it,
Take your candle, and go light your world...
If you do not, you will almost certainly find yourself in the business of blowing out candles. After all, it's the rational, logical thing to do in a world without hope...without meaning...without purpose. Unfortunately, if you are in the business of blowing out candles, you will soon discover that you and I are at war. And I love my candles dearly. And even if there were no hope...even if there were no Aslan...I fancy that I would go on about my business all the same. Because it's what I was made to do.
The question of how we strike a balance between rational judgment and a vision for something beyond a materialistic, deterministic universe is of course a bit more than can be answered in this short missive. It is an important question. In answering it I find that we walk an increasingly narrow path today; with chasms, as it were, on either side. Make no bones about it, the world can at times be a fearful place.
Today I speak to the dangers of falling off one side of the path. I speak from personal experience as one who's been pushed. It seems that Peter Pan and miracles are on the outs today. Attempting to do better than anyone has ever done before is no longer cause for celebration. Rather, it is now cause for concern, skepticism and frequent ridicule from the "more enlightened" masses. Well meaning people see nothing wrong in grabbing you by the suit tie and yanking you back to "reality"; their reality; their cold, sterile place of existance. We are modern day crabs, so diligent in our efforts to pull others down that even a shallow tub is sufficient to keep us in captivity for all time.
Some within the church today would sooner take you down with them into their own chasm, than see you continue to walk the narrow road with the attendant risk of falling off the other side. In their ignorance, they suppose their way is "safer". I've got news for you -- life is risk. Without risk, it ceases to be real life. No thank you. There's more to this life than that. I'm not here to gather around me the security and comforts of this life. Life means too much to spend it on such short-lived pursuits. Here I take my stand, atop the ridge as it were. And I happen to like the view. When you get right down to it, it's an awfully nice way of life.
Again, today I speak to the dangers of falling off one side. Perhaps at some point in the future I will speak to the dangers of falling off the other...But why would I when there are already so many other voices out there doing it for me? We've no shortage of voices telling us to "get real." How about a few telling us to take this life for all it's worth and to never settle for half a life when the whole may be won? I rather like Erin Mae's slogan this week: Enjoy Life. It comes only once.
Who do you have to be – To be here? ~ Investigator Anton
Well naturally our standard is beyond that of the common citizen.
~ Mission Director Josef
Well amongst your people you must have varying levels of excellence. Yet you still closely monitor performance?
~ Investigator Anton
We have to ensure that people are meeting their potential.
~ Mission Director Josef
...and exceeding it. ~ Investigator Anton
No one exceeds his potential. ~ Mission Director Josef
If he did? ~ Investigator Anton
It would simply mean that we did not accurately gauge his potential in the first place. ~ Mission Director Josef, dialogue in the film Gattaca (1997).
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Crisis & Opportunity
"...it is necessary to attack the prevailing patterns of organized living in the community. The first step in community organization is community disorganization. The disruption of the present organization is the first step toward community organization. Present arrangements must be disorganized if they are to be displaced by new patterns that provide the opportunities and means for citizen participation. All change means disorganization of the old and organization of the new." [emphasis in the original]*
This is the appropriate context in which Rahm Emanuel's now infamous comment should be read: "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste...This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before."**
*Saul D. Alinsky, "Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals", Vintage Press (1989), 116.
**Gerald F. Seib, "In Crisis, Opportunity for Barack Obama", Wall Street Journal -- November 21, 2008.
This is the appropriate context in which Rahm Emanuel's now infamous comment should be read: "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste...This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before."**
*Saul D. Alinsky, "Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals", Vintage Press (1989), 116.
**Gerald F. Seib, "In Crisis, Opportunity for Barack Obama", Wall Street Journal -- November 21, 2008.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
