Carriers

Carriers stars Chris Pine and Piper Perabo as two of a group of four twenty somethings traveling back roads in post horrible plague America.  But this is not your typical post plague movie.  That is, there are no zombies.  Not one, despite what the trailer would have you believe.  I remember reading about the movie on screenrant before it came out and they remarked on how the trailer didn't seem very sure if it was a standard zombie flick or character driven piece about what people do in survival situations.  The worry was that the movie would be just as unsure of its direction.  I can tell you this, movie is very sure of its direction.  The studio however seemed unsure of how they wanted to sell it.  So unsure in fact that even though it was done first, it didn't come out until after the Pine starring Star Trek proved to be a resounding success.
Back to the movie.  Like I said, no zombies, so this is a look at how four people deal with survival after most of the country is dead.  There aren't really any big surprises in the movie.  The characters basically look out for themselves and anyone else is just a potential source of gas and other supplies.  What is new in this movie is that there is no big humanizing moment, in fact they get more ruthless as the movie progresses.  They start out by stranding a guy and is infected daughter, after stealing their truck.  The main character (Pine) then abandons his girlfriend (Perabo) in the middle of nowhere after she gets infected (which happened when she was trying to help the little girl.  After that, Pine's character just flat out kills two completely innocent women to stea their gas.  From there, Pine is infected and the other couple, that is, his brother and another girl plan on stranding him.  But things get complicated and Pine gets killed by his little brother.
This leads to another thing I liked about the movie.  It shows how one's decisions establish certain dispositions, or more bluntly, how being a little bastard make it easier to become a bigger bastard down the road.  Our decisions matter and can have major consequences for ourselves and others down the road.  There is also a narration at the end where the little brother realizes that while he have survived, he knows that now he will always be alone, never able to trust or love another person.
The movie also got me thinking about the whole survival movie genre in general.  Normally, the people in them are ruthless and if not ready to just screw over every one they find at least aren't exactly eager to help.  Why is that?  Well, I guess I know why.  But why not a movie where the main characters are motivated by a desire help others?  Why not have a zompocalypse where people are trying to recruit fellow survivors and try to cure the virus or what that is the cause of it?  Basically, what if the primary group of survivors were devout Christians?  You could still have all the typical conversation about what should be done with the infected person, the tension between survival and keeping our humanity, etc.  The only difference would be that the nice guy wins the argrument.    The only movie I can think of like that, even a little is I am Legend where Smith's character is rescued from certain death by Alice Braga's character and he in turn sacrifices himself so that she can survive with the cure that he developed.  And then she makes it to a settlement which features a Church in the center.  But this is the very end of the movie and is very different than the book it is based on.
Anyway, just some thoughts.

Why do we ignore the natural law?

Latest entry in the Natural Law series.  Have at.  More movie reviews coming next week, including Carriers and maybe the made for TV over a decade ago Joan of Arc (which is way better than that piece of crap The Messenger).

Natural Law – Why don't we follow it?

So far, we have seen that natural law can be described as the set of principles that guide us to the best possible natural life for man. We have also seen that there is no shortage of disagreement about its content and even whether or not is exists. However, we have also seen that the use of reason and observation of the results of different modes of life show us that natural law does exists and that we can also determine much of its content, even as applied to individual lives and circumstances.

The question naturally arises, if we can know so much of natural law from reason alone and if it truly does la the best natural road map for our lies, why do so many people deny or ignore it?

Digression

Before delving into this question I think that some clarification is in order. I have emphasized that natural law provides the best natural road map for life for a reason. Natural law is just that, natural. It consists of what we can know about the good life based on what we can see, experience and determine through our every day lives and the use of our reason. It points toward and is compatible with, but does not include what we learn about the life of holiness through revelation. Thus, natural law points us toward the live of natural virtue but is does not consist of all that is necessary for the best possible life, that is a life lived in service to and imitation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Much could be and needs to be said about the life of grace but that is beyond the scope of this series, at least so far. Going forward, we will touch on matters of revelation but even then the focus will be on its relationship to the natural law, rather than the specific issues of revelation itself.

The Difference of Man

We return to the question, “Why do we ignore the natural law?” Two significant reasons for this have already been touched on in previous articles. These are our reason and free will. It is these two capacities, unique to man that on one hand allow us to contemplate what the natural law is and on other what make it possible for us to ignore it. Why the paradox?

Concerning reason, we are given different capacities for recognizing and applying universal principles. That is, some men are simply wiser than others. Some, such as St. Thomas Aquinas and Blessed Mother Teresa are simply better able to understand and apply the natural law better than you or I. And even those two giants did so in very different ways. The causes of this variable capacity for reason are many. One is plain old genetics, whereas others include how we were raised, what books we read, our local environment and the customs of the community we grew up in. All of these and no doubt many others combine to form our intellects and personalities, resulting in different levels of ability to apply our natural reason.

Our free will of course allows us the ability to reject or accept the conclusions of our reason. The animals of course do not have this ability and simply follow the course that nature has laid out for them. We however, can ask the big questions and accept or reject the answers to those questions. Still, is this really an explanation? Granted that free will allows us to reject the good, why on earth would we?

This brings us to the single biggest reason that we ignore the natural law, sin. Or more specifically, original sin.

Now, I know I just said that these articles would not, as a rule, concern themselves with revelation. So, what am I doing dragging in the concept of original sin? First, it really is the only explanation for the utter insanity that seems to infect most of us. As Chesterton said, it is the most self-evident of all Christian dogma.

Second, it is not only a Christian dogma. Most, if not all religions of the world have some story of a fall, a story that attempts to explain why it is that man seems to be less than he should or could be. In a way, this is true even of the modern secularist who follows the lead of Rousseau and other philosophers of the Enlightenment in believing that man's first sin was to form laws and institutions to regulate property and behavior. Certainly, this differs in many ways from the Fall related in Genesis but on one essential point there is agreement, man is broken. I argue then that because is this brokenness is almost universally recognized, it is itself part of the natural law.

It is this essential brokenness that has corrupted our wills such that we are the only members of the material world that rejects the natural law. Our reason is often clouded by emotions or self-interest. Or our pride simply causes us to reject anything that would seem to reduce our station. This in particular is the disease of modern man. Enamored of our own achievements, modern man extremely resistant to anything that suggests that there is an authority or standard of behavior above our outside of our own wills. And thanks to free will, we can reject such standards even when they are obvious and we know exactly what we are doing. The abortionist, for example knows full well that the unborn baby he kills is alive and that he is killing that child. He cannot help but know that it is wrong. Yet, in his pride, he chooses to ignore his conscience. In fact, there has been a growing number of pro-abortion advocates admitting that they do know the child is alive, some are even willing to recognize the child's person-hood. While this is chilling enough, their argument for justifying the killing is even more so as it amounts to little more than stating that a child doesn't fit into their plans.

Such all-encompassing pride is not that only result of broken nature. The intellect of the woman having the abortion may be darkened and her will stunted by fear, ignorance and a number of previous bad decisions in her life. Such things can combine in such a way that person becomes virtually blind to the natural law.

For another example, think of child soldiers in the developing world. From an early age, they are surrounded by violence and are instructed in how to kill almost as soon as they are strong enough to hold a weapon. This creates an environment in which it would become almost impossible to recognize the most basic of principles.

Such situations give rise to question of whether or not people can be rendered completely incapable of following the natural law. The answer, according St. Thomas Aquinas is “not quite.” Essentially, our ability to recognize and apply to the natural law to various circumstances can be blotted out but the law itself remains. For example, the same child soldier may be utterly merciless to those he is told are his enemies and completely selfless in the care and protection of his tribe. Or think of the well known example of Hitler who, in addition to being a monster was also considered to be a loving father. Or, somewhat more pointedly there is the case of the moral relativist who suddenly cries out for justice when his car is stolen. While he chooses to ignore the natural law in every day life, he cannot help but appeal to its universal principles when their violation affect himself.

Next time, we'll begin to explore another guide to help us discern the natural law, the Ten Commandments.

To the editor

Here's what I sent to the local newspaper and the "Fair" Housing people.  Well, I had shorten it for the paper  but here it is.


I recently read a pair of articles concerning the case of a woman that the Fair Housing Center of Michigan is taking action against for advertising a desire for a Christian roommate. I must confess that I find this appalling. It does not seem to me that it is anyone's business who she chooses to live with. This applies even if she were seeking a person of a particular race as a roommate, which Ms. Haynes believes to be an analogous situation. While such an advertisement would likely demonstrate racism, it is still a person's right to choose who they spend their time with, not to mention live with. This is true because despite Ms. Haynes' contention, this woman is not in the business of renting. She is simply seeking another person to share her living space for the purpose of easing the burden of the rent that some other party is charging. Allowing someone into your home is far different from allowing someone into your place of business. If such were the case and the advertisement were for Christian “renters” instead of for a “roommate”, then this complaint would be valid. As it stands, this is not even an issue of freedom of expression but of common decency and privacy.

I also think that there is a need to clarify why seeking a roommate of a particular religion is not bigotry as it would be if the issue were concerning race. A religion, whether it be Christianity, Islam, Hinduism or any other religion contains certain requirements for behavior. Should a Muslim find himself with a pagan roommate he (and likely the pagan) would find this to be a very unpleasant arrangement, filled with arguments over theology, TV, clothing, relationships, what food should be eaten, etc. Individual races are an accident of pigmentation and evolutionary developments suited to particular climates and thus contain no such mutually exclusive moral and religious codes. These codes can and often do coexist peacefully in the public square but doing so in the home is a very different matter indeed. Taking this into consideration, the woman the Fair Housing Center is taking action against is simply seeking a roommate with whom she can live peacefully.

Concerning the issue of whether or not it is okay to seek a roommate based on specific criteria but not to advertise for it, how else shall this be done? I can readily imagine at least two situations in which advertising is the best solution. Perhaps this woman has many friends but they are mostly married, or live far away? Perhaps she is new to the area and has few friends among whom she could seek a roommate. In either case, advertising for a specific roommate is the quickest and most logical solution.

I sincerely hope that after reflecting on this matter, they retract their action and allow this woman to go back to her life.

Sincerely,

Eric Postma

ejpostma2@gmail.com

You will be punished...

...for the slightest hint that .you are not celebrating and embracing every possible form of diversity.  Follow the link and prepare to be utterly astounded.
The crazy thing is that this has happened in my home area of West Michigan.  I grew up practically next door to where this is going on and frankly, I didn't think there were enough completely unreasonable people around here for something like this nonsense to happen.  Had a Christian been forbidden to advertise (at a church!) for a Christian roommate in say, the Soviet of Washington or the Socialist Republic of Canada I would not be shocked.  Still upset, but not shocked.  Anyway, check it out and be wowed.  I'm going to send a little letter to the Grand Rapids Press and to the "Fair" Housing Center and be sure to post it here with any response that I get.  Oh, and just to be sure that credit is given where and when it is due, the Alliance Defense Fund is defending the woman seeking the roommate.

Eli and Moses

I was thinking about The Book of Eli again the other day and realized an interesting parallel.  In the movie, Eli (as discussed in the review below) went through a period in which he was really following God's will, concerned only with his task but not the people around him.  It is possible that this is the reason that Eli doesn't actually deliver the Bible he was carrying but instead has to dictate it and then apparently dies right after he is finished.  In a similar way, Moses angers God in the water from the rock episode (scholars debate about exactly how Moses angered God; for myself, I subscribe to the idea that Moses was putting the focus on himself rather than on God), and as a result he never gets to enter the Promised Land, dies as he looks upon it.  Eli, like Moses accomplishes the primary task they were given but neither of them get to witness the fruits of their labors.  It is one final lesson in humility and trust in the Lord. 
It is worth noting one other similarity, both are lawgivers.  Moses transmitted the Ten Commandments and the Torah, whereas Eli carried and transmitted both the Old Law and the New Law.   Both also were required to go on long arduous journeys as well as overcoming certain handicaps (stuttering for Moses and blindness for Eli).  I could possibly go on, but it is already too darn late.

The Book of Eli

So, I watched The Book of Eli the other night. I had been interested when it was in theaters but given family life and all, I wasn't going to push going to see it. That said, the more I read about it, the more I wanted to see it. And finally, I have.
The basic plot is simple enough, thirty years after a nuclear war (it's never said explicitly but...duh), Eli (Denzel Washington) is heading west, carrying a book, a book that Carnegie (Gary Oldman) has been looking for for quite a while. Naturally enough, they run into each other. Since the movie has been out a while now and it doesn't waste much time revealing it, the book is in fact the Bible, perhaps the last one.
This of course is where it gets interesting. It is the last Bible because people quite consciously sought them out after the war and destroyed them, apparently blaming Christianity for the war. There isn't any detail given beyond that as to how or why the war started. In any case, it is thirty years later and most of the population can't read, making them ripe for manipulation by the evil Carnegie. See, Carnegie is old enough to remember the power the Bible has to inspire and motivate people for good or ill. Carnegie figures that if he can get a hold of one, he can spoon feed the populace whatever he wants from it and so bend them to his will more completely than he will ever be able to accomplish through force alone. Eli is also aware of this power and thus seeks to protect on his journey from people like Carnegie. Thus bullets fly and people fall, a lot.
One of the best things about the movie is that Eli is not perfect. More importantly, his imperfection is not celebrated and in fact he realizes his faults by the end of the movie. Essentially, he is so focused on his specific task of bringing the Bible cross-country (and reading it every night) that he has forgotten to apply what he reads, which he sums up towards the end of the movie as "do unto others." This is particularly relevant as at the beginning he ignores a woman being gang-raped and later on lies to a girl (Solara played by Mila Kunis) to prevent her from following him. It is, in fact his interaction with Solara that leads him to re-evaluate his actions and they way he had been living his life. I think that moral of this part of the story is that even divinely appointed soldiers on a mission from God (literally in this case) are not necessarily perfect and require redemption just like the rest of us.
Eli does actually share his faith during the movie, inviting Solara to a before meal prayer which completely baffles her, especially since she was sent in to seduce him. The fact that he doesn't take advantage of her and also shares his food visibly confused her. Eli certainly is not your typical post-apocalypitc survivor.
My only real complaint with the movie concerns the end. Eli loses the Bible along the way but does eventually reach his destination, a survivor colongy on Alcatraz which is dedicated to preserving the cultural heritage of man and eventually diseminating it through world again. Sort of like the monastaries during the "Dark Ages." The loss is only partial though as after thirty years of reading the Bible every day, he has it memorized and it is quickly transcribed and becomes the first book off their newly operational printing press (a nice homage to Guttenberg, I thought). From there, it is placed on a shelf. Between the Talmud and the Koran. In effect, after Eli receives his task in a kind of vision, is clearly given a supernatural ability to fight and is in fact protected from death until his task is complete, the Bible is treated just like any piece of literature. Sure it is an important piece of our cultural heritage but the entire movie treats it as much more than that, as something that contains answers to our hearts' deepest longings that reveals the hidden purpose of our lives. More to the point, given the aforementioned vision, fighting, etc. it seems to treat the Bible and Christianity as the truth. And then, it's just put on the shelf? A much better ending would have been to have a minister of some sort giving a speech about how long they have waited for this day and then begin reading, probably the parable of the Good Samaratin.
Still, all in all a good movie, with good acting, good action and an overall positive portrayal of faith without being afraid to look at the way people abuse it or to acknowledge the faults of the faithful.