AN UNLIKELY OSCAR VOTER

Posted on February 14, 2011 by stanwiedeman

When the votes are counted for the Oscars this year, one vote will come from a most unlikely source. Mother Dolores resides at the Abbey of Regina Loudis in Bethlehem, Connecticut. She was reinstated with voting rights as a member of the Motion Picture Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1990, allowing her to vote for the Academy awards each year.

Dolores Hart entered the Abbey in 1963, as soon as she completed her last autograph-signing session. For the previous seven years, Hart was an actress with Paramount and MGM, starring in ten movies, including Come Fly With Me, Where the Boys Are and Francis of Assisi. In her first major movie, Loving You, at the age of 18, she played the love interest of another new face to the filming set, Elvis Presley. Hart carries the distinction of being one of the first women to kiss Elvis on screen.

Hart first visited the abbey while she was starring in the Broadway production, The Pleasure of His Company (for which she received a Tony nomination). The grueling schedule was exhausting her. Her roommate suggested she visit the Abbey for a quiet day off. Her visits became more frequent until she talked to Mother Placid, the Mother Superior of the abbey. Asking if she should become a nun, Mother Placid replied, “No, you go back and do your Hollywood thing, because you are too young.” Relieved, Hart returned to Hollywood in 1960.

As her star ascended in Hollywood, the abbey continued to draw her heart and visits. The tension reached its climax when she and her fiancé, Don Robinson, left their engagement party. Robinson asked Hart about her mental absence, but she denied it. He told her that she needed to return to the abbey and get her heart straightened out. Hart booked a flight that night. While walking in the quiet hush of the snow-covered woods, she came to a stone altar. There she asked, “Could this really be my calling?”

When she talked to the Mother Abbess this time, she agreed to allow the young woman to enter as a postulate, only she would have to wait for six months. She returned to L.A. to tell her fiancé that she had a clear calling. Although deeply hurt, Robinson supported her decision fully.

Convents carry the reputation of seclusion and isolation, but Hart corrects that judgment. “People think that it is a life that is shut off, or you’re gone from the world, but it’s exactly opposite. You are more embedded into the world. It’s a way of love that includes everyone that you’ve ever loved.”

When the actress, Patricia Neal, endured a painful divorce, she ended up at the abbey for refuge. Neal was determined to write a scathing expose about her ex-husband, but the Mother Abbess convinced her to stay for a while and calm down. She told Neal that such a book would serve no purpose to anyone and introduced her to Mother Dolores, who spent the next five years helping Neal write her autobiography. The impact of their friendship was profound.

Mother Dolores had retained her membership in the Academy, which she earned after her part in Where the Boys Are, but she relinquished voting rights when she entered the Abbey. In 1990 she decided to resume her status as a voting member, requiring her to view the nominees in each of the categories. She watches DVD’s on a very small television in her basement office.

Many wonder about the moral sensitivity of a nun who watches R-rated movies, but Mother Dolores reveals a redemptive perspective. “Movies reflect the time. It’s not so much that movies are ugly, it’s the ugliness of the time that is reflected. To me that indicates what we have to pray for and pray about …. What offends me is, Is the movie itself going to leave people without hope? You have to help them know that there is a way through their grief and their pain.”

The story of Dolores Hart, now 72, percolates with transformation. With a successful career in film shifting into third gear, she heard the call of God. On the threshold of marriage and a family, she responded in obedience to that call. She cast aside all the success and wealth that the world was already giving her and followed God’s calling on her life. She has never regretted it.

In her life of love, she has introduced transformation to many lives around her. Even voting as an Academy member serves as a path to transformation, directing her prayer life. Many who visit the abbey bring the pain and suffering portrayed in movies. Watching those movies prayerfully has prepared her to offer the hope, forgiveness and love of a greater story.

I must confess my narrow and sometimes critical view of the monastic life. I joined the ranks of those who considered them secluded followers of Christ, who privatized their faith to the exclusion of mission. The story of Dolores Hart has corrected me. May I have the same legacy for bringing the gospel of transformation into my community as Mother Dolores has.

(A fuller article can be found in the “Special Oscar Guide 2011” issue of Entertainment Weekly)

Posted in Christians Engaging Culture, Transformed Lives | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

MARRIAGE

Posted on February 7, 2011 by stanwiedeman

“It’s an important moment in the land of Lincoln. We believe in civil rights and we believe in civil unions.” These words punctuated Illinois Governor Quinn’s signature on the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act on Monday, January 31.

Illinois becomes the sixth state to legalize civil union or a form of domestic partnership. Five other states protect same-sex marriage. The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Greg Harris, who is openly gay, indicated “there was still more work to do,” referring to passage of a gay marriage bill that he has repeatedly introduced along side of his civil union bill. Most homosexuals consider marriage essential to achieving consummate equality with heterosexuals.

The momentum compels the Christian community to devote itself to defining marriage from a clear biblical and theological perspective. It does not guarantee that such a definition will persuade the government to deter the encroachment upon this sacred ground, but, hopefully, it will offer an intellectual and theological integrity in the debate.

This definition must begin in the creation account. God created both the man and the woman in his image, “So God created man in his own image … male and female he created them” (Gen. 1:27). In this verse, “man” bears the collective sense, which includes both genders, male and female. Thus, God’s image does not appear in the characteristics of one gender alone.

After creating the man, God declared that this creature was incomplete because he was created for mutual relations, “It is not good that the man should be alone” (Gen. 2:18). God fashioned the woman for a correlative union with the man. Genesis 2:24 describes this union, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” We call this one-flesh union marriage.

It is significant that God chose to meet man’s relational need with a woman, not another man. The man and woman share a multitude of characteristics in common, but they also bear some very significant dissimilarities, including both physiological and psychological distinctions. Because God created the man and woman for union, the distinctions are complementary and establish an interdependence between the genders. This interdependence is most fully realized in the one-flesh union.

Theologians believe that “one flesh” refers to something more than the sexual union that consummates marriage. Two unique creatures unite together into a single entity, transcending the physical world. This union includes the intellectual, psychological, emotional, spiritual and physical components of the man and the woman. The union involves a process of two whole individuals coalescing into a unity.

Although the one-flesh union transcends the physical, it necessarily includes the union of the male and female bodies. God created each gender with unique bodily features that correspond to the features of the opposite gender. The male and female bodies fit together in natural congruity. When two members of the same gender attempt to unite physically, the union is obviously incongruous and unnatural. Paul uses this description when he describes dishonorable passions in Romans 1:26-27. “For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.”

Paul refers to the bodily union as a part of the one-flesh relationship when he argues against the practice of copulating with prostitutes. Temple prostitution abounded in first-century Corinthian society. Recent converts to Christ in Corinth continued this practice and Paul rebuked them in a letter. He points out, “Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, ‘The two will become one flesh.’” (1 Corinthians 6:16) Sexual intercourse constitutes one component of the one-flesh union, but it does not qualify as marriage because the other two components of Genesis 2:24 are missing, leaving the parents and holding fast to the spouse.

For the discussion of marriage, the bodily union of two people is necessary and that union should follow the natural order. In the created order, marriage is distinguished by a relationship between two people who have committed themselves to the process of becoming one flesh. The unique features of the male and female bodies provide a natural sexual union that is violated when two members of the same gender engage in sexuality.

Governments have the freedom to define marriage any way they choose. One may choose to exclude the sexual union from its definition, while another may choose to limit its definition to the sexual union entirely. They may formulate their definitions using dozens of factors and motives.

But the Church must define marriage from a theological understanding of what the Bible has revealed. Consequently, the Church must require the definition to conform to the created order, the intended purpose of God in his original creation. Anything that compromises this natural order could not be called marriage. The nature of same-sex unions clearly violates this natural, created order.

 

Posted in Christians Engaging Culture, Homosexuality, Marriage, Sexuality | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

FAITH OF OUR CHILDREN

Posted on February 1, 2011 by stanwiedeman

“I think one of the things that is really tricky, particularly to convey to parents and the congregations as well, is that if you are trying to form your kids to be Christians, it’s not going to fit them very well for American culture. And actually, it’s probably going to deform them for some of the things that we value as a society.” (Kenda Creasy Dean in an interview with Ken Myers for Mars Hill Audio Journal)

The soccer career of one of my daughters came to its anticipated conclusion in November. She has played organized soccer since she was five, first for Boys and Girls Club, with a local club team, for four years in high school, two years art Community college and finally two years for a DIII college. But now it’s over.

As parents, we invested hundreds of hours driving to and from practice and games, and sitting through sun and snow to watch her. We have invested thousands of dollars on shoes, shin guards, uniforms, sweats, bags, balls, tournament fees, travel to tournaments and probably numerous hidden costs. But it’s all over.

We intended to provide her with opportunities to maintain good health, grow through team competition experiences, and possibly excel to a level where she would earn scholarship money for college. We achieved the first two goals and partially the third goal. She did receive book vouchers at the community college. Unfortunately, DIII schools cannot give scholarship money.

In some ways, we blended right in with American society. Visions of athletic glory dance in the minds of millions of American children – and their parents. The amount of money spent in one year on youth sports would probably rebuild all the houses destroyed by the earthquake in Haiti, plus feed the entire population for a year. (My guess is informed by my income as a high school volleyball official – about $9,000 last year.) Americans border on an addiction with sports.

In other ways, we avoided the excesses that ensnare many families. We scrupulously refused to invest more money on elite camps, elite club teams and coaches. (Actually, we didn’t have the money.) We tried to avoid fanaticism (although my behavior at some games was not exemplary). We attempted to keep the perspective that it is, in the final analysis, only a game.

Now that it is over, I wonder how well we really shaped my daughter’s heart to serve Christ and live for his kingdom through that investment. Limiting her soccer to only recreational play may have been more difficult for me than running the Chicago Marathon without training. Restricting her from organized sports would have surely deformed her for the American culture. But would it have better formed her for the kingdom of God? It is difficult to evaluate.

Kenda Creasy Dean worked with Christian Smith on the research project that resulted in Smith’s book, Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers. As a follow-up, Dean has written Almost Christian: What the Faith of Our Teenagers is Telling the American Church. She concludes that the faith of America’s teens is “not durable enough to survive long after they graduate from high school. One more thing: we’re responsible.”

Smith discovered in his research that teens mostly mimic the religious commitments of their parents. Although most teens could speak the language, Smith found that their faith lacked depth as well as breadth. It resembled the same search for a therapeutic spirituality that characterizes many American adults. We want to feel good about ourselves and our lives, and we want it now.

Dean identifies two dominant American values that are eviscerating the spiritual lives of our teens: consumerism and individualism. This dynamic ism-duo promises an immediate fix to all your problems on your own terms, but they flagrantly resist the call of Jesus to a discipleship of self-sacrifice and self-denial.

“If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself …” (Luke 9:23). In a culture obsessed with the self, we struggle to teach our children self-denial for the sake of following Jesus. “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:26). How do we model for our children that our love for Jesus exceeds even our love for them?

Many of the values of Jesus’ kingdom oppose the values of American culture. Raising children who do not fit in defies our parental instincts – and maybe our own insecurities. Yet, this is what Jesus instructs us to do. Are we raising disciples of Jesus or disciples of American success?

For the record: My daughter chose a DIII college rather than seek a scholarship at another school, because the college offered a degree in her field of interest. She is training to work in the construction field so that she can serve with a non-profit organization that builds houses for the poor and underprivileged. Somewhere along the way, she became a passionate disciple of Jesus.

Posted in Christians Engaging Culture, Parenting, Spiritual Formation, Teens | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

WORDS

Posted on January 25, 2011 by stanwiedeman

Politicians and media commentators wasted no time in laying blame at the feet of their counterparts on the other side of the aisle. Former MSNBC commentator, Keith Olbermann, demanded that Sarah Palin repudiate her contribution to the tragic shooting in Tucson that left six dead and fourteen wounded, even if her part in “amplifying violence and violent imagery in politics” was only “tangential.” If she does not, “she must be removed from politics.” His countenance and tone suggested the same venom that he condemns.

One legislator drafted a bill that would ban symbols that nourish violence. This form of censorship seems remarkable when the same side calling for it has defended Hollywood when murderers admitted to copying their crimes from a movie or TV show. It also seems odd that few people are suggesting to remove “Mein Kampf” or “The Communist Manifesto” from circulation, when the shooter in Tucson, Jared Loughner, has listed these political tracts among his favorite books on his MySpace page.

As a social conservative, I am prone to defend my fellow conservatives. But my role to speak prophetically for Christ demands a more nuanced response. I admit that I often feel ashamed when listening to or reading the hostile and vitriolic comments of social conservatives. Liberals bear equal guilt. They may excuse their speech as passionate or spirited debate, but I fail to see how it rates as anything less than mean-spirited and hateful.

Although the Tucson tragedy has precipitated a call for civility in politics and public debate, an outcry for restraint, control and dignity in discourse has existed for many years. Passion never justifies irresponsible speech. It may be overreach to attempt to link Loughner’s actions with the inflammatory political rhetoric. Investigation of the accused man has uncovered a growing mental illness that excludes any connection with rational thinking. This does not exempt people from criticism for their uncivil and reckless speech.

“Sticks and stone will break my bones, but words will never hurt me,” is a lie incited by a childish attempt to deflect slander or verbal abuse. Words have damaged the soul of every person who ever entered into social engagement. Words have the power to wound or heal. “There is one whose rash words are like sword thrusts, but the tongue of the wise brings healing,” 12:18.

The Proverbs place heavy responsibility on our use of words.”Where words are man, transgression is not lacking, but whoever restrains his lips is prudent,” 10:19. James concurs, calling the tongue a restless evil, full of deadly poison,” which desperately needs taming (James 3:5-12).

Words are more than vocalized sounds. They carry meaning that penetrates the mind and heart of the hearer. Tone enhances that meaning. Words transmit ideas, but they also communicate feelings and attitudes, which affects the feelings and attitudes of the hearer. “A gentle tongue is a tree of life, but perverseness in it breaks the spirit,” 15:4.

The abundance of proverbs that warn and instruct about the power of words argues for more responsible rhetoric  by every public figure. “Death and life are in the power of the tongue, and those who love it will eat its fruit,” 18:21. Those who love to hear the sound of their own voices must reap the consequences of their speech, for good or evil. Midrash Tehillim, a Jewish commentary on the Scriptures, adds, “The evil tongue slays three, the slanderer, the slandered, and the listener.”

These proverbs call all of us into account for the words we choose to insert into social interaction, for the careless comments we make before we consider their consequence, for exercising the tongue prior to engaging the mind. When the audience increases, so does the responsibility. People who speak publicly, whether through oral or written media, persuade people to believe certain things and to feel certain ways. Words have incited revolutions and inspired reformations. Lack of intent does not diminish liability.

Sarah Palin can appeal to First Amendment rights all she wants, but it will not provide immunity from the real consequences of the exercise of those rights. It does not relieve anyone of the obligation to choose their words with care and caution.

Jesus warned, “I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” (Matthew 12:36-37)

The power of words. They can be lethal or life-giving. It is your choice.

 

Posted in Politics and Christianity, Speech | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

EVERYONE WANTS A HEAVEN

Posted on January 19, 2011 by stanwiedeman

NBC’s Parenthood portrays the lives of the Braverman family: the parents, four siblings and their families. The complexities of their lives do not diverge that much from many families today. They all struggle to find their identity, significance, purpose and answers to life’s questions.

In a recent episode, a bird flew into the sliding glass door at Joel and Julia’s home. Joel put the bird in a box hoping that it was only unconscious. Their six-year-old daughter formed an emotional attachment to the bird, looking forward to its recovery.

When Joel finally realized that recovery was not in the cards, he stressed out over confronting Sydney with the harsh reality of death. Julia suggests that using heaven would soften the blow. “What exactly are you going to tell her about heaven?” he protests. “Normal stuff,” Julia responds. “You mean the made-up stuff,” Joel challenges. They argue briefly, both agreeing that neither of them can know for sure if heaven exists or not. Julia contends that this is what constitutes faith, believing, but not knowing.

They finally reveal the bad news to Sydney. She is heartbroken. She begins asking about death and Joel tries to mitigate the uncertainty with a comment about the beauty of the world lying in its impermanence. When Sydney begins worrying about her parents dying, Julia comforts her by telling her they will all see each other in heaven. Joel looks away in frustration. Julia begins to explain heaven as a beautiful place where “everyone you love is there waiting for you.”

Julia then reminds Sydney that her grandmother, Joel’s mother, died when she was very young, but she is in heaven now, waiting to see Sydney when she goes “in a hundred years.” She even assures the little girl that the bird is already there, too. Sydney hugs her mom, obviously relieved and comforted, while Joel looks pensive and conflicted.

Later, watching Sydney play, Joel laments that his mom is not there to share in the joy of seeing Sydney grow up. Fighting back tears he confesses, “I kind of like thinking of her in heaven – with that stupid bird.” Smiles and hugs.

Sydney and Joel demonstrate the need for a hope that death does not rule over life. People may try to stare down death with bravado, but deep inside they long for a better ending to the story. Many people ignore death, as if it only happens in movies or the newspaper. When forced to peer into its ugly face, most people are willing to believe anything that will relieve the anxiety and fear, even without substantial evidence.

What evidence do we have of heaven? The same evidence we have of a resurrection. We have the testimony of eyewitnesses. Micaiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Stephen, Paul and John had visions of God on his throne in heaven. Could one have a vision of something that does not exist, like a dream? Yes, but God claimed that the vision reveals reality, “Thus says the Lord, ‘Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool” (Is. 66:1).

Jesus taught about heaven. He often referred to his “Father who is in heaven.” He said that we should lay up treasures in heaven and look for rewards there, also. He said that angels reside there and that he came from there and would return. Jesus affirmed that heaven exists as a real place where God and angels dwell.

We base our knowledge about heaven upon the testimony of those who have seen it or, in the case of Jesus, know about it firsthand. Faith is necessary to accept what we cannot touch or see. An honest study of the Bible verifies its reliability as a witness to the things we cannot see, by its reliability as a witness to the things we can and do experience.

Does everyone go there? Paul said that his death would mean his presence with Christ who is in heaven (Philippians 1:23). It is a conscious presence. John saw a host of souls in heaven standing before God’s throne, pleading with him to avenge their unjust deaths (Revelation 6:10).

Just as surely as there is a heaven, a hell also exists, where many souls also reside. Jesus told a story about Lazarus and a rich man. Both men had died. Lazarus was in heaven, but the rich man was in a place of unbearable anguish. “A great chasm has been fixed” between these two places that “none may cross” (Luke 16:24-26). Jesus refers to the final judgment when he will send the righteous into eternal life, but cast the “cursed into eternal fire.” (Matthew 25:41-46).

Jesus explains that the distinguishing feature for entrance into heaven is a personal relationship with him. There will be many who expect to enter the kingdom of heaven because they have done great religious deeds, prophesying, casting out demons and performing mighty works in the name of Jesus. But he will send them away, saying, “I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness” (Matthew 7:21-23).

Heaven may provide a feeling of comfort and even security for many people who will not actually be permitted to enter. All people want to have some assurance of life after death. Only those who enjoy a relationship with Jesus in this life can have this assurance of a life of joy in the presence of God. And anyone who is willing to repent of their sins and trust him for eternal salvation can know Jesus.

Posted in Heaven | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment