Whatever you do, don’t waste your money by going to see “Year One” starring Jack Black and Michael Cera. As one reviewer aptly put it, the movie is a quagmire “of lowbrow, knuckle-dragging humor; coupled with all the gay jokes, poop jokes, Jewish jokes and you're-stupider-than-I-am jokes, the arrested-development crowd will no doubt be thoroughly entertained.”

I forced myself to watch the whole cinematic mess though I had to take an extended break just to clear my mind. My wife and I stayed through “Year One” as an attempt to gain some sort of sociological perspective on contemporary American pop culture. Afterward the simple reaction I shared with my wife was that there certainly cannot be further downward manifestations. We have reached the unraveling point. There is nothing below the bottom of the barrel. People suckled on this kind of entertainment cannot survive very long as a civilization. What I mean is that those who accept the cultural nihilism of “Year One” will insidiously lose their ability to be citizens of a free society.

There are a number of ways to analyze “Year One.” One is to see it as the a perfect manifestation of the neo-liberal worldview. The Unholy Trinity of the neo-liberalism are sexual promiscuity, extreme egalitarianism, and statism. However, another way to see “Year One” is as a modern incarnation of an ancient religion. That religion is of Dionysus the Greek “god of wine, the inspirer of ritual madness and ecstasy.” The Roman version of Dionysus is Bacchus the patron deity of agriculture and the theater known as the “Liberator” who assisted the individual to free himself by madness and frenzy through ecstasy or wine. Dionysus’ grand purpose was to mix music and wine to bring and end to “care and worry.”

In the mythological story of Dionysus, he wanders for a period of time then returns to Greece to introduce his cult and worship. However, he is opposed by some of the leaders of the community because of their fear of the “disorders and madness it brought with it.” This probably represents a real civic fear engendered by the cult. Additionally, in its Roman incarnation, Bacchanalian worship was suppressed because of the potential threat it posed to a stable society.

It is worth noting that in the modern era, the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzche used Dionysus as a symbolic contrast to the Greek god Apollo. For Nietzche, Dionysus represented the “unrestrained aesthetic principle of force, music, and intoxication” which would be realized eventually in society as described in his work “Beyond Good and Evil.” Apollo, on the other hand, represented “the principle of sight, form, and beauty.” Obviously, in my view, Nietzche got it right in that we are probably living in a Dionysian era marked by unrestrained aesthetic force, music and intoxication.” Gone are the days when “sight” (the sense symbolizing man’s rational ability), “form” (the structure of things recognizable by the intellect), and “beauty” (one of the three great transcendentals) are celebrated and elevated.

Dionysus brings an end to “care and worry” but he also brings an end to civic society. To accept Dionysus is to be liberated of care in order to enter a world of madness. Welcome to the cultural world predicted by Nietzche and created by the American film elite. It actually is a religion of madness.

Quotes from Wikipedia article on Dionysus, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysus

Acts 17: 24-25 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. 25 Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things.

Of the many things that can be learned from Acts 17:24-25, at minimum, we can see that Paul tells the Athenians that God has no needs. God doesn’t need me to give Him anything physically, emotionally, or psychologically. In other words, God is “All-sufficient.” He is fully sufficient for all things in Himself. In fact, God is fully satisfied and happy in Himself.

On the other hand, humans have a lot of needs. We need food, shelter, comfort, and a whole host of other things--just to survive. We are amazingly dependent. We also have to look outside of ourselves to attain some level of happiness. In fact, the human quest for happiness is legendary. Humans have sought happiness in all kinds of things from cars to sex to money and everything in between. Of course, the Scripture and theology teach that happiness is found in God and no where or no one else. Thomas Aquinas puts it this way:

“Consequently in regard to this perfect happiness... in that state of happiness, man's mind will be united to God by one, continual, everlasting operation.” (ST, Ib. 3, 2)

This continual unity with God is ultimate happiness for humans. It, though, can only be attained in heaven. In the meantime, we can have imperfect happiness as we love God and do his will by loving others.

Yet, God is perfectly happy in Himself. Aquinas states it this way:

God’s happiness... “is essential happiness,” that is, “his very existing is his acting, and thereby he enjoys no other than himself” (ST, Ib.3.2).

The simple way of saying is that for God alone, His being is His happiness.

Isa 46:9-10 Remember the former things of old, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me, 10 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done,  Saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure,’

In the UK in 1998 a relatively unknown Christian “think tank” called The Social Affairs Unit published their fifth offering in a series of books on “the problems of social order.” However, this time their book did not go unnoticed. In fact, it caused a bit of a national sensation and shot to the top of the UK’s bestseller lists. The immediate reason for the public attention is that the book contained an essay by Anthony O’Hear that dared to be critical of the recently deceased Princess Diana. However, the rest of the twelve essays in the book also were hotly debated. Fortunately for The Social Affairs Unit, their thinking, insights, and writing were of such a high level that “Faking It” could not be easily dismissed. The full title of the book is “Faking It: The Sentimentalization of Modern Society.”

I’ve just completed my second reading of “Faking It” and I still consider it to be one of the most important Christian books written in the last two decades. In this post I will present just one of their incisive ideas. I highly recommend this book to all.

First, let me explain what the authors mean by sentimentality. Sentimentality is the over indulgence in emotionalism for its own sake to the detriment of commonsense and rational discourse. Sentimentalism colors everything we do in contemporary life and infects all of our public institutions to the point that is makes it difficult to oppose anything that captures public sentiment (i.e. “caring for the victims of AIDS”). Sentimentalism is the logical outgrowth of the Enlightenment project and 19th century Romanticism. As Digby Anderson and Peter Mullen note:

“Nineteenth-century sentimentality tried to connect the emotional luxuries of Romanticism with Christianity. But the burgeoning sentimental attitude produced a dissociation between feelings and morality, for it employed emotion in the Romantic mood of self-pleasuring rather than in accordance with Christianity’s biding emotion of moral action. So Romanticism furthered the sentimentalizing of the feelings.”

One of the key points here is that modern sentimentalism derives much of its moral justification from Christianity; however, its morality is stripped of the hard realism and tough virtues of Christianity. What is left is more affect rather than effect--more self-pleasuring emotional posturing than actual moral action.

“Faking It” posits that at its core, Western sentimentality is “a perversion of Christianity.” Most specifically, sentimentality is a modern form of the ancient heresy of Pelagianism. Pelagius was a fifth-century monk who denied the doctrine of Original Sin and believed that man is capable--through his own free-will--of saving himself. In his essay titled “Evading personal responsibility” (third chapter in “Faking It”), Nicholas Capaldi puts the matter as follows:

“The denial of the doctrine of Original Sin is of fundamental importance. The constant tension in Western civilization has been those who think that salvation is possible in this life (utopianism) and those who deny it. Sentimentality is an inevitable by-product of the former...What Pelagianism denies is the classical Western conception of the cosmos. First, that there is a cosmic order that is divinely created. Secondly, human beings possess the rational capacity to recognize the universal moral truths embedded in that cosmic order. Thirdly, human beings have the internal capacity to be unconstrained in their decision to act in accordance with universal truth, ie 'free will.' Fourthly, although human beings have free will, they almost invariably allow themselves to be governed by their base passions” ... What Pelagianism does is to eliminate the notion that sin is basic. Human beings are fundamentally good and can of their own free will and without grace come to accept and abide by God’s cosmic order. What the Pelagian heresy amounts to for us is the denial of sin and the insistence upon the fundamental goodness of human nature.”

“Faking It” makes the case that this sentimental view of humanity has led inexorably to all manner of social pathologies from failing schools to dangerous foreign policies. Meanwhile, full-blown Christianity, while not nearly as “nice” as modern sentimentalism, offers a more realistic view of humanity which can actually lead to the solution or mitigation of social problems. Unfortunately, sentimentalism offers a “happy sappy” version of ourselves that is very enticing. All we must do is pretend that the consequences of our sentimentalism will not overwhelm us. The piper does not have to be paid.

I have quoted Thomas Aquinas on capital punishment before as well as written on the subject. However, I have a special reason for reprising this topic.

Here is what Thomas says.

“The fact that the evil ones, as long as they live, can be corrected from their errors does not prohibit that they may be justly executed, for the danger which threatens from their way of life is greater and more certain than the good which may be expected from their improvement.

They also have at that critical point of death the opportunity to be converted to God through repentance. And if they are so obstinate that even at the point of death their heart does not draw back from malice, it is possible to make a quite probable judgment that they would never come away from evil.” (Summa contra gentiles, Book III, chapter 146)

My special reason is that this week is the tenth anniversary of the tragic and heinous killing of a young woman for whom I conducted the funeral. A story in our local paper highlighted the sorrowful effect that this killing and its prolonged legal agony has had upon the immediate family. The paper simply noted that the perpetrator—who is on death row—will likely have another 15 years of appeals before he will begin to face the possibility of execution. That will be 25 years of torturous agony for the mother and immediate family—if they live that long.

In case you were wondering, the killing was actually part of a double-murder of two beautiful college girls. Their remains were found buried in the perpetrator’s backyard. He generated a mountain of forensic evidence. He, of course, was out on probation after serving a limited amount of his sentence for a violent sexual assault. He has joined other heinous killers such as Doug Clark on death row. Doug Clark has been serving time on death row for over 25 years for the unbelievably grotesque slaughter of six young women. Unless you have an ironclad stomach, do not read about Doug Clark’s serial killing spree.

My point is that Aquinas states that “the danger which threatens from their (the evil ones) way of life is greater and more certain than the good which may be expected from their improvement.” Contemporary Americans and a sizable percentage of Christians refuse to believe Aquinas. Meanwhile, hundreds of killings in California are organized by “lifers” and killers on death row. Yes, hundreds. Yes, right out of our prisons. It is more certain that the danger that these killers threaten to society far outweighs any possible good that can come of their prolonged incarceration.

Also, if you think that prison-organized killings are just an aberration that will somehow be corrected, you are wrong. They will continue to rise as gang culture continues to grow in the United States. It is my view that prison-organized killings are God's way of allowing us to experience the consequences which fit our obvious stupidity.

Proverbs 11:10 When the righteous prosper, the city rejoices; when the wicked perish, there are shouts of joy.

Proverbs 21:15: The exercise of justice is joy for the righteous, But is terror to the workers of iniquity.

Proverbs 21:10-11 Evil people desire evil; their neighbors get no mercy from them. 11 If you punish a mocker, the simpleminded become wise;

Wow, it has been quite a week. The Iowa Supremes voted in favor of gay marriage; Rick Warren apparently went soft on his stand for Prop. 8; and in a nationally syndicated column, Cal Thomas raised the white flag to surrender in the cultural battle for traditional ethics. In my mind, sociologically this all makes perfect sense because of a chance encounter I had this week.

A few days ago I was wearing one of my “message” tee shirts when my daughter stopped by our house with one of her college friends. Her friend is a young, bright gal who gets high academic marks in her course of study at a local college. My daughter, who likes my tee-shirts, had her friend read its message. It has a particularly relevant quote from Thomas Jefferson. It states:

“Taxation follows public debt and in its train wretchedness and oppression.”

Literally, this bright college student could not even begin to grasp the meaning of Jefferson’s famous quote. I had to slowly go over every word and piece the meaning together for her. She knew about taxation; however, she had no clue about “public debt” or “wretchedness” or even “oppression.” When she finally grasped the meaning of the quote, she was stunned to realize that Jefferson would have believed that “wretchedness” (AKA poverty) and “oppression” (AKA totalitarian control) would follow taxation for public indebtedness. This was a completely unknown idea to her. Such thoughts never seem to cross her mind and she seemed to have no educational background to fathom such notions. She, of course, is a franchised voter.

Okay, so here is my point. If this young college woman is even somewhat indicative of what is being produced by our educational systems, it is no wonder Cal Thomas and others think the battle for traditional ethics is already lost. As Abraham Lincoln said, "The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next." It is as simple as 2 + 2 = 4.

Now here is Thomas Aquinas explaining why humans need married mothers and fathers and why education is so important for the human species.

“A further consideration is, that in the human species the young need not only bodily nutrition, as animals do, but also the training of the soul. Other animals have their natural instincts (suas prudentias) to provide for themselves: but man lives by reason, which [read quam] takes the experience of a long time to arrive at discretion. Hence children need instruction by the confirmed experience of their parents: nor are they capable of such instruction as soon as they are born, but after a long time, the time in fact taken to arrive at the years of discretion. For this instruction again a long time is needed; and then moreover, because of the assaults of passion, whereby the judgment of prudence is thwarted, there is need not of instruction only, but also of repression. For this purpose the woman by herself is not competent, but at this point especially there is requisite the concurrence of the man, in whom there is at once reason more perfect to instruct, and force more potent to chastise. Therefore in the human race the advancement of the young in good must last, not for a short time, as in birds, but for a long period of life. Hence, whereas it is necessary in all animals for the male to stand by the female for such time as the father's concurrence is requisite for bringing up of the progeny, it is natural for man to be tied to the society of one fixed woman for a long period, not a short one. This social tie we call marriage. Marriage then is natural to man, and an irregular connexion outside of marriage is contrary to the good of man; and therefore fornication must be sinful.” (SCG III, 122)

Thomas says a lot in this famous citation. However, I want to direct your thinking to his statement, “…but man lives by reason, which takes the experience of a long time to arrive at discretion.” He notes that it takes a very long time for parents to inculcate discretion and to do so one needs also to restrain the passions of a child by discipline. This is an arduous task for both husband and wife. Therefore, if “reason” is not trained and developed to the point of a high level of discretion, the child will not properly mature into a thriving adult and may even remain childish. Now imagine a society that fails to carefully inculcate discretion in their children in order produce thriving humans. Imagine what that society might look like.

Now you know why I am so engaged in the battle for the American mind.