Grizzly Man and Gay Marriage

With the passing of California's Proposition 8, I have found myself reflecting on the homosexuality discussion. It seems to me that the whole debate is in orbit around anthropology, that is, how one understands human nature, for both sides of the debate appeal to nature. Supporters of gay marriage appeal to nature ("I was born this way"), citing desire as the determining factor. It is believed that a gay person's sexual desire for members of the same-sex legitimates homosexual practice or lifestyle. Opponents of gay marriage also appeal to nature, citing, not desire, but anatomical design as the determining factor. Humans, it is believed, are bound sexually by their design because two male parts (or female) simply do not go together sexually. The former speak of nature more subjectively and the latter speak of nature more objectively.

The homosexuality debate, then, should grapple with the trustworthiness of desires and the limits put on us by our own physical design.

Enter Grizzly Man. This Werner Herzog documentary has something to say about this discussion. The film follows Grizzly Man, Timothy Treadwell, and, with his own video documentation, his life among the Grizzlies in Alaska. Yes, Treadwell lived with Grizzlies, swam with Grizzlies, and talked to Grizzlies, experiences that provide stunning footage.

Herzog's interviews several Alaskans on Treadwell's decision to live with these bears which provide insight. For many interviewees, Treadwell was crazy. Sure, he may have had a desire to live with bears but actually following those desires was foolish, they said. They appealed to the limits binding individuals; humans do not and should not live with wildlife because it is just that, wild. On the other hand, other interviewees respected Treadwell as a man who had a desire to live with bears and went out to fulfill that desire. After all, Treadwell disregarded his detractors and pursued his dream.

Treadwell's longing to live with the bears did not correspond to Treadwell's nature. Unfortunately, Treadwell was bound and limited; he was a human, not a bear, and humans do not live with bears. In the end--and this is a spoiler for anyone that hasn't seen the film--Treadwell's decision finally caught up with him as he was killed by a Grizzly (along with his girlfriend). (If you do plan to watch the film, beware, for it contains lots of strong language. The film also contains coarse sexual references which, incidentally, shed some light on the homosexuality debate)

The film's tagline captures the point nicely: "In nature, there are boundaries." I am not suggesting that homosexuality is akin to seeking life among the bears. I am suggesting that Grizzly Man underscores an important point to consider in the homosexual debate: one's desires do not always correspond to their design. In other words, Treadwell's humanity (i.e. design) hampered his desire to live among the bears. Both design and desire did not correspond with one another and were not going to end in individual fulfillment. And this is the major offense to what I am suggesting: our personal--and corporate--fulfillment does not necessarily correspond to our desires. Understanding one's "nature" by turning to what one desires is wildly unpredictable. Our desires mislead, conflict, and evolve. And this is particularly true for sexual desires. The more reliable gauge for understanding one's sexuality is design, not desire.

"Suicide to Snickers"

"Postmoderns are remarkably nonchalant about the meaninglessness which they experience in life. Reading the works of an earlier generation of writers, existentialist authors like Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus, one almost developed a sense of vertigo, the kind of apprehension that one gets when standing too near the edge of a terrifying precipice, so bleak, empty, and life-threatening was their vision. That sense, however, has now completely gone. Postmoderns live on the surface, not in the depths, and theirs is a despair to be tossed off lightly and which might even be alleviated by nothing more serious than a sitcom." (from David F. Wells' Above All Earthly Pow'rs, 177)

Eurpoean reflections on the sense of meaninglessness engendered by the modern world tended to be dark. By contrast, Americans have remained more upbeat. Take the show Seinfeld which, with its bright colors and bouncy bass riffs, expressed the same meaninglessness, albeit with a smile. Wells says,

"By the 1990s, when we encounter the television series Seinfeld, for example, this sense of internal loss and disorientation had been turned into a brilliantly acted but completely banal sitcom. Seinfeld, Thomas Hibbs writes, was 'a show about the comical consequences of life in a world void of ultimate significance or fundamental meaning.' This show, he adds, was 'by its own account, a show about nothing.' The darkness of soul had lifted, though not its emptiness. Now we were no longer serious enough to do anything but smirk. The journey into the postmodern world, from the writers of this literature of bewilderment into television shows like this, is one from darkness in the depths to mockery on the surface, from suicide to shallow snickers." (188)

What is to remedy this heavy (or maybe not so heavy) sense of meaninglessness? For Wells, it is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

A good word from Dorothy Sayers

"Let us, in Heaven's name, drag out the Divine Drama from under the dreadful accumulation of slipshod thinking and trashy sentiment heaped upon it, and set it on an open stage to startle the world into some sort of vigorous reaction. If the pious are the first to be shocked, so much the worse for the pious--others will enter the Kingdom of Heaven before them. If all men are offended because of Christ, let them be offended; but where is the sense of their being offended at something that is not Christ and is nothing like Him? We do Him singularly little honor by watering down His personality till it could not offend a fly. Surely it is not the business of the Church to adapt Christ to men, but to adapt men to Christ."

from Dorothy L. Sayers' Creed or Chaos?, 36.

The Soothing Glow of Colored Light

As soon as our daughter could see, she was fascinated by the soothing glow of the television (a sight we try to limit!). Humans have always been dazzled by the sight of colored light and have found resourceful and creative ways to enjoy its beauty. Consider, for example, churches laced with stained glass. In the last century, however, colored light has been ubiquitously linked to the cult of consumption. William Leach's Land of Desire picks up on this:

"'Coloured glass,' wrote German architectural utopian Paul Scheerbart, who influenced Mies van der Rohe and Frank Lloyd Wright, among others, 'destroys hatred.' 'Light softened by color, calms the nerves.' By 1910, American merchants, in their efforts to create the new commercial aesthetic, took command over color, glass, and light, fashioning a link so strong between them and consumption that, today, the link seems natural. By the 1920s so many commercial institutions and people had exploited 'color' that, according to the The New York Times, the word itself had been 'worn to a frazzle.'" (9)

There is a limit on the power of colored light to soothe, something much of Los Angeles is finding out. NPR did a story today on the new LED billboards (think JumboTrons) that many feel are littering the landscape of L.A.

Gospel Coalition

I have encountered a series of good videos on youtube from the Gospel Coalition. It is made up of mostly pastors seeking to unleash the power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Here is an introductory video:

Election aftermath

FYI: Between Two Worlds has a series of good contributions from evangelicals reflecting on the '08 election, including this one on Obama and the future of abortion.

Piper's comments on election '08

HT: Between Two Worlds