Returning

Sorry, it's been a while.  But it's 8.37 on a Saturday morning, I'm watching Jean Vigo's 'A Propos de Nice' (a dialogue-free short film about French people being happy, any five minutes of which are better than 'Inception' - which is already very good, but Vigo doesn't need CGI to turn a Gallic city upside down), and for some reason I want to blog again. No big promises - but if you join me in the comments, I'll be grateful and try to write more often.

My thoughts this weekend:

The proposed North Carolina constitutional amendment to ban recognition of same-sex partnerships is antithetical to the best of what the US stands for in terms of personal liberty and the pursuit of happiness; it is opposed to the spirit of compassion and respect and love for neighbor that are at the heart of the Christian teaching that everyone who supports the amendment cites as their reason for doing so; even while its proponents believe (or say they believe) the amendment protects their own marriages, if passed it will actually actively hurt people who only want to be allowed to have a measure of protection and recognition for the love they share, and therefore it follows will in reality undermine community as the foundation of society; it continues a tragic tradition of fear being used to oppress people who are already marginalized; it serves no positive purpose and in fact reinforces the social structural realities that lead to stories such as this one.

Groups like Believe Out Loud, Equality NC, and Faith in America are good resources for information and how to take action, but I'd want to emphasize one thing that is often, by my sights, neglected in anti-homophobia/pro-humanity activism: Genuine dialogue.  I changed my mind about theology and sexuality partly through relationships with people wiser and more experienced than I, partly through academic reflection, and partly through my own experience.  This seems to me to fit with the Wesleyan quadrilateral of engaging scripture, reason, tradition and experience as we seek to discern what is right, among other historic Christian ways of interpreting the world.  It is not a betrayal of Christian principle to be open to dialogue with people with whom you disagree.  It has a long and noble history.  I'm happy to talk with anyone who wants to know where I stand, what I think, and why I believe that a serious conversation about sexuality and spirituality is not just important for the sake of addressing the injustice of inequality and homophobia, but for the future of peace on earth.  I'll write more about this later; for now, I want to invite a dialogue; and to ask you to seriously consider how we might persuade proponents of the anti-LGBTQ amendment that it is actually in their interests to vote against it.

For What It's Worth: Oscar and I Have a Disagreement

Oscar's Ten Best Films of the Year:

Black Swan

The Fighter

Inception

The Kids Are Alright

The King's Speech

127 Hours

The Social Network

Toy Story 3

True Grit

Winter's Bone

My Ten Favorite Films of the Year (podcast review here):

Carlos

Hereafter

The Book of Eli

Lourdes

And Everything is Going Fine

Enter the Void

Howl

I am Love

Inception

Shutter Island

How to Prevent Political Violence

When I was growing up, I was always afraid of violence.  northern Ireland was a European centre of politically-motivated killing for most of my childhood.  Politicians and public officials were killed all the time.  Political activists who espoused violence were often killed too.  And people who had no direct involvement in either politics or violence were caught up in it, going about their business, killed in bus stations or pubs or on the street.  Nearly 4000 dead in around 25 years of intensive violence, perpetuated in the cause of two competing ideologies: should northern Ireland stay part of the United Kingdom, or be reunified with the Irish Republic, along with the attendant questions of human rights, equality, historic injustice, and the kind of stake our people would have in our own society. We took the rhetoric of 'targeting' political opponents beyond the dehumanising manifestation currently alive in US culture, and finding its horrific expression in the Arizona shootings this weekend; some of our current political representatives actually killed people themselves.  Anyone who worked for the state - police officers, civil servants, census takers - could be considered a legitimate target by Irish Republican militants; the daily nerve-wrack of checking under the car for a bomb became a fact of life.  And despite the protestations of some historical revisionists, for many Protestants, their religion and ethnicity seemed to be enough of a reason for them to be living in fear.   At the same time, the Irish Republican and nationalist community often found itself repressed by the state, living under suspicion, and abused into second class citizen status; pro-British militants killed many people just because they were Catholics.

Nearly 4000 dead; 43 000 directly physically injured.  And then, what?

We stopped.

We talked.

We took responsibility.

We made a deal.

Now, we govern ourselves; with former sworn enemies who used to violently threaten each other sitting in a legislative assembly together, not unlike a typical US statehouse; with a key difference being that we have imagined democracy as best expressed in consensus and compromise, rather than one community dominating another.  It's extraordinary - you should look into it - there are huge lessons for all of us.

Books have been written on the role that ordinary people like us can play in shaping political processes that reduce violence*, but in the simplest terms, what I want to say about the potential lessons from northern Ireland for the US at this point in its precarious history is this: You have to get to the negotiating table now.  If you wait until another shooting or bombing or threat, nothing will have been gained.

After the peace process in northern Ireland had begun to take root, I chaired a public meeting at which the person widely believed to have co-led the IRA for much of its modern existence spoke about what he would like to see change in our society.  I began the meeting by asking him if, given that he had frightened me throughout my childhood, he could give me any guarantees that I didn't need to be afraid of him anymore.  He first attempted to deflect the question, saying, 'Well, Gareth, lots of us have reasons to be afraid of various people'.  I interjected, and offered a compromise, 'OK Gerry,' I said, 'I'll make you a deal: I'll not give you any reasons to be afraid of me, if you don't give me any reasons to be afraid of you.'  It was possibly snarky, but it was a start.  We shook hands; and I haven't met him again, but he has pursued a non-violent political path; as have the rest of northern Ireland's elected representatives.

They did this for many reasons - two of which are that they realised the cost of violence is too high; and because they allowed a third party - in the form of US intervention through the presence of Senator George Mitchell as a mediator - to help them discover something like the common good.  In talking, they started to reduce their own prejudice; and eventually, people who used to advocate each other's violent death started sharing offices.  One even acknowledged praying with a man some of whose political supporters might have been glad to kill either of them only 15 years ago.

These things are possible when public representatives are given the space by their supporters to start talking about their opponents as human beings.  These things happened, not in fiction, but in the very recent past of an island only a few thousand miles away from the White House.  They happened partly because the White House offered help.  All this leads me to a simple conclusion: it is one of the gifts of the United States to help mediate in other people's conflicts.  Amazing things can happen when US humanitarian intervention takes place, to provoke a vision of possibility that transcends the belief that things can never change because they have always been this way.  The US has the gifts to help others; this may be a moment when others need to help the US.

So, offered humbly, let me, as an outsider now making my home in the US suggest a few thoughts that may deserve reflection:

The fear expressed by many at the pace of social change is real, and needs to be responded to with respectful listening, not mockery.  Sarah Palin is a human being.  So is Glenn Beck.  They speak for a large number of people, whether some of us like it or not.  They will not be calmed down by being shouted at or mocked.  The degree to which the fears they articulate are genuine will only find its proportion when their political opponents treat them with respect, or at least show willingness to listen.  It works both ways of course.

There is a relationship between the psychological cost of recent wars and violent political rhetoric.  The cultural expression of what the United States means is part of the problem: seeing itself as a hammer leads to seeing everyone else as nails.  The world is too small to afford this.

As the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 horror approaches, it would be good to take time to ask if lament was postponed in favor of revenge; and then to finally start having a national conversation about how to grieve in a way that honors the victims without turning painful emotions into a reason to create more violence.

*A new example: later this year Oxford University Press will publish a volume on the role of faith-based groups in the northern Ireland peace process co-authored by John Brewer, Francis Teeny and myself

In Memory of John

Three years ago tonight my friend John O'Donohue crossed the threshold that he always considered helping others to travel  one of the greatest privileges of ministry.  He died in his sleep, his beloved at his side, at 52 years old, three weeks after I had last spoken to him.  His extraordinary book 'To Bless the Space Between Us' was near publication, and when it surfaced a couple of months later the opening chapter on thresholds and the inevitability of change made a different kind of sense than I imagine he intended when writing. Those who knew and loved him were bereft; the most astonishing funeral and memorial gatherings ensued in such rapid succession, and went so deep that it seemed to be several months before we ran out of organised events to attend to remember the poet, priest, mystic, artist, humorist, and friend; a man so large in spirit that thousands of people were changed by his death.  It was a privilege to know him, and to be known by him.  I hear his voice on my i-pod all the time - I'm grateful that there were so many recordings made of his work; and I hear his voice in my inner life, calling me to live from my best self.

This year begins with remembering John on this third anniversary; and with reflecting on my own life, amidst wonder and challenge.  I, too, would 'love to live as the river flows, carried by the surprise of its own unfolding'.  I, too, wish to be a blessing to others.  I, too, am frail and flawed and broken; and frequently fail to give to others what I want to receive myself.  John would, I imagine, say to me what he often said, quoting his mighty friend Lelia Doolan, that in times of confusion and fear, you should 'steady yourself', and let the light shine through the cracks, even - perhaps especially - those you have created yourself.

If we are to honor John's memory, we might want to devote this year to one of his other sharpest and most elegant ideas: that the first friendship we must cultivate is the one we have with ourselves.  May 2011 be the year in which you become your own best friend.

Paths of Glory/Seven Samurai

Hearing Stanley Kubrick’s voice on the new Criterion edition of his coruscating anti-war melodrama ‘Paths of Glory’ is like listening to a ghost; not because the director has been dead for over a decade, but because he said so little in public when he was alive.  It’s one of the characteristic delights of a marvelous disc that provides thoughtful context for a film that was so dangerous to Gallic pride that it couldn’t be seen in France for over twenty years after its first release in 1957.  It’s a powerful, painful experience to watch; a story of true horror - on the Front, and in the chateaux occupied by sneering generals playing chess with life while Kirk Douglas tries to save his men from the evil that distorted notions of honor breed.

As is so often the case with Kubrick, the actors aren’t embodying characters, but playing archetypes - you watch Timothy Carey falling apart after being faced with his own death, and realise that he was cast because he acts the way most of us would - his face is crumbling under pressure, his voice a childish moan; it’s like a high school theatre performance.  And that’s not a criticism: it’s the strength of ‘Paths of Glory’ that the people in it - with the exception of the generals and Kirk Douglas - feel like you and me.

Kubrick’s philosophy of glory underwrote his entire career: the question of what makes  a real man surfaces in narrative arcs as diverse as that of Quilty in ‘Lolita’, Barry Lyndon, Alex Droog, and most transcendently, Dave Bowman in ‘2001’.  ‘Paths of Glory’ feels like a template for everything else Kubrick made: men sitting in large rooms and talking, men and violence, men and women, opulent ballrooms, classical music, resistance heroes unable to defeat authoritarianism.  Ego and power, and the echo of formalised feet dancing at parties taking place during wars.  So the function of ‘Paths of Glory’ is to invite us into an appreciation of the director’s later work, while forcing us to think about the idiocy of relationships between people who aren’t allowed to admit doubt.

Like ‘Seven Samurai’ (below), also released by Criterion this month in a magnificent Blu-ray edition, overflowing with genuinely fascinating special features, ‘Paths of Glory’ confronts the economics of death: men who think they are in control haggling over the lives of others, playing with them ‘for sport’.  It’s a short, compact film, which gets under the skin of its star, who in one of the special features - a 1979 BBC interview - reminds us that there was a time when actors were actually expected, and willing, to talk intelligently about themselves.  You feel Douglas’ compassion for his men; and his powerless position in the war game.  You don’t need to remember much about the absurd context for the First World War to experience despair when a man is executed while on a hospital stretcher.  You don’t mind the comedy bad guys because the story is so insane that they seem ironically to fit into its scheme, prefiguring the generals in ‘Dr Strangelove’.  And when it ends, with the heartbreaking, national boundaries-transgressing song from Christiane Kubrick, the actor credited here as ‘Susanne Christian’, a young woman whom Stanley met at a masked ball (there’s a Jungian coincidence for you) you wonder if the director didn’t look back on this film as being his finest declaration that the only thing worth fighting for is love.  Kubrick got a wife, Kurosawa got a profile in the West; the rest of us got two of the greatest films ever made.