Doubting Doubt

"By grace you have been saved, through faith..."

As a Christian in the 21st century, at times I doubt. But if we are saved through faith, does that mean that I'm in danger of losing my salvation when I doubt? I doubt it.

Faith can be whole and simple for the holy simpleton. At times I envy those whose belief in God comes as easy as their belief in gravity. But it's impossible for a thinking person in the 21st century to live without doubt. For me, God is self-evident, but with the weight of history and the pluralism of culture, self-evidence itself is up for debate. And so we doubt. What a person choses to do with those doubts is central to his or her faith. The fact that I continue to believe despite my doubts is itself faith. Faith and doubt, therefore, are intimately tied. I would go as far as saying that the person who doubts, and though doubting perseveres, has a more remarkable faith than the holy fool, who, like the Prodigal's elder brother, never thought differently.

Beyond belief in God or in Christian orthodoxy, I sometimes doubt my own capacity to believe. I wonder if I truly believe or if I'm just playing a part. I feel like an atheistic actor playing the role (sometimes poorly) of a Christian in the 21st century, who, when the curtain falls, will leave the theatre and go back the pub and wallow in his heroic nihilism. Another shade of doubt. To take a step back, however, this doubt is still grounded in a Christian view. Matt the "actor" feels sorry for Matt the "character" because he's only pretending to believe. He pities the man because, having been playing a part all along, his salvation will be in jeopardy. Thus, in worrying about the "characters" salvation, the "actor" has outed himself as a believer.

And my faith is restored.

How I finale Met Your Mother, a review.

Spolier Warning, évidemment...

     On Tuesday I caught the series finale of How I Met Your Mother. Although it has had an overwhelmingly negative response, it, in my opinion, was fantastic.  To be fair, because of the shows unique nature, Mother fans put an unusual amount of stock in the shows conclusion, maybe not equaled since Lost. It would have been impossible, as J'abrams found out, to please everyone.

     Why did I love the conclusion? Maybe I've lowered my standards since deciding to generally focus on the positive, but there's more to it. To be transparent, I might not be the best judge of the shows denoument, as I wasn't a die-hard Mother fan (Motherboy?). I only casually watched  seasons 5 through 8. On the other hand, I may be better qualified to give an objective opinion, because the finale was written before the writers expected it to go on so long. The success of the show led to its extension by several seasons and the poignant conclusion became more and more removed from its intended proximity to relevant events. The effect was that we were given too much time to make up our minds about things. If, like some of my friends, in seasons 5 through 8 Robin's changing character led you to dislike her, or if you were convinced, by the constant reaffirmations of the fact, that Ted and Robin could never be together, you probably didn't like the finale. My limited exposure to the superfluous seasons meant that I didn't give up on Robin. Maybe I'm just a sucker for a Canadian girl.

    The things I loved about Mother generally, and how the finale delivered on them:

     The unreliable narrator. In my opinion, the greatest thing about Mother was always the use of storytelling and unreliable narrators. What the audience knows and doesn't know was always used to great effect. In the episode "Ted Mosby: Architect," for example, Robin (then dating Ted) and Lily search around town for Ted, meeting people who say he had just left with some woman. The ubiquitous flashbacks illustrate their accounts of shallow Ted's cheating escapades. Ultimately, it turns out that "Ted" of the flashbacks was actually Barney who, in the latest of his 'plays' had gone around introducing himself as "Ted Mosby: Architect." The series finale applies this device to whole series. Old Ted, it turns out, was talking about someone else the entire time. The very name of the show is put into question along with the point of the narration. It was only logical for the writers' penchant for ironic reinterpretations of events to be taken to an all encompassing level in the finale.

     Realism. More than many sit-coms, Mother had a way of capturing real emotions and exploring themes that are often overlooked by the medium. The longue durée of the show, taking place over 25 years, allowed it present multiple perspectives on events by the same characters at different stages in his life. As shown with Barney and Robin's divorce, the Mother writers weren't afraid to get overly real. Tracy's death and Ted's ultimate decision to pursue Robin was another daring and, in my opinion, beautiful instance of the show's breaking the sit-com mould in the name of realism. Now, this is controversial. Some people see the final scene as a cop out. Fans dreaded a Ross and Rachel ending, but I didn't see it that way. I don't think they killed off the mother so they could have a fairy tale ending—a hastily devised 'will they' to the seemingly absolute 'won't they.' It wasn't a trifle. It was a nuanced and realistic portrayal of the complexity of Love.

     They didn't 'kill off' the mother and her death didn't cheapen the ending. To say her death cheapened the story is to say there is no value in loving someone if you can't grow old with them. Ted and Tracy had a timeless love story, and her death was just a part of it. Their story was central to the show, clearly, and Ted's development and the maturing of his views of love was fulfilled in their relationship. But, as Penny Mosby cleverly pointed out, that's not entirely what old Ted's story was about. We were asked from the first episode to suspend our disbelief about a man telling such a rambling, complicated and seemingly irrelevant story about how he met the kids' mother, and we suspended it too much. When the nature of the story was explained we didn't accept it. We preferred to live in our infinitely suspended disbelief.

    Neither is Ted's love for Tracy cheapened by his decision to pursue Robin. His kids are into their teens, his wife has been gone for six years, he is a man who knows how to love profoundly and his old flame, with whom he has always had a strong bond of affection, is alone. Why wouldn't two lonely people with such a connection decide to be together? Why can't we accept that Ted would keep on loving, to follow his own advice to Robin, that, “Love doesn’t make sense. You can’t logic your way into or out of it. Love is totally nonsensical, but we have to keep doing it or else we’re lost and love is dead and humanity is just packing it in. Because love is the best thing we do.” Well said, Ted.

    If nothing else, we're still talking about it. The writers should be commended for that. They succeeded in giving us something to think about. You can't deny that the ending was memorable, whether or not you found it satisfying. They told us that love doesn't fit into the moulds of a traditional three act structure, and that when you find love you have to pour everything you have into it because you never know how long it will last.

An Ironically Critical Blogpost

My apologies for the inherent irony in this blogpost. 

As of this past Wednesday the World Wide Web is 25 years old. What have we learned in a quarter century of an increasingly interconnected world? It seems we've had a revolution in cynicism. Read the comments beneath any online newspaper article, blog or youtube video and you'll see what I mean. We're programmed to be hyper-critical. It's as if there's a contest to see who can make the most original, most cutting insult. We criticize for the sake of criticism. It's not a question of gauging the value in an expressed idea or a piece of art; it's a question of ignoring or abolishing that value. Our natural setting is negative. How is this bad. Not how is it good or beautiful, but how can I put its overall value into doubt.

Now, criticism is important, by all means. After a stint in a Gulag, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was understandably critical of the Stalinist regime. Today, likewise, as modern governments antagonize their own citizens, as corporations exploit their workers around the world, we have a duty to stand up for them. But does this cynicism really have to be our first instinct for everything we see or hear? Why do I have to come out of a movie and quickly try to think of reasons why an awesome film was terrible? Why do I have to not trust anyone at their word? Or when I read someones controversial blogpost, why do I feel it's okay to write it off as complete nonsense because they had the audacity to carelessly use a split infinitive. Really? They're wrong because of grammar? We're even critical of the critics. It can go on ad nauseam.

Lately more and more I've seen critical perspectives on inherently positive practices and  widely recognized "good" people. Whether it's Mother Theresa's views on suffering or Gandhi's treatment of his wife or the damaging effects and colonial attitudes of missionaries, we can find the dark side of anything. Yes, they were in fact people. Yes, people have shortcomings. But does that mean we throw their positive contributions in the trash as the works of self-interested monsters? 

I have a confession. I've been to Haiti. I even went on a short-term mission trip to Romania in my youth group days. I know these trips have no measurable benefit to the countries visited. I know they often do more harm than good. I know that, as a young white rich child, going to the developing world has caused my sense of Western superiority and my messiah complex to balloon beyond repair. Sometimes I'm actually embarrassed to tell people about it. That doesn't seem right to me. Honestly, is it better to do nothing? Is the right thing just to stay home and eat Wendy's takeout and watch the Big Bang Theory? If nothing else my trip to Romania made me see the world in greater detail than I possibly could have if I had just stayed home. I saw that people live differently than I do. I don't have a monopoly on the right way to think and to be. My trip to Haiti showed me that the world doesn't consist of rich happy people and poor sad people. There's no line in the sand. Poor people aren't sad by definition. Nor vice versa. That in mind, I don't think these trips were a waste of time. I didn't change the world. But I changed.

I acknowledge that the criticisms of these practices are important. They make us face the fact that the old things aren't working; we need to try new things. But I worry that this constant criticism will have the opposite effect. We should be encouraging young people to change the world, not telling them that everyone who has ever tried to do so was wrong.

Just a thought.

Anti-biosis

by Matt Robertshaw

•••

Once, immediately behind the left shoulder blade of an Irish setter called Pat, there lived a small but active settlement of fleas. After several generations—or one-and-a-half dog years—of residence, the parasites had eked out a comfortable enough life for themselves on Pat the dog. They had a lush red forest above them to provide shade from the sun, and the warm flesh of their host below them to keep them warm at night. Not to mention they had three square meals of dog blood a day. Yes sir, existence in the little colony was practically flawless.

     The only thing imperfect about their lives was their host’s inclination, every so often, to scratch herself behind the shoulder. Each time she did one or two dozen upstanding members of the flea community would never be heard from again.

A town meeting was called to discuss the issue. One outspoken senior flea called Crawford, who had recently lost his brother in a particularly vigorous scratching, demanded something be done to remedy the situation. They couldn’t be expected to live with that kind of fear looming over their antennae. The scientists among them were moved by Crawford’s compelling oration. They vowed that they would put aside their petty differences, that they would not rest until they had come up with a solution. Later that afternoon they had finished. They concocted a chemical that would dissolve the canine’s nails in a matter of seconds. The four bravest and strongest members of the small society were selected for the task. The formula was divided between them. They said their good-byes and, one-by-one, headed off on their long journeys to each of Pat’s dreaded paws.

Several days passed before the mighty quartet returned to a hero’s welcome. They had each, they explained, been successful in their mission. The solution worked exactly as the scientists had promised; Pat the dog would no longer be scratching them to oblivion. They had become masters of their environment.

At last the tiny community could live in harmony.

The week and a half that followed came to be known as the Golden Age for the flea colony. The reddish forest above them and the warm ground below meant a life of constant comfort. Not to mention they had all the dog blood they could eat. Their population grew daily and exponentially until the village became a proper city. Of course their host seemed to move about a lot more than it had previously—as the scientists had hypothesized—due to the increased irritation. But the fleas simply basked in the ever-changing scenery.

Just when it seemed like they would never again have a care in the world their host made a particularly severe and sudden movement and the entire city was submerged in an ocean of mud. A full third of their population was lost in that disaster. The poets wrote laments for the lost. The philosophers tried vainly to explain the catastrophe. The scientists vowed that it would never happen again.

Hours later they had developed a solution. It was a synthetic membrane with which the entire city could be covered, protecting it from future devastation. Architects, subcontractors, and urban developers all devoted immeasurable time and energy to the Great Cause. It wasn’t long before the city was safe once more. Again they had proved their mastery of the world around them. Again they had won.

Finally their vibrant, growing city could live in harmony.

It wasn’t long before their population had doubled, even trebled. The boundaries of the anti-mudstorm membrane—which worked wonderfully—kept having to be moved outward to account for all the new residents. It soon became apparent that their colony had reached its capacity and plans for a second settlement were drawn up. There was some handsome real estate in the vicinity of the canine’s haunches.

No one could be sure, however, that the new colony would succeed. One elderly flea told a half-fabricated story about a group sent out by his ancestors to settle on a nearby cat. They were never heard from again. The rigours of long distance travel alone were enough to make any flea weary, especially one who had never known a care. To calm their fears, the now famous scientists developed a method of blood harvesting so there would be a steady supply to get the pioneers through both their journey and the first few weeks in the new settlement.

Surely enough it worked. The new colony was established that afternoon without out any difficulty. They had their protective membrane in place and all that was left to do was to fill the town with fleas. It all came together so seamlessly that when they were settled they still had an abundance of dog blood in reserve. One exceptionally forward-thinking young parasite made a sterling case for the perpetuation of blood harvesting. With a constant, easily accessible supply of stored blood in the city the fleas would no longer have to waste time individually scoping out a spot to burrow into the ground for food everyday. Sure it was the way it had always been done, but they had already bettered their lives in so many ways, so why stop now? If sustenance was available to everyone at the flick of a switch, he eloquently explained, they could do so much more with their lives. Their leisure time could be dedicated to higher pursuits like organized sports and stamp collecting. There would be no limit to what they could achieve. 

And he was right.

The city, now protected from the elements and with food readily available at any moment, grew at an unprecedented speed. The burgeoning metropolis soon rivaled the Old City in size. Artists spent their days creating masterpieces that reflected the idyllic existence in which the fleas now found themselves. Doctors found a cure to nearly every disease known to fleakind. Philosophers invented new kinds of logic to disprove the old kinds. Some people just read books and slept all day. No one could ask for anything more. All of their wants and needs were met in every way.

Finally, the fleas could live the lives they never knew they wanted. They had become the masters of everything that was. At last they had truly won.

But it didn’t last long. The next morning the blood harvester slowed, spluttered to a stop. Rumours cropped up as to why it had, but the fleas kept on living in the way to which they had grown accustomed. Even when it became clear that the food reserves had been all but dried up the fleas continued consuming and consoling. It wasn’t until one particularly sentimental flea took the last sip of blood in either of the cities that they finally faced the truth.

The once-lush forest above them had grown wiry and pale. The once-warm ground below them had grown cold.

Pat the dog had died.

The End