I often celebrate creativity on this blog, and do so not just because it touches something deep within my soul but because as a Christian I believe it reflects the image of God found in all daughters of Eve and sons of Adam. Contrary to modernist fantasies, art has never been something that could be restricted to galleries and museums and Dutch sculptor Theo Jansen proves this fact once again with his whimsical and amazing Strandbeests. I am grateful to my friend John Eddy for alerting me to this remarkable video.

When despair is realism

Lars von Trier, the Danish filmmaker, has recently been in the news for controversial comments surrounding his film Melancholia that resulted in the directors of the 2011 Cannes Film Festival declaring him persona non grata. In 2000 von Trier’s Dancer in the Dark, starring Icelandic musician Bjork won the Cannes Festival’s highest prize, the Golden Palm (Palme d’Or). Melancholia had been nominated for the Palme d’Or and won the best actress award for Kirsten Dunst in her role as Justine, the troubled woman whose story is central to the plot.

Melancholia is a simple yet devastating story. Imagine that a beautiful blue planet is hurtling towards the earth at a speed so great we can watch the blue sphere grow ever larger in the sky. Imagine that a dysfunctional family gathers to celebrate the wedding of a daughter who has long struggled with bouts of clinical depression. Imagine that in this world the possibility of hope is limited to the findings of science—which mistakenly has issued assurances that no collision is likely. Imagine how this story will unfold when it is clear that despair is nothing less than the most realistic perspective possible. “The earth is evil,” Justine says. “We don’t need to grieve for it. No one will miss it. Life is only on earth, and not for long.”

It is insufficient to dismiss von Trier here as simply trying to make a provocative movie. It is true that he has not shied away from making provocative films, as Dogville (2003) and Breaking the Waves (1996) prove. Still, I think more is at stake here. From reports I have read von Trier has suffered bouts of serious depression himself and his childhood is something I would wish on no one, leaving him with phobias that haunt him in adulthood. And he is an artist with his finger posed on the pulse of a world echoing with the triumphant voices of those who claim that facing down the abyss of meaninglessness with no hope that anything lies behind death is somehow significantly courageous. On second thought, that is courageous—futile, but courageous. As the film’s tagline puts it, “It will change everything.”

Not everyone should watch this film—it is a dark story, unrelenting in making us face the reality of death in a world without meaning. Unlike so many films that show the moment of apocalypse with a cacophony of violence so extreme we must avert our eyes, von Trier invites us to watch to the end. Planets of breathtaking beauty meet in the immensity of space and dissolve in a flash of brilliant light. And the three characters we have come to care about sit together, eyes closed, hands clasped, facing the inevitable with signs of love that though real are insufficient to change the ending.

Melancholia is worth watching if you are able to watch dark films. Lars von Trier is a master at his craft, and the film is an example of cinema at its best. Von Trier touches on themes with a brutal honesty we dare not evade if we take seriously the things that matter most.

Taken on its own terms, Melancholia should drive Christians to some serious reflection. Yes, thankfully the resurrection provides us with a hope sufficient for even the threat of death and apocalypse. But how do we express our hope so that it does not seem feeble at a time when science boasts that reality can be explained without reference to God or miracles? How is it possible to appeal to the historic fact of Christ’s resurrection in a way that gives it sufficient philosophical substance as well as imaginative power? And what can we point to in the way we live, day by day, that reveals the animating force of hope to radically shape our thinking, feeling and doing?

Melancholia credits:

Starring:

            Kirsten Dunst (Justine)

            Charlotte Gainsbourg (Claire)

            Kiefer Sutherland (John)

            Cameron Spurr (Leo)

            John Hurt (Dexter)

            Charlotte Rampling (Gaby)

            Stellan Skarsgård (Jack)

Director: Lars von Trier

Writer: Lars von Trier

Producers: Peter Garde & others

Cinematography: Manuel Alberto Claro

USA, 2011; 136 minutes

Rated R (graphic nudity, sexual content and language)

And if I may call all extroverts, too, my recommendation is that you watch this video, a 2012 TED talk by Susan Cain author of Quiet, that is both informative and delightful. It sheds clarity on an aspect of God’s good creation that we rarely consider with much care, and it provides some crucial understanding to help us fulfill our calling to treat every person as if we really believe they are made in his image.

Then read this New York Times essay, “An Introvert Steps Out,” where the speaker in the video, author Susan Cain describes how she prepared, as an introvert, to give her remarkable TED talk.

The film, The Lives of Others (2006) takes us into the dreary, loveless existence of an East German Stasi officer as he follows orders to spy on a couple who the State deems dangerous dissidents. They are artists, to whom beauty has revealed that life consists of more than duty and that to be just law must nurture human flourishing not suppress creativity and true community. So the officer begins his grim task, but as he listens in the music and conversations he overhears begin to awaken something deep within his soul. The beauty of art is shown to be not neutral but a powerful expression of grace.

This video, simpler yet equally moving shows an old man in a nursing home, unresponsive and uncommunicative. Until the staff decide to use an iPod to let him hear “his” music.

It is not an exaggeration to say that though as a Christian I am aware of the riches of wisdom found in the Scriptures, I am not fully aware of how rich those riches actually are. I tend to be slow to learn and most of the time when I read an ancient text I think of what I’ve already learned from it instead of patiently, unhurriedly observing the text with care to see what it says. Such careful reading requires waiting in silence, a posture that does not come to me naturally.

I know, for example, that the Scriptures bless music as a good gift of God. The longest single book in the Old Testament, after all, is the Psalms, nature itself is said to sing in delight (Isaiah 55:12; Psalms 98:7-8), and even God the Almighty the prophet Zephaniah records, will burst into song at the consummation of all things.

The Lord, your God, is in your midst,

            a warrior who gives victory;

            he will rejoice over you with

               gladness,

            he will renew you in his love;

            he will exult over you with loud 

               singing

            as on a day of festival. (3:17-18)

Don’t you wonder what that will be like?

In 1986 jazz pianist and theologian William Edgar wrote a little book that helped me see music in the pages of Scripture in a fresh and much fuller way. His eye as a musician observed examples of music in the text that I had not noticed, in the sort of detail I had not seen. Edgar’s book, Taking Note of Music (London, SPCK) is I believe now, sadly, out of print but if you can find a used copy, buy it.

Here is Dr. Edgar’s list of the types of music he observes in the pages of Scripture, complete with references so you can see the specific texts yourself.

“The following sample of song species from the Bible,” Edgar writes, “shows both the extensiveness of musical function and the Godward commitment of the various forms.

       Work songs (Numbers 21:17-18; Isaiah 16:10; 27:2; Jeremiah 25:30; 48:33; Hosea 2:17; Zechariah 4:7)

       Music connected with war, marching, and victory (Numbers 21:27-30; Psalm 68; 2 Chronicles 20:21; Numbers 10:35-36; Ex 15:20; Judges 5:1; 1 Samuel 21:12; Psalm 24:7-10)

       Songs for instruction, prophesy and mutual edification (Deuteronomy 3:19; 1 Kings 4:32; 2 Kings 3:15; 1 Chronicles 25:1-3; Colossians 3:16)

       Love songs, wedding music, songs of seduction (Psalm 45; Song of Songs 2:12; Ezekiel 33:32; Isaiah 5:1; Genesis 31:27; Jeremiah 25:10; 33:11; Isaiah 23:15-16)

       Entertainment (Job 21:12; Isaiah 24:9; 2 Samuel 19:35; Lamentations 5:14; Daniel 6:18; Amos 6:5)

       Music with dance (Exodus15:20; 32:18-19; 1 Samuel 18:6-7; 21:12; 29:5; Psalm 30:11-12; 68:25; 87:7; Matthew 11:17)

       Songs of derision (Job 30:9; Lamentations 3:14, 63; Isaiah 14:4)

       Mourning and lamentation (2 Samuel 1:18-27; 1 Kings 13:30; 2 Chronicles 35:25; Psalm 69:12; Job 30:31; Ecclesiastes 12:5; Jeremiah 9:16-17; 22:18; Ezekiel 27:30-32)

A close examination of any of these references,” Edgars adds, “will reveal that in no case is the use of music neutral. It is religiously conditioned, either in covenant obedience or rebellion” [pp. 48-49].

It’s worth taking the time to look all these texts up and considering them with care. Think of the exercise as not just a study of music in Scripture but of sharpening our powers of observation. Then sit down and enjoy some music, unhurriedly and without doing anything else except listening.

The February 2011 Harper’s Magazine noted two facts that on their face seem contradictory, but on reflection make a great deal of sense. On the one hand, there is a 1 in 2 chance “that an unmarried American under thirty says marriage is ‘becoming obsolete.’” That is hardly a new finding—I’ve heard the identical thing from young adults for years—but it is worth noting. On the other hand, Harper’s notes of those respondents, “Chances that he or she wants to get married: 19 in 20.” This too is not new information, but important if we are to understand our neighbors.

I am a Trinitarian, which means I believe that relationship is part of the very fabric of reality, essential to what is really real. We were made for community, for relationship because we are made in the image of the one God, who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This means God did not have to create to have a relationship, since he is in relationship from all eternity. So, as his image bearers, no matter how much we idealize individualism we yearn for community, and we cannot stop that yearning. And even when those relationships have proven disappointing and have painfully fragmented we yearn for them because to be alone is not, as God has noted, “not good,” and that is something that resonates deep within our souls.

I often hear that as a Christian I must rally behind political efforts in defense of marriage in order to guarantee that society defines marriage only as the union of one man and one woman. I hear that if this is not done marriage itself will decline in significance for the next generation.

This is something that begs to be discussed as an exercise in discernment. So, to do that, I will assume a position opposing this proposition with five points—and invite your comments.

My first point is that I’ll need a better reason to get involved in this political effort because the decline of marriage’s significance is old news. It’s already happened. And the idea that passing some law or amending the Constitution will halt that decline seems to me to be highly doubtful at best.

I would add, second, that I suspect passing some law or amending the Constitution will have a distinct effect, namely, it will bring the gospel into disrepute. The effort will be seen, not as a stand for truth or for something that is natural to human flourishing, but merely as a power play by Christians to impose their preferences and values on everyone, including those who do not share their beliefs.

Third, when I need the proper definition of marriage I will turn to Scripture and the church, not the State. I understand the historical sequence of events that led to the present moment so that church leaders (pastors and presbyters) are agents of the State when officiating at wedding ceremonies. Things have changed since that unfolded, however, and now we find ourselves living in a pluralistic society where a number of different definitions are applied to what is considered a true “marriage.” In such a setting, fighting in the public square for a biblical definition of marriage to be the law of the land seems to me to be an unwise choice. We would be better served, it seems to me, to quietly insist that it is the church not the State that is the proper authority to define marriage and to act accordingly. And this might require us to refuse to act as agents in officiating at weddings, insisting instead the State recognize legally those the church declares married. The traditional Christian ceremony of marriage begins with an affirmation: “The bond and covenant of marriage was established by God in creation, and our Lord Jesus Christ adorned this manner of life by his presence and first miracle at a wedding in Cana of Galilee.” The State, in this understanding, is entirely secondary. If the State happens to agree with Scripture and the church, fine and good, but if not, so what?

Four. I would challenge the notion that mistaken definitions of marriage by the State will weaken the institution of marriage. Have we perhaps been seduced by modernity to think too highly of the State? History shows that opposition by the State strengthens the church and we have no reason to believe it will be different this time. Yes, it is true that many in society whose morality is reduced to what is legal will be so affected—but their problem, from a Christian perspective is not primarily a mistaken understanding of marriage but the fact they have made the State into an idol.

And finally, I would argue we should concentrate on modeling loving relationships between husbands and wives before a watching world. Our goal should be to so strengthen Christian marriages that secularists and other non-Christians, yearning for healthy unions in a broken world, look around for models to follow and are shocked to discover it is Christians—who would have imagined that!—who lead the way. This would require much grace and much effort, since sadly, this is not at present the case. If by grace we begin to be such a model, we need to be certain that when they come to ask us about it, they will hear about the gospel of grace, not techniques for successful relationships.

And that, this alternative perspective would argue, is the best way to safeguard and commend marriage in a pluralistic and broken world. What do you think?

Sources: “Harper’s Index” in Harper’s (February 2011) page 11; Genesis 2:18.