Category: Commentary

Disney Pixar’s latest animated feature Soul released on Disney+ on Christmas Day. Jamie Foxx voices Joe, a music teacher whose true passion is jazz. Just after getting his big break, Joe dies and passes to a spiritual realm where he’s determined to get back to his life but must first help a spirit (voiced by Tina Fey) find her passion.

From a Spiritual perspective, Soul is a very interesting film. It deals with the afterlife and the human spirit. Soul made me think of some of the great fiction works of C.S. Lewis such as “The Screwtape Letters” and “The Great Divorce.” In those books, Lewis deals with subjects of what heaven is like and how demons work. Those books are thoughtful and interesting, but they’re not theology books. I view Soul somewhat similarly. It’s thoughtful and interesting, but it’s not a Bible lesson.

What Soul does is makes us think about purpose, life, and the things we value. It’s also a story about sacrifices.

Spoilers

If you haven’t watched the movie, you might not want to spoil the ending.

As I’ve already said, the movie begins with Joe’s character finally catching a break in a frustrated music career when a famous jazz musician invites him to play with her quartet. You’re happy for his character, but as he’s walking home, he suffers a fall and is headed towards the afterlife. Not wanting to miss his break, Joe’s soul flees the afterlife (called the Great Beyond) and ends up in another realm called the Great Before, which is where souls of those not yet born dwell.

I’ll pause for a moment and note the interesting idea that the film suggests that a person has a soul even before they’re born. That idea is not Biblical, but what the Bible does teach is that God knows and cares for his people while they’re in the womb, before they’re even born. But what was interesting to me is that it’s a major motion picture which is making a values statement about human life.

The Spark

Back to the movie. The unborn souls are coached by counselors who’s job it is to help them prepare for life. They need to find their “spark” in life. The unborn souls have badges that fill up as the spirit becomes prepared for life. Joe gets paired with 22 (voiced by Tina Fey), who’s warn down many previous counselors and has never found her own spark. 22 doesn’t have any interest in living in the real world as a person. But she does decide to try to help Joe.

Through other spirits, Joe is able to see himself in the hospital and he rushes to get back to his body. In his haste, things gets switched and 22 ends up embodying Joe while Joe’s Spirit embodies a cat. These actions are all against the rules of the Great Before, and so Joe is trying not to get caught. He has a singular focus on getting back into his own body, and pursuing his musical dreams. But it is through these scenes that 22 actually starts to like the world (and pizza). She has great conversations with people, she experiences life. All of this makes 22 want to try to find her own spark in life.

She tries to run away from Joe, just as the two are discovered and taken back to the Great Before. They discover that 22’s badge is finally filled out and that she’s ready to live, but in anger at Joe (who’s taken all of the credit for her finding her spark), she tosses him her badge.

For a family movie. That’s pretty deep.

Our purpose

Joe returns to his body and after performing with his new jazz quartet, he feels guilty about what has happened. This brings up another interesting aspect of the film. Throughout the whole movie, Joe has assumed that his “spark” is music. It’s what he loves. Earlier in the movie, he had tried to help 22 find her own “spark,” which he also assumed meant helping someone find what they love.

But what we find out in the movie is that a person’s spark isn’t a specific activity or passion. Your spark is living life itself. In that sense, Joe does help 22 find her spark because he introduces her to the world and she realizes that life is a beautiful thing.

Joe has spent his whole life wanting a break in music, and when he finally gets it, he’s unfilled. We sometimes put so much hope into one thing that we can lose sight of everything else, of experiences, of connection.

I think people often think that they have some sort of unknown purpose in life that’ll bring this ultimate fulfillment. Many people feel like they were made for something great, but don’t know what it is. Especially for the younger generations in our society, we’re in an existential crisis for purpose and meaning. We put too much pressure on ourselves and lose sight of the basic joys of life.

The movie soul does have elements that talk about the afterlife, but the movie is actually about living in the real world.

It’s a great movie. Interesting, thought-provoking. It’ll make you laugh, and it might even make you cry.

Again. I’m not saying that Soul is a lesson in theology. I do want to make that clear. I think that the movie touches on lots of themes about the human soul, human worth, and our purpose for living which I think can lead to interesting discussions and conversations.

Thanks for reading! For more posts, don’t forget to like, share, and subscribe!

Let’s connect
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram
Parler

As 2020 comes to a close, I am sharing some of my top posts from this year. This post was originally shared on July 6.

Last week, legal scholar and philosopher Robert George had a thought-provoking series of Tweets on how people today would have responded to historical events had they lived through them.  

George says: 

“I sometimes ask students what their position on slavery would have been had they been white and living in the South before abolition. Guess what? They all would have been abolitionists! They all would have bravely spoken out against slavery, and worked tirelessly against it. Of course, this is nonsense. Only the tiniest fraction of them, or of any of us, would have spoken up against slavery or lifted a finger to free the slaves. Most of them—and us—would have gone along. Many would have supported the slave system and happily benefited from it.”

It’s easy to look back at history and assume we would have been righteous. There’s a meme I’ve seen on online that says “If you’ve ever wondered what you’d do during slavery, the Holocaust, or civil rights movement, you’re doing it right now.” 

Here’s a key difference for the social justice warriors of today. The popular culture supports you. There’s no pressure, or risk, or persecution to protest or be a social media activist. The media supports you, Hollywood supports you, athletes support you, academia supports you, and big corporations support you.  

People want to compare this to the Civil Rights movement. Many of the protests and sit-ins were unpopular in public opinion from that era. The movement came at a cost. Where’s the cost in sharing a meme?

To quote again from George, he gives a good ethical test for how we would have truly responded in previous eras: 

I respond by saying that I will credit their claims if they can show evidence of the following: that in leading their lives today they have stood up for the rights of unpopular victims of injustice whose very humanity is denied, and where they have done so knowing: 

(1) that it would make them unpopular with their peers, (2) that they would be loathed and ridiculed by powerful, influential individuals and institutions in our society; (3) that they would be abandoned by many of their friends, (4) that they would be called nasty names, and (5) that they would risk being denied valuable professional opportunities as a result of their moral witness. In short, my challenge is to show where they have at risk to themselves and their futures stood up for a cause that is unpopular in elite sectors of our culture today.

This is an important distinction. When we act like we would have been leading the charge in previous eras, when we want to say that we would have been virtuous in previous eras, we need to consider the context of that time and the cost of our beliefs. Because there’s little real cost in the current climate. For instance, when people want to talk about this as being similar to how they would have responded to the Holocaust consider that during the Holocaust and the Third Reich, almost 80,000 Germans were executed for being part of the resistance. People paid the ultimate price to stand up against Hitler. Where’s the cost in a hashtag?  

People want to compare this to how they would have responded in the Civil War. 360,000 soldiers died for the Union. That was roughly one percent of the entire U.S. population at the time. Men paid the ultimate price to preserve our nation and end slavery. Where’s the cost in telling people a bunch of books they should read or in watching a documentary?  

People want to compare this to the Civil Rights movement. Many of the protests and sit-ins were unpopular in public opinion from that era. The movement came at a cost. Where’s the cost in sharing a meme?  

In the civil rights movement, they protested against actual systemic racism. Today social justice warriors fight against inequality which they say is the result of current systematic racism, and there are people who want to compare the two eras as being moral equivalents. 

When people want to compare their efforts today to past social movements, it’s showing an ignorance of history and it’s also showing delusions of grandeur. Progressives like to believe that everyone is immoral except for them and that they would have been righteous at all times.  

We judge people form the past because they don’t adhere to our current standards. And when I say current, I mean that literally. Current as in today because the standards of progressivism are an ever-moving target. There weren’t serious efforts to defund, or dismantle, or destroy the police a year ago. There weren’t major popular efforts to tear down monuments five years ago. There was not a major war on our history ten years ago. But progressives continue to shift their values and they fight a culture war where there is no grace or redemption given to past people who did not perfectly adhere to these standards of today while progressives allow themselves to continue changing what matters and what’s right.

Thanks for reading! For more posts, don’t forget to like, share, and subscribe!

Let’s connect
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram
Parler

As 2020 comes to a close, I am sharing some of my top posts from this year. This post was originally shared on July 2.

I’ve seen a meme on Facebook that says “If you ever wondered what you would have done during slavery, or the holocaust, or the Civil Rights Movement, you’re doing that right now.” 

I’m going to make my own meme that says “if you’ve ever wanted what you did during the Russian Revolution, you’re doing that now.” There’s a small but vocal radical group who is undermining and working against our history, institutions, ideals, and culture. 

The Boston Arts commission unanimously voted to remove a statue of Abraham Lincoln.  Boston’s Emancipation Memorial is a repeal of another Lincoln statue in Washington D.C. which was erected in 1876 and funded by freed slaves. The statue depicts Abraham Lincoln and a freed slave who is kneeling in front of Lincoln, his shackles have been broken. 

Student groups at the University of Wisconsin have also set their sites on a Lincoln statue on their campus. The Lincoln Memorial was vandalized. 

There’s been renewed public debate in recent weeks about statues of confederate generals. I can appreciate that debate. I could even go along with tearing down every statue or monument that we have a confederate soldier. 

But Lincoln? If he’s not safe, no historical figure in American history is safe. 

A statue of Ulysses S. Grant, who was the general of the Union Army, was defaced in Philadelphia. Statues of outspoken abolitionists have been defaced in Philadelphia and Wisconsin. 

This has quickly devolved to a point where it’s not about removing confederate statues. It’s an attack on history. It’s an attack on great people who made a positive impact on our history. They too must be erased. Because the fanatical progressive cult is zealous for their beliefs and their core doctrine is that America is – and always been – a racist place. There are no redeeming qualities. The only hope for goodness is for America to be remade in accordance with their idea of utopia. 

And so great people like Lincoln don’t fit their narrative and they too must be torn down. 

Arguments I’ve seen for taking down the monument are that it offends some people. I thought great art was sometimes offensive? I’ve seen arguments that it portrays Lincoln as a “white savior.” And its original design in Washington was funded by freed slaves. Who are we to say that their idea of a memorial is unacceptable and needs to be erased? 

You have people who are not radicals but who go along with the purge because it’s easier to go with the current,

When is censorship good? When is tearing down history beneficial to a society? 
Who’s life is this making better? 

Thanks for reading! Make sure to like, comment, and subscribe!

Let’s connect
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram
Parler

As 2020 comes to a close, I am sharing some of my top posts from this year. This post was originally shared on October 26.

San Diego Unified School District is the second largest district in California. Their district recently approved major changes in their grading system to combat racial disparities in academic out comings. 

NBC San Diego explains the background for policy changes: 
According to data presented by the district, under the old grading system, teachers fail minority students more than White students – a lot more. During the first semester of last year, 30% of all D or F grades were given to English learners. One in four, 25%, of failing marks went to students with disabilities. By ethnicity, 23% went to Native Americans. Another 23% of failing grades went to Hispanics. And 20% of D or F grades went to Black students.

Among the changes, if assignments are turned in late, that will not count against a student’s academic score. Grading will not be based on cumulative scores throughout a term but by academic mastery of a subject by the end of a term. 

The policies also lessen penalties for cheating. Quoting from the San Diego Union Tribune: 
Under the new grading policy, when a student is caught cheating, schools must give the student a chance to reflect on what he or she did, repair trust and receive counseling or other help.

This is insanity. 

Their grand solution to disparities in grading is to lower standards? 

Lower expectations do not help to overcome disparities. Lower expectations do not help the world to overcome racism. They make everyone worse off. Basic academic expectations such as not cheating and turning things in on time help to prepare people for life in the real world. Because in life, there are consequences for cheating. In life, there are consequences for not making deadlines. In life, your performance matters. 

On paper, that might show some improvements in these academic disparities. But at what cost? Are these making people perform at a higher level? It seems like this could far more easily have people performing at an even worse level. They’re removing basic consequences of student’s actions. On paper, grades might be better, but if they’re doing a worse job of preparing people for the real world, I ask of what value that is. 

Part of the heart behind these changes is that some students can come from dysfunctional homes and study academically. That is a sad reality. And I recognize that there is not an easy solution to these issues. But in lowering standards to boost grades, that doesn’t change the risk of harmful unintended consequences. 

Also, I question how these policies are themselves not racist? In focusing on late assignments or cheating, they say that it’s healing to fight racism to eliminate these policies? It’s the racism of low expectations. 

Thanks for reading! Make sure to like, comment, and subscribe!

Let’s connect
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram
Parler