Confusing Love and Service With Submission

Jesus washes the Apostles' Feet: John 13

Pastor Doug Wilson recently wrote an article titled 7 Reasons Why Submission is not a Dirty Word. The usual, predictable protestations ensued.  I won't address most of them, only the ones I assume to be offered by people who sincerely desire to obey the Word of God. Here we go.

1. "Yeah, well, Ephesians 5:21 says, 'Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.' You're taking the commandment to wives to submit to their husbands out of context!"

Of course Ephesians 5:21 says what it says. No one denies that. In fact, those who fixate on Ephesians 5:21 take Ephesians 5:21 out of context.

First, let's look at the definition of the word "submit". The word translated "submit" in Ephesians 5:21 is hupotassó (ὑποτάσσω). Its definition is:

to place or rank under, to subject, mid. to obey From hupo and tasso; to subordinate; reflexively, to obey -- be under obedience (obedient) 

Now let's look at the root words: hupo and tasso.

hupo (ὑπό): properly, under, often meaning "under authority" of someone working directly as a subordinate (under someone/something else). 

tassó (τάσσω): properly, arrange (put in order); to place in a particular order, appoint. Commonly used in ancient military language for "designating" ("appointing, commissioning") a specific status, i.e. arranging (placing) in a deliberate, fixed order.

Got that? To submit is to obey, to be under obedience, to work directly as a subordinate to someone else after having been placed in a particular order, arranged in a deliberate, fixed order, analogous to a military unit.

Given the definition of the word hupotassó (ὑποτάσσω), and its military roots, it's obvious that Ephesians 5:21 precedes a set of verses (Ephesians 5:22 - 6:9) that establish a deliberate, fixed order that explains which members of the Church are supposed to submit to which other members of the Church. Wives submit to their own (i.e., not someone else's) husbands (Ephesians 5:22, 24, 33). Children obey (submit to) their parents (Ephesians 6:1). Servants obey (submit to) their masters (Ephesians 6:5-6).

Why does Paul begin with wives? Because the family is the foundation of everything else. Rebellious wives raise rebellious children who become rebellious adults.

Obviously, Paul wasn't stupid, or unrealistic. In fact, he wrote the best treatise on human nature in his Epistle to the Roman Christians. He knew that it's human nature to abuse ones authority. He therefore (inspired by the Holy Spirit) tempered the commandments to submit to authority by commanding those in authority to love their subordinates. Husbands, love your wives as Christ loves the Church (Ephesians 5:25-33). Fathers, don't exasperate your children (Ephesians 6:4). Masters, treat your servants well (Ephesians 6:9).

2. "But... but... but... what about when we submit to our friends? What about the kind of submission between equals that we would characterize as amiability and good manners?"

That isn't submission. It's not hupotassó (ὑποτάσσω). It's a form of loving ones neighbor.

 3. "But... but... but... what about Jesus washing his disciple's feet? Wasn't that an act of submission? Didn't he teach that we should all submit to one another by washing each other's feet?"

No, and no. Let's look at John 13, the scripture that details that event.

John 13:3 Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power [note the hierarchy and authority in that statement ~ O], and that he had come from God and was returning to God; 4 so he got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist. 5 After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples’ feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him. 

6 He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, “Lord, are you going to wash my feet?” 7 Jesus replied, “You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand.” 8 “No,” said Peter, “you shall never wash my feet.” Jesus answered, “Unless I wash you, you have no part with me.” 9 “Then, Lord,” Simon Peter replied, “not just my feet but my hands and my head as well!” 10 Jesus answered, “Those who have had a bath need only to wash their feet; their whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you.” 11 For he knew who was going to betray him, and that was why he said not every one was clean.

Remember the definition of the word "submit" - hupotassó (ὑποτάσσω):

to place or rank under, to subject, mid. to obey From hupo and tasso; to subordinate; reflexively, to obey -- be under obedience. 

Who was the disciple (hupo [ὑπό]: under authority, subordinate) and who was the teacher in that scenario? Who obeyed whom? Under whose authority did God the Father place all things?

Clearly, Peter was the disciple, the subordinate, the one under authority. Just as clearly, Peter obeyed Christ, not the other way around. Christ wanted to wash Peter's feet. Peter didn't want Christ to wash his feet. Christ told peter that unless Christ washed his feet, Peter had no part with Christ. Peter, then obeyed - submitted (hupotassó [ὑποτάσσω]) to - Christ, and Christ washed his feet.

Christ did not submit (hupotassó [ὑποτάσσω]) to Peter. Peter submitted (hupotassó [ὑποτάσσω]) to Christ. When Christ washed His disciples' feet, it was an act of service and love, not submission. They're not the same thing.

My two-year-old daughter is potty training. She still has potty accidents. Sometimes she wants Mom to wipe her poopy butt when Mom is busy with our six-month-old baby, so I have to wipe my daughter's poopy butt even though she wants Mom to do it. My daughter, then, obeys - submits (hupotassó [ὑποτάσσω]) to - me and I wipe her poopy butt.

Wiping another person's poopy butt is just about the lowliest, most servant-like act one human can perform for another, yet when I wipe my daughter's poopy butt, it's not an act of submission on my part. It's an act of service and love on my part. It's an act of submission on her part. They're not the same thing.

Love and service are not submission. Obedience is submission.

Christians who claim that Ephesians 5:21 commands all Christians to submit to all other Christians misunderstand the definition of the word submit (hupotassó [ὑποτάσσω]), or they confuse love and service with submission, or they're simply not thinking logically.

How can two objects be simultaneously "placed under" each other? How can two peers "rank under" each other? How can they be "under authority" to each other? How can they "work directly as a subordinate to" each other? How can they "obey" or be "under obedience" to one another? What if they take turns submitting to each other? Doesn't that violate the concept of working directly as a subordinate to someone else (hupo [ὑπό]) after having been placed in a particular order, arranged in a deliberate, fixed order (tassó [τάσσω])? In fact, isn't that the opposite of a deliberate, fixed order?

One has to perform some serious mental gymnastics to misconstrue Ephesians 5:21 as a commandment for all Christians to submit to one another.

4. "But.. but... but... isn't wifely submission just a cultural construct? Couldn't one argue that this is the position of the culture at the time and therefore Paul's admonishing so that the word of God may not be blasphemed was how the outsiders would have understood the ideal household?"

Sure, one could argue that it's a cultural construct, but that doesn't make the argument valid.

1 Cor 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Is that hierarchy - which includes God the Son and God the Father - an eternal, God-created deliberate, fixed order, or a temporary, man-made cultural construct?

Why do sincere Christians go to such absurd lengths to deny that the Bible says what it so obviously says? Because what the Bible says violates their feminist sensibilities, and therefore embarrasses them. Lest you think that conservative, Bible-believing Christians can't be feminists, remember the quote I keep repeating.

“Most people catch their presuppositions from their family and surrounding society, the way that a child catches the measles.” ~ Francis A. Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live?: The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture

American culture is thoroughly feminist, and has been for decades. The vast majority of modern American Christians - even conservative ones - have marinated in feminism their entire lives, and don't even realize it. They're fish who don't know they're wet.

Let's stop pretending that the Bible says something other than what it actually says. And let's stop being ashamed of it.

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.  

Belle is a Stuck-Up Snob

In "honor" of the impending release of the live action version of Beauty and the Beast, I'll address an issue that has bothered me since the first time I watched the animated version in 1992. Belle is a stuck-up snob. Watch this.



Belle patiently and graciously tolerates her neighbors' boring doltishness with little more than a sigh, a roll of the eyes and a shake of her head, but in case we didn't catch her contempt for them, she makes sure to refer to them as "provincial".

pro·vin·cial: prəˈvin(t)SH(ə)l/adjective
1. of or concerning a province of a country or empire.
"provincial elections"
synonyms: nonmetropolitan, small-town, nonurban, outlying, rural, country, rustic, backwoods, backwater;
2. of or concerning the regions outside the capital city of a country, especially when regarded as unsophisticated or narrow-minded.
"scenes of violence were reported in provincial towns"
synonyms: regional, state, territorial, district

In case we still didn't catch the film makers' contempt for rural, blue collar people, they beat us over the head with it during the song, "Kill the Beast".

We don't like what we don't understand
In fact it scares us
And this monster is mysterious at least
Bring your guns, bring your knives
Save our children and our wives
So save our village and our lives!
Let's kill the beast! 

Got that? Rural, blue collar people (particularly married fathers with children and wives) are narrow minded, prejudiced, bigoted, paranoid, easily manipulated and prone to violence. Why, some might even call them "deplorable".

Sound familiar?

It should.

It's exactly the prejudiced, bigoted opinion that America's coastal and big-city elites hold of their rural, blue collar countrymen in flyover country.

That's not to say that the film makers deliberately set out to indoctrinate children with an animated blockbuster, nor is that out of the realm of possibility. It's likely that the film makers simply projected their own prejudices onto the screen. They probably see themselves as Belle surrounded by American Idiots. After all, writers often write themselves (or facets of themselves) into their stories' heroes.

If you doubt me, check out Meryl Streep's Golden Globes speech, in which she manages to aggrandize herself and her and her fellow, rich, powerful Hollywood elites, while simultaneously making them all out to be victims. That's quite a feat to pull off. Or, check out David Harbour's (of Stranger Things) even crazier speech at the SAG Awards. Theirs is the standard thought pattern of Hollywood elites, and that group includes the people who made Beauty and the Beast.

Back to Belle: her contempt for her neighbors is ironic, considering that their lives would go on just fine without her, but hers is impossible without them. Her neighbors include bakers, butchers, tailors, farmers, fishmongers..... BOOOOOOORIIIIIIING! Right? But if they all disappeared, what would she eat? What would she wear?

By contrast, the movie never shows Belle contributing anything of value to her town. Sure, she's beautiful and smart, but she does nothing of value with those gifts. And they are gifts. Both beauty and intelligence are mostly hereditary. She could teach children, for example, but she doesn't even do that.

Even her father, though eccentric, invents useful machines, and yet the story presents him as a lovable, intelligent buffoon.

This is the same kind of contempt of which I wrote earlier.

... what's wrong with men who work in skilled trades?  After all, they make Ms [Susan] Patton's life, with luxuries and comforts King Solomon could not have imagined, possible.  They extract the fuels and generate the electricity she uses to make a living.  They keep that electricity flowing and swoop in to the rescue when that flow is interrupted.  They build the roads on which every single product Ms Patton owns and uses reached its intended destination, and drove those products to her.  Surely, the fancy restaurants Ms Patton frequents cook with natural gas.  Where does she think that natural gas originated?  How did it reach her favorite restaurant?  She probably doesn't think about those questions, because the men who make it happen do their job so well she doesn't have to think about it.

Note that Susan Patton is yet another coastal elite, a Princeton graduate who lives in NYC and writes for the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, etc.

It's also the kind of contempt for people who work with their hands that Mike Rowe of Dirty Jobs fame regularly combats.

So, why does it matter that a fictional Disney princess reflects the contempt with which her creators hold blue collar Americans in flyover country? Because...

“Most people catch their presuppositions from their family and surrounding society, the way that a child catches the measles.” ~ Francis A. Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live?: The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture 

This snobbery towards people (the vast majority of them men) who choose to work with their hands and their brains needs to stop, and as long as Americans swim from childhood in an ocean of slanderous contempt towards hard working, decent people in flyover country, it won't stop.

Woman Worship

Joining in on the fake outrage over Donald Trump's lewd comments, many Republican politicians released statements condemning Trump's immorality - of which they were well aware from the start. That's only a springboard to this post's subject. Here are two of the stupidest statements I read. 

“Mr. Trump’s comments were offensive and disgusting. There is no excuse for such degrading behavior. All women deserve to be treated with respect.” ~ Sen. Orrin Hatch (Utah) 

“I am sickened by what I heard today. Women are to be championed and revered, not objectified. I hope Mr. Trump treats this situation with the seriousness it deserves and works to demonstrate to the country that he has greater respect for women than this clip suggests.” ~ House Speaker Paul Ryan (Wisconsin)

Coincidentally, around the same time I ran into this horror story.

Shockingly, police accused the child’s mother, Michelle Martens, 35, of arranging for her boyfriend, Fabian Gonzales, 31, to rape her child. Police also accused Martens of helping to stab the child to death and dismembering her. Gonzales’s cousin, Jessica Kelley, 31, was also arrested for participating in the horrific crime. 

Michelle Martens (left), murderous mother of the late Victoria Martens (right, 10 years old).

Now new details from the investigation obtained by KRQE News 13 reveal that police think Martens sat back and watched her own daughter’s death and then had sex with the child’s killer.

..... 

But ultimately the records show Martens gave up her claims of being a victim and admitted she had allowed several men to have sex with the child and named at least two men who did so. 

Have you ever heard anyone say that all men "deserve to be treated with respect", or that men "are to be championed and revered"? Me neither. Why? Because no one believes such nonsense. Everyone understands some men earn respect and reverence through their respectable, reverential behavior, while others don't, and that we should treat them accordingly.

But, for some bizarre reason, few apply that same standard to women.

Does Michelle Martens "deserve to be treated with respect... championed and revered"? Is pimping out her daughter to various men in exchange for drugs, watching them have sex with her daughter, watching one murder the 10-year-old girl and then having sex with the murderer respectable, reverential behavior that we should champion?

If you answered "yes" to either question, please leave my blog.

If you answered "no", please ask yourself; why is it acceptable to say that "all women deserve to be treated with respect", and that "women are to be championed and revered"? If those statements are true, that means that Michelle Martens "deserve[s] to be treated with respect... championed and revered".

The truth is that women who've earned respect and reverence through respectable, reverential behavior deserve to be respected, championed and revered. Those who haven't, don't. If you think otherwise, you're sexist.

Think about it. Judging a person on the basis of his/her sex instead of his/her individual behavior is sexism.

Furthermore, people who treat women who've never earned respect as though they have are basically treating women who have earned respect like chumps. After all, if you can receive respect without earning it; why go through the trouble of earning it?

Women aren't angelic, sinless beings born through immaculate conception. They're retched, depraved sinners, just like men.

Romans 3:10 As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11     there is no one who understands;
    there is no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away,
    they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
    not even one.”
13 “Their throats are open graves;
    their tongues practice deceit.”
“The poison of vipers is on their lips.”
14     “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16     ruin and misery mark their ways,
17 and the way of peace they do not know.”
18     “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
...
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God...

Note the repetitive use of absolute terms like "no one", "not even one" and "all". There is only one exception, and it's not your wife, your daughter or your mom. It's Christ. That's it.

Now, I realize that Paul Ryan and Orrin Hatch are politicians, and as such they are craven opportunists who'll say anything to give their political party an advantage. But, precisely for that reason, they would only make such statements if they knew that such statements play well with their constituents. Paul Ryan and Orrin Hatch probably aren't stupid enough to believe those statements, but they probably know their constituents are.

It's far worse when pastors - who really should know better since, presumably, they know the Bible - engage in woman worship.

I don't have time to get into that now, but I will.

Human Planet Honors Fathers

I meant to have this ready for Fathers' Day and failed miserably, but any day is a good day to honor fathers, so here we go.



Human Planet is a BBC documentary narrated by the legendary David Attenborough. Every documentary of his I've watched is about animals or plants, but this one is different. Here, the BBC shows us how people from vastly different cultures all over the world live. In so doing, the BBC ends up telling compelling stories about the extraordinary things fathers do to support their families. I assume this is inadvertent, but that makes the documentary even better. Here's what I mean.

As I noted earlier, movies that are based on true stories are more likely than fictional movies to honor fathers. That's because in real life, fathers aren't the incompetent, impotent imbeciles commonly portrayed in modern popular culture. Human Planet, because it's a documentary, and because it didn't set out to portray fathers heroically, sets the difference between real life and Hollywood indoctrination in even starker contrast.

Without further ado, I'll start with my favorite story.

Sailau and Berek



Sailau belongs to a Kazakh tribe who traditionally use golden eagles to hunt foxes. His family needs fox furs to stay warm through the brutal winter. Sailau trains his son, Berek, in the art of falconry, beginning with capturing a fledgling female (they're bigger than the males), then training her, then taking her on her first hunt. The best part is when Berek and his eagle make their first kill. Sailau tells his son, "now you are a man of your people".

Stanzin



Stanzin and his family live in a remote Himalayan village. He wants his children to receive an education, but there are no schools in his village, so Stanzin takes his children to a boarding school 90 Km away. It's a treacherous six-day trek over the frozen (but thawing) Zanskar River.

Sam Niang



Sam Niang risks his life every day to feed his family of seven. The roiling rapids of the Mekong River trap migrating fish, but to net them, Sam Niang has to climb wet, mossy cliffs and traverse the Mekong on a makeshift bridge he jury rigged together in the dry season.

Tete



Tete also risks his life for his family, but in his case it's by climbing 130 ft up a tree with no safety gear and suffering dozens of bee stings to score some honey for his wife and children. Tete's wife has some great lines.

Tete is the best. The kids are not afraid for him, just proud. They say, "wow, look at dad!"... My husband has a kind heart. He always brings me honey. 

The narrator, though, gets the best line.

Tete takes time to savor his success. He's done enough to keep his wife sweet, treat his children and earn respect from his tribe. 

Isn't that what all married fathers want?

Hatogo and Sulaiman 



I've observed good men work themselves into an early grave to support their families, but nothing quite like this. In the Indonesian island of Java, men mine sulfur in the Ljen Volcano's crater. The gasses that constantly fill the crater, including Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S), are highly toxic, and even if they don't kill the men right away, they destroy their lungs over time. On top of that, carrying 90 kg (about 200 lb) of sulfur at a time in baskets leaves their shoulders scarred, calloused and deformed. One of them states:

They say this job can shorten your life. I do it to feed my family. No other job pays this well. 

All for $5.00/load.

But that's what dads do. They sacrifice themselves for their families.

Human Planet contains many more stories. Not all of them are about dads, but most are. The documentary is beautifully shot, entertaining and educational, but what I love most about it is the stories of dads from wildly different cultures who are remarkably alike. They all want to provide for their families and earn their peers' respect. That theme is so nearly universal that it's almost as though someone designed it that way.

I shouldn't be surprised anymore when I see God's plan naturally bubble to the top through layer upon layer of human sin, but for some reason I still am. I doubt that any of the men whose stories I highlighted have ever heard the Gospel, but they all bring to my mind passages from the New Testament.

Romans 2:14 Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.

Having never read the book of Ephesians, these married fathers nevertheless love their wives and children sacrificially. My experience and observation tell me that is the rule, not the exception, among married fathers, and for that we should honor them.

Watch Human Planet on Netflix while you still can.

Miss America Promotes Self Defense, "Feminists" Explode

Nia Sanchez (Nevada), the new Miss USA, just gave "Feminists" a whole new reason to hate pageants. 

Miss Nevada Nia Sanchez, a fourth-degree black belt in the Korean martial art of

Source: NYP

taekwondo, was crowned Miss USA 2014 on Sunday night.

...

Judge Rumer Willis, the 25-year-old daughter of Bruce Willis and Demi Moore, said 19 percent of U.S. undergraduate women are victims of sexual assault and asked Sanchez why she thinks this is being swept under the rug and what should be done about it.

Sanchez said bringing awareness to the issue was important, as well as women taking it upon themselves to learn how to defend themselves.

Naturally, "Feminists" - who claim that women are capable of doing everything men are capable of doing - took to Twitter to vent their rage at the idea that women are capable of learning to defend themselves.

Let's apply to other crimes - and to men - the "logic" that "Feminists'" applied to sexual assault and to women.

I'm sorry, but women shouldn't need to take self defense classes to protect themselves from rape #MissUSA—
Peter Simon (@PeterSimon12) June 09, 2014

I'm sorry, but men shouldn't need to take self defense classes to protect themselves from aggravated assault.

Miss Nevada was asked about rape at colleges and answered that women need to learn to defend themselves... OR MEN COULD JUST NOT RAPE.
Anna Garcia (@a_mariagaria) 8 Jun 2014

Miss Nevada was asked about murder in Chicago and answered that men need to learn to defend themselves... OR MURDERERS COULD JUST NOT MURDER.

Miss Nevada described how individuals need to protect themselves from rape, instead of teaching others not to rape. Stop the victim blaming.—
Haley Ploucha (@hallepalouka) June 09, 2014

Miss Nevada described how men need to protect themselves from armed robbery, instead of teaching others not to rob at gunpoint.  Stop the victim blaming.

Women shouldn't need to learn to protect themselves against rape #missnevada  educate and respect yourself as a woman #rapeculture
Anna Beth West (@annabethwest) 8 Jun 2014

Men shouldn't need to learn to protect themselves against home invasions educate and respect yourself as a man (home invasion culture).

Yes, I refuse to use hash tags in my writing.

Sexual assault is a crime.  All crimes are violations of an individual's rights to life, liberty and/or property.  Evil people who violate others' rights have always existed and always will.  Therefore, the need for individuals to defend themselves from evil people has always existed and always will.

It's why we lock our doors.  It's why we buy security systems for our houses and cars.  It's why we avoid high crime areas.  Advising people to take practical precautions to avoid being a victim is not victim-blaming.  That remains true even if the crime is sexual in nature.

It's also why our Bill of Rights includes the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment protects the individual's right to own the most effective self defense tools available - firearms - so that the individual may defend him/herself from those who would violate his/her rights - whether the violators are ordinary criminals or criminal governments.

In fact, the worst thing I can say about Nia Sanchez's response is that she failed to mention using a gun in self defense.  Nobody's perfect.

But the vast majority of "Feminists" abhor the Second Amendment.

I guess the idea of a woman having the power to effectively defend herself against her attacker(s) is just too empowering for the average "Feminist" to consider.

My life of hell in an Afghan harem | Phyllis Chesler

My life of hell in an Afghan harem | New York Post

I've read a lot of Phyllis Chesler's articles, and I had no idea about any of this.

I once lived in a harem in Afghanistan. 

I did not enter the kingdom as a diplomat, soldier, teacher, journalist or foreign aid worker. I came as a young Jewish bride of the son of one of the country’s wealthiest men. I was held in a type of captivity — but it’s not as if I had been kidnapped. 

I walked into it of my own free will.

Lots of naive, love-struck Western women have ended up in similar predicaments with Muslim men.  Some people refuse to look at reality until runs them over like a Mack Truck.

It is 1959. I am only 18 when my prince — a dark, older, handsome, westernized foreigner who had traveled abroad from his native home in Afghanistan — bedazzles me.

Wait a minute.  She was "bedazzled" by.... this dweeb?  I don't mean to be disrespectful, but, seriously, Phyllis?

I’ve never told this story in detail before, but felt that I must now. Because I hear some westerners preach the tortured cultural relativism that excuses the mistreatment of women in the name of Islam. Because I see the burqa on the streets of Paris and New York and feel that Afghanistan has followed me back to America. 

I call myself a feminist — but not just any feminist. My kind of feminism was forged in the fires of Afghanistan. There I received an education — an expensive, almost deadly one — but a valuable one, too. 

I understand firsthand how deep-seated the hatred of women is in that culture. I see how endemic indigenous barbarism and cruelty is and unlike many other intellectuals and feminists, I don’t try to romanticize or rationalize it. 

I got out, and I will never return. 

The whole article is worth a read, so be sure to click on the link.

That explains a lot about Phyllis Chesler, like why her writing - unlike the vast majority of Feminists' - fails to induce vomiting.  It also explains why - unlike the vast majority of Western Feminists, who obsess about imaginary "wars on women" and "wage gaps" - Phyllis Chesler focuses on the very real oppression of women in majority Muslim countries.

Man of Steel Review

Stop me if you've heard this one.  A wise, celestial being sends his only begotten son to Earth, telling him, "You will give them an ideal to strive towards.  They'll race behind you.  They will stumble.  They will fall.  But in time, they will join you in the sun", and "You can save them all".  The son is raised by an ordinary, yet noble, hard working man.  At the age of 33, the son reveals his identity and origin to the world, performing works of wonder to save humanity from an enemy they couldn't possibly fight themselves.

Sound familiar?  Of course it does!  I'm referring to Superman!



I don't want to give too much away, but a few things really stood out to me.  First, the writers changed some details of Superman's origin, though not the overall story.  It should still satisfy most comic book nerds.

Second, Superman's Kryptonian parents play a much bigger role in this movie than in previous iterations of the story.  Russell Crowe did a great job as Jor-El, Superman's father.  He was back in "Gladiator" mode.  Kevin Costner and Diane Lane, as his Earthly parents, didn't have as much to do, so they really didn't have an opportunity to shine.

Third, there's a strong theme about the influence fathers have on their sons running through the script.  I've noticed a lot of that in superhero movies lately.  Batman, Spider-man, Iron Man and Wolverine all have "daddy issues" in their current movie incarnations.  Some are straight out of the source material, some are new.  I don't know if that is a case of lazy writing, or a real reflection of current cultural issues.

Fourth, Superman's Kryptonian enemy, General Zod, is far superior in this movie to his previous appearance in Superman II.  His motivations are clearer and make more sense, and Michael Shannon was excellent.  He was intense and menacing without being cheesy.


Zod and his henchmen are the perfect foils for Superman.  Together, they're more powerful than he is.  They can actually threaten him.  I really don't see how other villains will stack up (with one exception I'll discuss later).

That brings me to another point.  This Superman is less powerful than previous ones.  He gets fatigued, hurt, even injured.  He strains against huge weights to the point of exhaustion.  I see that positively.  Previous Superman stories make him too powerful.  Nothing can hurt or threaten him (except for Kryptonite).  Where's the drama in that?

The one theme that runs most prominently through the story, however, is that of Superman as a Christ figure, as I detailed at the beginning of this post.  I read one review that claimed this wasn't so, since Superman does not sacrifice himself in this movie.  However, Christopher Nolan, who produced "Man of Steel", directed the latest Batman trilogy with a clear story arc linking all three films.  I suspect this will be a similar case.  I predict the next movie will feature Lex Luthor, and the last will feature Doomsday.

Speaking of directing, the special effects were astounding, the fight scenes were exciting and the story never really let up, all of which we expect from director Zack Snyder.

What's not to like?  Well, the excessive amounts of unnecessary shaky cam and weird close-ups.  Also, Aimee and I both thought Amy Adams was miscast as Lois Lane.  She's an outstanding actress, but she just didn't pull off the part of a hard-nosed, tenacious reporter.  Other than that, not much.

"Man of Steel" is a fun, exciting, entertaining, intergalactic slug-fest.  But it's much more than that.  The best superhero movies use the outlandish fantasy inherent to them to convey universal themes found in the best stories, from Homer to today.  The "Dark Knight" trilogy did that better than any other, but I suspect a "Man of Steel" trilogy may surpass it.

Jurors Agree: UI Discriminated Against Conservative

Ah, the "tolerance" of the Left:

A federal jury believed the University of Iowa’s law school illegally denied a promotion to a conservative Republican because of her politics, former jurors told The Des Moines Register.

.....

This case involves a lawsuit filed by Teresa Wagner against the law school after she was turned down for a faculty position in the legal analysis, writing and research program. Wagner is a Republican who has worked for anti-abortion organizations. She alleged that she was passed over the position not because she lacked the qualifications but because she was blackballed by liberal members of the law school faculty.

Universities whine incessantly about "diversity" and "tolerance", yet they consistently ignore, or outright suppress, the only kind of diversity that matters; diversity of thought.  Everyone knows universities discriminate against non-"Liberals".  The statistics prove it.

A staggering 99 percent of political donations among faculty and staff at Princeton University went to President Obama, while Mitt Romney earned just 1 percent, according to public records.

Is it any wonder that so many college students graduate as brain-washed "Liberals" who only come to their senses when they start a small business and reality smacks them in the face?

Dad as Action Hero

I'm not a gamer, so maybe someone who is can educate me, but this seems like a positive trend.

The Walking Dead video game

Recently, we’ve seen major games starring characters like a workaday father on a mining operation saving up money for his family (Lost Planet 3), soldiers driven by love of family (Medal of Honor, Dead Space 3) or men acting as surrogate fathers for lost little girls (The Walking Dead, I Am Alive, The Last of Us). In each of these games, the goal seems to be to take videogame storytelling beyond the average cookie-cutter action heroes in order to dig at deeper emotions and motivations.

“People will do absolutely anything for their families,” said Sean Vanaman, lead writer on the Walking Dead videogame. The episodic game series has won critical acclaim for its portrayal of two main characters, Lee and Clementine, who both lose their entire families as the game begins. The player controls Lee and must constantly make decisions as to the fate of young Clementine.

Rick Grimes of The Walking Dead TV series

The Walking Dead is my favorite fiction show right now.  The comics are great too, although I've only read a few of them.  The reason I like them so much is that I identify strongly with the lead character, Rick.  Not only is he the archetypal cowboy of the shows I loved as a kid (Andrew Lincoln, who plays Rick Grimes, cites "High Noon" as inspiration), but he's a husband and father desperately trying - against all hope - to keep his family alive and sane in a dying, insane world.

Any father can identify with such a character, asking himself, "what would I do in his shoes?" 

Grimes family

I've noticed what I think is a trend away from the idiot, buffoon dad ubiquitous in pop culture, and toward fathers as heroes in movies, TV, and apparently now, video games.  I think this is important.  Art influences culture, and culture influences society, which influences individuals.  The influence of seeing fathers as universal idiots can't be good. 

Of course, some fathers are idiots, and some are worse than that.  But pop culture has portrayed almost all fathers as idiots for decades.  As far as I can tell, that trend goes at least as far back as "The Flintstones", where Fred Flintstone constantly tries idiotic schemes that get him and his reluctant accomplice, Barney, in serious trouble.  Invariably, Fred blames Barney, and Wilma and Betty rescue them both.

Again, if pop culture had portrayed dads as buffoons only occasionally, that would be fine, even realistic.  But entertainers have portrayed dads as buffoons universally, and I suspect that has damaged the concept of fatherhood (and by extension, family) in the minds of countless consumers of pop culture. 

It's ironic (and encouraging), then, that a blood-and-gore-soaked series like "The Walking Dead" would promote the classicallyly wholesome idea of the father as hero.