Archive for February, 2008

Why I like “Pride and Prejudice”

February 26, 2008

Why I like Pride and Prejudice 

            The other night at our church potluck dinner, I explained to the young woman next to me why I was drinking regular coffee at that hour. 

            “I want to be alert when I get home tonight, so I can watch Pride and Prejudice[1] on PBS. 

            She expressed surprise: “Oh, I thought Jane Austen was only a girl thing. You mean that men like her, too?”

            So, for the next few minutes before the annual meeting started, I told her why I like both the six-hour version and the newer film starring Keira Knightly.

            I’ll start with the obvious. Both the women playing Elizabeth Bennett are beautiful, with expressive faces, and the Jane in the shorter film is also equally gorgeous.

            My enjoyment of these movies goes beyond that, however. I’ll try to be brief.

            Both Mr. Darcy and Mr. Bingley evoke my admiration. Not just that they dress well and carry themselves with grace and dignity (though some of the poses Darcy strikes seem a bit too much). Each rides like an expert horseman, contrast to Wickham, who can barely stay in the saddle). They are honorable men, who abhor falsehood, dissimulation, and every shade of wrongdoing. Bingley doesn’t seem to have the capacity for thinking or speaking evil, and exudes constant optimism. While Darcy’s  gloominess reflects a darker perspective on life, he shows himself to be utterly true to what he thinks is right.

            As for the dialog, Jane Austen’s English is peerless for purity, precision, and provocative wit. I am ashamed not to have read more than fifty pages of the novel, but that was enough to enlist me as one of her fervent admirers as a stylist.

            But we still haven’t gotten to why I have been more than willing to watch the longer version of P&P twice in the past two months, and the shorter one for the second time this week (Dori and I went to view it when it first came out.)

            What draws me to this story? Isn’t it just a high-brow chick flick?


Well, it may be that, but I think I am fascinated by the main theme, which is, of course, true love. More than that, I revel in Austen’s firm endorsement of marriage. Apart from the conventional reasons given by various characters, including the clergy – financial security for impecunious women, lawful sex, the propagation of the race, avoidance of shame and disgrace – P&P highlights the role of real love between man and wife.

And just what is “real love”? It’s certainly not the lust which brings Lydia into the clutches of a worthless rake like Wickham, a thoroughly debased cad with thoughts only for his own pleasure and promotion. Nor does it consist only the mutual appreciation for handsome good looks to which both the older sisters and their beaux freely admit.

No, it’s deeper. Without trying to be profound or moralistic, I locate Austen’s definition of true love somewhere in the realm of admiration for virtue and character. Jane and Bingley are both too good for anyone but each other, in their charitable attitude towards everyone and effusive expression of appreciation and affection.

Lizzie and Darcy, both pensive types with a strong negative lens on life, cannot fall in love so quickly and easily. Her prejudice and his pride (a fault to which she also admits; nor he is devoid of class prejudice, either) prevent them at first from discerning the other’s true worth.

In time, however, their eyes are opened, and they begin to love a person completely committed to honesty and integrity. In addition, Darcy sees how much Lizzie loves her goofy family members, and she is overwhelmed by his kindness and generosity, both observed and learned from his devoted housekeeper.

Another feature of the film(s) seems most Christian to me: The main characters who are portrayed as complex – Mr. Bennett, Darcy, and Lizzie – admit to having been wrong. This self-knowledge and frank confession of fault break the logjam and allow for reconciliation and reunion.

In a day when romantic love has been reduced to overactive hormones, indulged without restraint, P&P’s characters, with their courtesy, deference, and self-restraint evoke an era when baseness and coarseness had not penetrated as far into all levels of society as it has now.

I’m not a move critic, but I do think that the entertainment media have done much to glorify every sort of vice and demean the paramount place of marriage in society. P&P recognizes the vital role that marriage must play, and presents a vision of what might make for a truly happy union.

A buddy of mine and I were talking about P&P the other day in Starbucks. With the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the unraveling economy, an election coming up, and the ravages of relativism in the academy, just how much of our attention does a love story deserve?

 

The more I think about it, the more I believe that the sanctity of marriage, its central role in almost everyone’s life, and the picture it is meant to convey of the relationship of Christ and his church make the P&P films well worth our time, and fully worthy of our enjoyment.




[1] Hereinafter referred to as P&P.

Feeling blue?

February 24, 2008

It’s a gray Sunday afternoon, and I was feeling a bit blue when I awoke from my nap.

Dori was still resting, so I picked up one of my favorite books, John Piper’s The Pleasures of God. I had only a few pages to go before finishing it, and when I came to the end, I just sat there, thinking, “Is it really true that God wants me to be happy?”

I was listening to a CD of selected works from Bach on a Bose headset that some friends had given me, and the sheer beauty of his music began to flood my mind as I mused on the possibility that maybe Piper is right. Maybe God does want us to experience joy, and beauty, and goodness, and truth, now and always.

So, I got up – with Bach still playing – and wrote the following blog. Later, I was reminded of a song I heard when I was about six. “Any time you’re feeling lonely; any time you’re feeling blue; any time you feel down hearted – that’s the time I’ll come back home to you.”

Sweet sentiments, but sweeter still to realize that God says something similar to the first three clauses of those lyrics, but ends with, “That’s the time to come back home to Me.” So, with those thoughts I share my brief response to The Pleasures of God.

February 24, 2008

What Does God Like?

February 24, 2008

What Does God Like?

To answer the question, “What is God like,” maybe we should begin with another, ‘What does God like?” After all, you can tell a lot about someone if you knows what he likes, what gives him pleasure and delight and enjoyment.

Although I said not all these blogs would be about books, I want to share my response to one I have finally just finished, John Piper’s The Pleasures of God. In his inimitable style of warmth and passion, Piper tells us what God likes, what gives him pleasure.

Our Lord takes pleasure in his Son, Jesus; in all he does; in his creation; in his own fame and glory; in choosing to save many people from eternal perdition; in wounding his Son for our salvation; in doing good to all who hope in him; in our prayers and obedience; and in “concealing himself form the wise and revealing himself to infants” (that is, those who are meek and lowly).

Piper repeats his trademark motto: “God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him,” and applies this truth to us: “And so may the end of all our meditation, all our hope, all our prayer, all our obedience, be this great discovery: that our satisfaction in God will be infinite when, by his gift and in his kingdom, it becomes the pleasure of God in God.”

Piper believes that God wants us to be happy­ – fully, supremely, infinitely happy. And nothing will bring to us this happiness other than God himself, as we delight in him. On this Lord’s Day, I hope we can all stop for a moment and ponder how much God has done for us – even sending his only Son to die – so that all the wealth of his love would fill our hearts now and forever.

William Tyndale: A biography, by David Daniell

February 23, 2008

This marvelous book was given to me by dear friends a few years ago. It had been highly recommended to them as the biography to read for that year. I agree.

Daniell gives us a fine mix of historical background (“life and times…”), careful analysis of Tyndale’s fresh rendering of the Bible into the everyday English of the time, and judicious evaluations of Tyndale’s friends and enemies.

I came away with fresh admiration for the courage, dedication, and brilliance of this man. He labored long and hard, against immense odds and ferocious opposition, and at great danger to his own life. In the end, he was betrayed before he could finish his translation of the Old Testament, but not before he had laid a foundation that would become a magnificent edifice.

What surprised and disappointed me was the portrayal of Thomas More, who was so favorably presented in the movie, “A Man for All Seasons,” and who is considered by Roman Catholics to be a saint. What do we say about a man who did all he could to keep the people of Britain from reading the Bible in their own tongue, and who delighted in the torture of Protestants?

At any rate, Tyndale shines forth as the giant he was. We are all in his debt, and Daniell’s volume makes that abundantly clear in elegant and exacting scholarship.

I’m back

February 23, 2008

It’s been quite a while since I ventured into Blogland, mostly because I couldn’t figure out how to use the thing. Now I am hoping to post more often, partly to spare those around me from my incessant comments on all sorts of things, in season and out of season.

Feel free to respond, positively or negatively, though I may not answer you back immediately or at all. I do have a day job that occupies most of my time.

Talk to you soon, I hope!

Hello world!

February 23, 2008

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!