Weekly Roundup: Same Sex Marriage and Superman

For many years Joe Carter, the original proprietor of the Evangelical Outpost, would gather together the week’s most interesting stories in a series called 33 Things.  Being a bloodthirsty Capitalist, Joe has threatened to sue if we continue to use the name*, thus we continue the tradition with the entirely unoriginal title of Weekly Roundup.

This week saw the high profile Supreme Court decisions that will fundamentally alter the same sex marriage debate in America.  Mere Orthodoxy has a helpful roundup of their own, gathering many of the major reactions from across the web.

One reaction not included in the Mere-O roundup comes from Dr. Peter Jones, Professor at Westminster Seminary California and Director of truthXchange.  Dr. Jones has a sober warning for the future of the church and her witness in America.

The venerable Doug Wilson, for his part, offers words of encouragement:

The salvation that Jesus is bringing to us is not a possible salvation, or a probable one, or a likely salvation. It is an inexorable and necessary salvation. Reformation, revival, salvation, forgiveness, and a spirit of deep repentance is coming at America just like tomorrow morning is.

Speaking in broader cultural terms, Josh Bishop ponders the implications of genderless marriage for men in general, specifically for their ability to form intimate, lasting and non-erotic friendships with other men.

And John Mark Reynolds provides a bit of much needed perspective by reminding traditional Christians that we have long been the “moral minority.”

In other political news, President Obama is still using ad hominem attacks on his political opponents, again suggesting that anyone who disagrees with his alarmist views on global warming is a member of the “Flat Earth Society.”  At HughHewitt.com, Clark Judge suggests that it is Mr. Obama who embraces flat earth science…and economics.

Zach Snyder’s Superman reboot, Man of Steel, is generating a lot of controversy for its dark tone and seemingly endless action sequences, as well as its clumsy Christological references.  But what if there is much more going on beneath the surface?  Peter Lawler at Big Think suggests that the film is all about Plato.  (He then continues and deepens his discussion of the Platonic themes in Man of Steel here).

While the new Superman may be an analogy for both Jesus and Plato’s Philosopher-King, Joe Carter would like to remind us that a Kryptonian invasion would be seriously bad for the economy.

There is a popular story on BuzzFeed, Eight Foods That We Eat in The US That Are Banned in Other Countries, that makes several claims about the negative health impact of some of our everyday foods, specifically the chemicals in those foods.  A chemist reviews those claims and finds them a bit overstated. 

While postmodern secularists would say that modesty (they would call it prudishness) is opposed to free self-expression, Marc at Bad Catholic argues that modesty is all about honesty, and is in fact the very thing that enables the truest expression of the self.

And now for something completely different!


*I kid, of course.  Joe is not bloodthirsty and he would never sue us.  He is a Capitalist, though.


Man of Steel: Morality Gone Wrong

If you haven’t seen Man of Steel yet, and you don’t want certain things about the film to be revealed to you, you should walk away now. In other words: Spoiler Alert.

There’s a lot to be said about Man of Steel, whether we’re judging Snyder’s directorial imprint on the iconic superhero or Henry Cavill’s (nearly perfect) attempt to portray Superman himself. The actors are all exceptional, with no exceptions. I’d be hard pressed to rain on their parade.

But this isn’t a review, so I won’t explain how neat the special effects were, or how gritty the punches felt, or what I thought about the use of flashbacks to tell a large piece of the story. Instead, there’s one bit of the film that drives me nuts: when Clark Kent’s father dies.

Kevin Costner does an excellent job playing Clark’s dad, Jonathan Kent. There’s weight to every line he gives us: this is a man who has clearly thought long and hard about the realities of raising a boy who would one day be Superman. While his lines make this incredibly obvious (“You’re going to change the world, son, for good or for evil,” paraphrased), it is more subtle than that: we see the trappings of a man who has thought so long about this that he can’t see new thoughts. He doesn’t leave room for his son to argue because Clark is still the young boy, even as he grows older.

Here’s the moment of frustration, the moment of alleged morality: Jonathan allows himself to be killed in order to prevent Clark from revealing his true power. This line of thinking (namely: preventing the world from knowing about this boy with superhuman strength and senses was more important than saving lives) is introduced earlier in the film. When Clark is still a kid, his school bus drives off a bridge, into the river below. In order to save the lives of the children on the bus, Clark gets out and pushes the bus to the shore. A few of the kids see him do this, and their parents confront the Kents.

When Jonathan goes out to talk with him, he explains that they have already talked about this; it is vital that the world not yet know about Clark’s powers. But Clark is having nothing to do with this, and makes the most obvious and powerful counterargument: “What was I supposed to do, let them all die?”

For some reason, Clark’s dad says “Maybe.”

He goes on to explain that the world isn’t ready for him, that many more lives could be lost if the government found out about him, and other similar arguments. This is where Jonathan’s moral views have failed him. He has spent so much of his life considering the consequences of this child’s identity that he no longer sees the immediate good. He was able to seriously consider sacrificing the lives of a dozen children in order to protect the identity of his own. It doesn’t help that the reason for protecting the identity of Clark is based on speculation and potential danger, not confirmed danger. If you’ve reached the point where you’re willing to let a dozen kids die for a perceived possible threat, your moral compass needs a new magnet.

Jonathan’s views end up leading to his own death. During a tornado, he rushes out to save a dog, risking his own life. When he gets stuck in a car, and eventually steps out, he makes eye contact with his son, Clark. With a slight shake of his head, Jonathan tells Clark to stay put. It would have been trivial for Clark to save Jonathan, but the risk involved–that is, the risk of allowing some relatively small number of people see him perform the task–was apparently too great. No, Clark couldn’t be allowed to save a life, just yet.

Throughout the film, many characters consider the weight of revealing to the world the story of Superman. Perry White (Laurence Fishburne) makes the same comment to Lois Lane (Amy Adams), when she comes to him about the story. Even if the story were completely true, he remarks, imagine what the world would do, how the world would react. There’s some validity here, even in the confines of the world we’re witnessing: when Superman is revealed, he spends some time as a target of the military. Even once he proves himself, the government is actively trying to learn more about him, when he’s asked them to simply trust him. It seems that everyone agrees that public knowledge regarding Superman’s abilities is dangerous. Lois Lane goes so far as to say she wouldn’t turn Superman in, even as Zod threatens to destroy the world.

One thing I hope we can all agree on: lives are valuable. I really hope I wouldn’t be the sort of person who would sacrifice a life in order to avoid a difficult situation.