Theology

My Family’s Journey through Alzheimer’s

The unexpected beauty I found amid the terrifying disease.

iStock

It's April, and light sparkles in the leaves of my mother's old magnolia tree. I pull my rented white Ford Fiesta over to the curb, yank the hand brake, and sit gazing at the sun-drenched bungalow. For eight years, Mother lived here on the campus of the Christian Care Center in Dallas. Beside the two-bedroom house, the patch of soil where she once planted basil and thyme is now covered in roses.

I am revisiting the several houses where she lived and dropping in on the doctors' offices where we sat in waiting rooms together. I have eaten black-eyed peas with chili peppers. I have ordered grits to remind me of the tastes we shared. I have caught up with her friends at lunch, stopped by the greenhouses she frequented, and walked in the parks she loved.

Everywhere in Dallas, memories of my mother swim back. I see her turning the corner in her neighborhood grocery store, walking in her black flats down the ruby carpet in her church, stuffing a chicken with onions and loading it into her oven.

Now she is gesturing toward a brilliant pink peony on the lawn of the Christian Care Center. "Did you know a peony can live for 50 years?" she says. "This was dead in February, and look! Here it is again."

I get out of my rented Ford and walk over to the peony. It is blooming wildly. It has outlived my mother, who has been gone for years. I am thinking about how much she, a national flower show judge, loved perennials. I suspect that perennials reminded her of the Resurrection. It wouldn't be quite accurate to say that she had faith in the fact that there is life after death. I don't think the alternative ever occurred to her.

I touch the silky blossom of the peony, which shatters brightly on the grass.

Terrifying Word

According to the most recent statistics, more than five million Americans have Alzheimer's disease. One in three seniors dies with some kind of dementia, of which Alzheimer's is the most common. And more than 15 million of us care for parents, friends, or relatives with the disease. Alzheimer's, like cancer, is a word that electrifies our conversations with terror. It currently has no cure.

The disease can be terrible. My mother suffered from it. And there were years when taking care of her felt like a grim, dispiriting grind. Yet I think everyone in our family came away with what no one mentions in our Alzheimer's discussions: what I can call only gifts. Those gifts include a stronger bond with my mother and my sister, a truer sense of aging and death (realities our society mostly hides from us), a clearer understanding of my own past, and priceless spiritual disciplines, including prayer, patience, humor, hospitality—in other words, how to wait, and how to let go.

My mother died in January 2008, at the very bottom of winter. She had fallen, broken her hip. But her diminished ability to navigate was caused by Alzheimer's. It's fair to say that, though she cleverly avoided a diagnosis, she died of the disease. She was a nurse who pitted her cunning against every doctor she ever saw. More than anything, she wanted to escape a dementia diagnosis. My sister and I valiantly tried to secure one, believing that it might lead to more helpful medical intervention. But I often silently cheered for her as she outwitted her doctors.

After we lost her, I did what I always do when I can't quite grasp what has happened to me: I read books. They horrified me. They described such grim hopelessness, such utter and final despair, that as I read, my imagination kept falling off into disbelief. It was sort of like riding King, the black pony rented for me for two weeks almost every summer of my adolescence. For the first couple of days, without warning, King would take off toward the far field. Then he would abruptly stop. Riding bareback, I would fly over his arched neck and land on the ground in a bruised heap. That's how I felt, reading the Alzheimer's literature. The narratives of those books violently differed from my experience with my mother.

Shortly after that, I read an op-ed in The New York Times that argued that our discussion about Alzheimer's has become one-sided. What we tell one another about it is so appalling that some seniors are vowing to commit suicide if they are diagnosed, and their middle-aged children are fleeing from caretaking. Yes, I thought. Even those of us with faith have become victims of our own terror.

I began to realize that I needed to write what I know about the Alzheimer's journey. The next day I applied for a grant to fly to Dallas and do research.

A Journey with a Destination

The word pilgrimage is less familiar to us than it was 100 years ago. It is less common in this country than it is in some Muslim countries. But pilgrimage implies a goal and an intentional journey toward that goal. Sometimes the goal is an actual church or site. Almost always the people going on a pilgrimage have not seen the site. They believe in it. They hope for it. But they are on a passage toward something that's not yet present and clear and obvious.

In fact, pilgrims often aim for something they can't locate on a map. One pilgrim might want to discover how to pray, for example. Another might long to learn how to be quiet. Yet another might have the goal of actively loving her neighbors.

A pilgrim needs faith to envision the goal, whether it is a literal or spiritual destination. A pilgrim needs to believe she might actually reach the goal. And since the pilgrim has never traveled that path, she learns—discovers as she goes—how to get there and exactly what her end will look like.

On a dark Dallas highway in the middle of a fall night, I finally realized our Alzheimer's years would be a pilgrimage.

But let me go back to the beginning of our journey. When my strong, practical mother began to forget phone numbers and then one evening reported that she forgot how to get home from the local dress shop, I was shaken. What was wrong? Was it her map-reading skills, which were always a little wobbly? Was it her eyesight? Was it that she needed to limit her driving to daytime?

I sent her a large print map. And soon after, I flew to Dallas to check on her, bearing her great-grandchild's drawings, artichoke dip, and tickets to the symphony.

Mother drove me around Dallas, as she always had. The gardens. The art museum. But she couldn't find her bank.

The next day I bought a map of Dallas for myself. I'd never needed one because my mother kept the scheme of its eastern suburbs in her head. That afternoon she and I, following the map, found her eye doctor's office. He prescribed new glasses—trifocals, which cost over $300. Then we drove to the place where she had always been fitted for glasses. She told me she thought she could find it again, if she needed to.

But a couple of weeks later, she told me on the phone that she couldn't find the trifocals. And she couldn't find the glasses place. My mother, who had taught us to save things, to keep what we were lucky enough to have.

It kept getting worse.

Because Alzheimer's and senior dementia have no clear, discernible beginning, and because the course and length of the disease vary with each person, the journey begins to feel not like a pilgrimage but like an endless, repetitive slog. Even with a diagnosis, there's no way to predict what's coming next.

Such ambiguity created practical difficulties for me: What will this cost? Will I need to fly to Dallas this week? Where is the best place for Mother to live?

More crucially, this vast uncertainty depleted my spirit. I felt confused and sometimes without purpose. How could I fix what was wrong? I didn't know much about medicine. Did we have the right doctors? What should I pray for?

With no clear sense of what was wrong with Mother, and with no end in sight, I felt colorless—bleached out, worn to a nubbin.

Not Mine to Make

Then one autumn I found myself on a Dallas expressway, driving from the airport after a flight to see my mother, and I realized that I was lost—not just off the map, but in a bigger way.

I had flown in after a day of teaching. The plane was delayed, arriving three hours late. I found myself madly crisscrossing expressways, exiting one, merging onto another—until I realized that I no longer knew where I was. Now almost 2 a.m., the lights of fast-food restaurants and gas stations had been turned off.

I had been driving at 70 mph for almost an hour by the time I figured out I was headed in the wrong direction. I didn't know how long I'd have the strength to keep driving, and I thought of pulling over and sleeping in the car.

The landscape was a rat's nest of expressways heading in every direction, fierce velocity and incoherent markers. I felt that I had very little control over what happened to me next. I grasped how precarious my existence was. I couldn't even predict whether I would be able to draw another breath. One of my close friends—a woman my age—had just suffered a stroke. My life, I understood, rested in God's hands. My own perception, fortunately, was not the boundary or limit of all knowledge. The final decision was not mine to make.

My shoulders relaxed. I stopped gripping the wheel. I felt simple and humble and grateful relief.

I had enough sense that night to get off at the next exit. I spotted a young man closing up a Wendy's. When I asked him how to find 635, he cheerfully turned the restaurant's lights on again and reeled off exact directions. I wrote them down and thanked him profusely. He might have been the archangel Gabriel, who had suddenly learned English.

I made it safely to mother's assisted living home before 3:30 that morning.

That night I started letting go of my obsession with fixing my mother. I became like Sally in the Peanuts comic strip. I kept experiencing rude awakenings during the next several years—realizations that I couldn't control everything. Over and over I grasped that whatever pilgrimage our family was on, I was not in charge of what the final destination would be or when we would get there.

I couldn't have said this at the time, but it was faith that allowed me to look forward and begin to define this seemingly random and endless period of caretaking as a pilgrimage. It was faith that made me believe I would find meaning in the heartbreaking need to buy Depends for our proud matriarch, to feed her as she had once fed me, and to help my sister make decisions about our mother's money and housing. It was faith that allowed me to enjoy some of the time I spent with my sister and mother. It was faith that allowed me, finally, to sometimes laugh.

Surprise Gifts

Alzheimer's can be unsettling for both patients and caretakers because it is often isolating. On the one hand, patients need increasing physical care, but on the other, they seem not to "be there." They lapse into silence or say things that don't make sense.

One afternoon in September, I was sitting with my mother in the living room of the Christian Care Center. Her door to the hall was ajar, and smells drifted in from the dining room, where the third shift was eating. We sat in gloom because Mother's curtains were pulled against the blazing Dallas sun. She slumped, listlessly watching a newscaster on tv, the sound turned to a low murmur.

"I don't like his hair," she said.

"What don't you like about it?"

"It's dyed. Can't you tell?"

It didn't look dyed to me.

At this point, the caretaker often contradicts the patient. It leads to a quarrel and to the continuing isolation of both patient and caretaker. They both feel lonely.

But it doesn't have to be that way.

Five years earlier my mother had been a vibrant, popular woman. Now she was almost confined to her small apartment. She could no longer drive. She'd forgotten about flower arranging and given up her Bible study group.

I peeked at my watch. It was only 12:30. Five hours to dinner. I grabbed a magazine and leafed through it. It was full of ads for absorbent towels and magic face creams. I put it down. I got up to straighten a rug. My mind flitted to what was happening with my classes and my family on the East Coast. Then I tried to stop thinking. What could I do about any of it while I was here? Part of the problem, I realized, was that I didn't know how to sit still. I'm not good at being quiet. I would rather act. I like to make things happen.

"How about going to the shindig this afternoon?" I asked. Mary Francis, the hospitality director, had posted bright signs advertising a bash with cupcakes, cider, and a banjo band that would take residents' requests.

Mother snapped her head in my direction. Her black eyes were alert with interest. "He'll be there."

"Who?"

"The man who knocks on my door."

For months Mother had been telling me about a strange man who would rap on her door and invite her to go out. After seriously worrying about this, I decided he didn't exist. Her building was locked at night and no one else had ever seen him.

I felt as if someone else had taken over my mother's body. The mother I had known all my life was reliable, whereas this woman sitting across from me seemed delusional. I wanted to jump into my rental car and drive straight back to the airport.

But I didn't. I felt obligated to tell Mother once again that there was no such man, no courtship. On the other hand, I was profoundly weary of dragging my mother back to reality.

"Do you want to see the guy?" Though I didn't want to encourage her illusions, I was desperate.

"Yeah, I kind of want to see him," she said.

"Do you like him?"

"Well, yeah, sometimes I do."

"What's he like?"

"He's kind of tall, and he's interesting."

I thought about this.

"And I can't stay on this farm forever," my mother said.

"That's true, you can't." She had been raised on a farm. I knew, because I was steeped in her life, that by the age of 16 she had understood that farming wasn't for her.

We went on talking. I got pulled into how she was feeling. That afternoon we went to the party, which she didn't actually like much. But she went to sleep that night feeling relaxed and cared for, because I had listened to her. We had met and shared her concern in a way I didn't quite understand at the time, but which we repeated many times later.

It wasn't until later, when I was writing The Geography of Memory, that I figured out that the man must have been someone Mother remembered from her teenage years. She had described her boyfriends to me so vividly when I was a child that I could see them in my mind's eye. And then, sitting in my mother's living room in Dallas, they appeared again with presents: a potted geranium, the landscape painting, the pail of raspberries. I re-inhabited those memories with her.

As I was writing the book, I understood that the gentleman who visited Mother at Christian Care might have been "real," even though he probably didn't knock on her door. She was imagining her own past so clearly that it felt to her as if it were happening again. Her description of him was puzzling, but it wasn't crazy. My willingness to listen to her instead of contradicting her—I think of that now as hospitality. And it led to an entirely new way of connecting with her.

During my adult life, Mother and I had enjoyed a cordial relationship that centered on the celebration of holidays and her grandchildren. During the Alzheimer's decade, instead of feeling increasingly isolated from her, I began to understand her in a new way.

Thinking about caretaking as a pilgrimage didn't stop my mother from getting sicker. Trying to act with faith didn't prevent her from dying. Connecting with her during her final decade didn't save her. Nor did learning spiritual disciplines such as letting go and hospitality deliver me from the grief of her death.

But surely when we talk about Alzheimer's—particularly in the Christian community, where we all are practicing for eternity—we need to name the gains and gifts that come, even in the wake of a frightening disease. I believe that my mother, even at her foggiest, always remembered that day follows night. After winter comes spring. The peony dies, but in March it gathers strength, and by April it is in full bloom.

Jeanne Murray Walker is a poet, playwright, and professor of English at the University of Delaware. Her most recent book is The Geography of Memory: A Pilgrimage through Alzheimer's (Center Street). She lives with her husband outside Philadelphia.

News

Mark Driscoll Addresses Crude Comments Made Trolling as ‘William Wallace II’

Mars Hill pastor says 14-year-old posts were ‘plain wrong’ and he ‘remain[s] embarrassed,’ but ‘I have changed.’

Christianity Today August 1, 2014
Mars Hill Church Seattle/Flickr

Mars Hill Church pastor Mark Driscoll in a letter to his congregation Friday apologized for controversial comments he made in an online discussion forum in 2000.

In Mars Hill's Midrash forum, posts from which resurfaced and circulated this week, Driscoll posted blunt and emotional comments critical of feminism, same-sex sexual behavior, and "sensitive emasculated" men, all under the pseudonym "William Wallace II."

"While the discussion board itself was a bad idea, my decision to attack critics who were posting there (I did so by posting under the character 'William Wallace II') was an even worse idea," Driscoll said in his letter Friday, provided to CT. "I was wrong to respond to people the way I did, using the language I used, and I am sorry for it and remain embarrassed by it."

In his 2006 book, Confessions of a Reformission Rev, Driscoll acknowledged and apologized that he posted to the forum under the pseudonym in response to postings from "emerging-church-type feminists and liberals."

"I went on the site and posted as William Wallace II, after the great Scottish man portrayed in the movie Braveheart, and attacked those who were posting. It got insane," he said in the book. "This season was messy and I sinned and cussed a lot, but God somehow drew a straight line with my crooked Philistine stick. I had a good mission, but some of my tactics were born out of anger and burnout, and I did a lot of harm and damage while attracting a lot of attention."

In his Friday apology, Driscoll noted that, in his 2006 book, he used the forum posts as an example of "something I regretted and an example of a wrong I had learned from."

"The content of my postings to that discussion board does not reflect how I feel, or how I would conduct myself today," he told his church members Friday. "Over the past 14 years I have changed, and, by God's grace, hope to continue to change. I also hope people I have offended and disappointed will forgive me."

Several bloggers, including frequent Driscoll critics Warren Throckmorton and Wenatchee the Hatchet, posted links to "William Wallace II" comments over the past week. The discussion also surfaced in a 541-member Facebook group for Mars Hill critics, where it garnered more than 150 comments. Members of that group have planned a "peaceful protest" for Sunday at Mars Hill's Bellevue campus, where Driscoll preaches in person.

The Seattle P-I reports that former members of the church plan to carry signs reading "Question Mark" protesting claims that Driscoll does not know the identities of his critics because they have chosen to remain anonymous. On the event's Facebook page, 25 people have indicated they will attend.

CT's previous reports on Mark Driscoll, the provocateur pastor seeing success in Seattle, include: how Tyndale Publishers defended Driscoll in a dispute last fall over whether the pastor had plagiarized in his 2013 book A Call to Resurgence; how the pastor paid a marketing company more than $200,000 to push his 2012 book Real Marriage to the New York Times bestseller list in a move his church later called "unwise," but not "uncommon or illegal"; and how Driscoll this past March retracted the book's bestseller status and announced a hiatus from social media. CT also interviewed Driscoll and his wife Grace about the marriage book.

[Image courtesy of Mars Hill Church Seattle – Flickr]

So Much More to Sex than ‘Fifty Shades’

Society overlooks true intimacy when we idolize the pleasure of steamy sex.

Her.meneutics August 1, 2014
Universal Pictures and Focus Features / Flickr

E.L. James' erotic series has resonated with millions of readers, with over 100 million copies of her book sold worldwide and overwhelming attention given to the trailer for the upcoming Fifty Shades of Grey movie. Less than a week after the clip went up on YouTube, it became the most-viewed movie trailer of the year.

As a psychologist who published a book about female sexuality, I love talking about the theology, biology, and psychology of sex. But when it comes to the sex in Fifty Shades of Grey, we must acknowledge what a narrow view of sex and power comes through in this very popular story.

The appeal of Fifty Shades reflects our hyper-sexualized cultural climate, in which the procreation-focused, missionary-position-only thinking of our puritanical past has been rejected. Instead, the cultural norm has become fetishized sexual behavior that equates "good sex" with over-the-top pleasure, wild foreplay, and euphoric orgasm. It champions personal gratification, and with the book's edgy BDSM details, places sex firmly in the realm of power and control.

While I believe healthy sex in marriage can and should include passion and pleasure, our sexuality encompasses a whole feast of longings and experiences that extend far beyond the sexual high in Fifty Shades.

What about the middle-of-the-night sex in which you don't need to turn on the lights because you know every crevice and wrinkle of each other's bodies? Sometimes sex is a tender exchange of quiet knowing, rather than steamy taking.

What about the medicalized intercourse you desperately want to enjoy but have begun to dread because you automatically imagine the forthcoming negative pregnancy test? Sometimes sex does involve pain, but it may be the pain of loss or disappointment, rather than whips or chains.

What about the tentative touching and reconnecting of bodies that is bathed in tears as you and your husband struggle to forgive and rebuild brokenness in your marriage? Sometimes sex is more about vulnerability and trust than novelty or tension-release.

Is sex about pleasure? Yes. But it's about so much more. Sometimes sex is amazingly pleasurable, and sometimes it's not. The range of emotions and experiences in our sexual relationships with our spouse remind us that, whether euphoric or disappointing, sex is a gift from God. Sex tells the story of our longing for connection and intimacy. We are made for one another, to know and be known.

I fear that championing the "hotness" of the kind of BDSM sex in Fifty Shades thwarts our understanding of real intimacy and transforms it into a narrative about power and control. Women are devouring the story of hero Christian Grey conquering virgin Anastasia Steele, perhaps because he appeals to submission fantasies, dominant women's longings for a "warrior lover" and subordinate women's desires for a "courtly knight."

Christian is confident, athletic and aggressive, but he's also tender, respectful and dedicated in his pursuit of Anastasia. He dominates in the bedroom, but Ana wields power over Christian because she has something he wants (herself). Ultimately, Ana uses this power to tame Christian into a kinder, gentler, more traditional kind of guy.

Maybe we are drawn to stories like Fifty Shades because we long for a partner we can believe in, respect and give ourselves to completely without fear of judgment or rejection. In our longing for that kind of partner, women have long used their sexuality to search for, attract and keep that kind of man. And, like Ana, many of us have learned how to use our sexuality to exert power over men.

Powerful men have been using women for sex, and women have been using sex to attain power from men since the beginning of time. Fifty Shades is not breaking any new ground here, although the explicit use of violence adds a problematic association. Not only does the man use the woman for sex, he associates her pain with his own sexual arousal. When we connect physiological sexual arousal with violent images or experiences, we forge neural pathways that ask to be repeated. This is the foundation of sexual violence, and it is frightening and perplexing to observe how millions of women have been willing to learn this lesson.

Sometimes couples ask me whether it is healthy to experiment sexually with BDSM in marriage. As a psychologist and a Christian, I encourage them to shift the focus from what is acceptable to what brings good to the other (1 Cor. 10:23-24). If my husband, Jeff, is going to reflect God's love in our marriage, then he will be for me – seeking my good in all things. Likewise, I will be for him. Being for me means that Jeff wants me to experience physical pleasure and joy in our sexual relationship, without degrading or hurting me in any way.

When considering particular sexual behaviors within marriage, I encourage couples to think through questions, such as:

· What are you hoping to get more of in the marriage – are you looking for greater intimacy as a couple, or is it only about getting a better orgasm for yourself?

· Is this going to foster a kind of intimacy with something or someone other than your spouse (versus strengthening face-to-face intimacy with your spouse)?

· Is anyone going to be physically or emotionally hurt by this behavior?

· Will either partner be demeaned or depersonalized in any way?

Sexuality should always make us more human, not less so, and just because something is done in the context of marriage does not automatically make it holy and life-giving. Sex within marriage is a good and beautiful thing created by God to reflect his love for us and future union with us. Our job is to enact the truth of what sex is with what we actually do in our own bodies and relationships.

While movies and books like Fifty Shades suggest that sex is power, we know a different truth: love is power. Jesus repeatedly chose to demonstrate power paradoxically: by giving up power out of his love for others. Whether by allowing a sinner's tears to anoint his feet or remaining bolted to a cross whose nails could never truly bind him, Jesus teaches us that true power is not about getting something you want. Rather, Jesus' power is all about giving yourself for someone you love. Jesus did not use power to hurt, control, manipulate, coerce, degrade, or harm others. Instead he used his power to serve and love.

So sisters, let's stop listening to the lies of our culture that tell us we need to use our sexuality to gain power. Instead, search with me for ways to live in our sexuality to create connection, intimacy, and community. We do have power, and we can use that power not to sexualize or be sexualized, but to join Christ in loving others and being for their good.

Parts of this article are excerpted from Kim Gaines Eckert's book, Things Your Mother Never Told You (IVP, 2014). She is also the author of Stronger Than You Think: Becoming Whole Without Having to be Perfect (IVP Books, 2007) and the clinical director of the Lee University Play Therapy Center. Kim blogs at drkimeckert.com.

Pastors

Lord, Teach Me to Want

An interview with Jen Pollock Michel.

Leadership Journal August 1, 2014

Today's interview is with Jen Pollock Michel. Jen is a writer, speaker, and mother. She is a regular contributor to Her.meneutics. Her latest book is Teach Us to Want: Longing, Ambition and the Life of Faith. Today, we talk with Jen about desire, obedience, and cultivating holy longings in our children.

1) Teach Us to Want is a rather provocative title. As Christians we are not used to being told that wanting is good. But is it?

It's funny you mention the title. For a while, the working title was Found Wanting, and I liked that title for its ambiguity. It acknowledged what can be treacherous about sinners allowing themselves to want. In another sense, it granted simply what it means to be human. To be human is to want.

Obviously, we ended up with Teach Us to Want, which captures the premise of the book better—namely, that desire has a lot of potential for being good when it's taught. We don't need to abandon desire categorically. Rather, we need to learn what God desires and submit our desires to the spiritual process of "re-formation."

I've come to love the title of the book. It's the simplest prayer for engaging our desires in a faithful way. "Lord, teach me to want."

2) I remember growing up hearing a lot of messages bashing desire—they implied that what we love and like should not be important. Obedience is better. But you are saying this is an unbiblical dichotomy.

Yes, I'm absolutely pushing back on this idea that obedience has to be difficult and undesirable. The New Covenant actually reconciles desire and obedience. God's Law, written on our hearts, affects a new unity between our beliefs and behaviors and desires. What we get as a result isn't just obedience—but obedient desire.

One example of this in the New Testament is the "cheerful giver" in 2 Corinthians 9. Why does God love the cheerful giver? Shouldn't he just celebrate our financial gifts, no matter our attitude in giving them? Isn't the point our obedience? Not entirely! God wants us to want to give.

3) I think of C.S. Lewis famous picture of "mud pies" and Jonathan Edwards' focus on affections. Seems we need to recapture this in our theology.

I think it's pretty essential for spiritual formation. I have the curiosity that all people in ministry do: how are we formed into the image of Christ? That's a huge question, and I certainly don't have all the answers. But I do think desire needs to figure into the conversation. James K.A. Smith's book, Desiring the Kingdom, was critical for my understanding here. He insists that we can't approach spiritual formation as a cognitive exercise. In Smith's words, when we do this, the church "is pouring water on our head to put out a fire in our heart."

4) What are some ways you think pastors and church leaders can help Christians think through reordering their desires?

One simple thing to understand about desire, both holy and unholy, is this: desire is formed by habits.

One simple thing to understand about desire, both holy and unholy, is this: desire is formed by habits. That's a Classical understanding of vice and virtue (Aristotle said, "We are what we repeatedly do"), and it's also an idea supported by modern brain science. But Scripture, too, commends to us the importance of "practice." I even think of the verse, which ended up being critical for Augustine. Augustine was, of course, acutely aware of his unholy desires. Although he was intellectually convinced of Christianity for a while, he despaired of his conversion because of the power of those desires. The verse that ended up being so compelling for him was Romans 13:14: "Put on the Lord Jesus Christ and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires." Suddenly, Augustine knew that while he was powerless to transform his desires, he could form new habits. That was hope for him.

In terms of our approach to spiritual formation, we have to commend new practices to people and create structures of accountability where those practices can be sustained. That's not legalism, as if we are depending on outward forms alone. It's an act of trusting in the power of the Holy Spirit to reform our desires through our habits.

5) What are some ways our parenting might change?

What a fantastic question! As the mother of five, I am very interested in how these ideas shape parenting. Most importantly, I think it can force us to examine our parenting objectives. Our job is bigger than helping our children form the right beliefs and behaviors. We have to seek to cultivate holy longings in our children. And that's a big responsibility, demanding we pay a lot of attention to what explicitly and implicitly forms the desires of our children. We have to examine the hidden curriculum in our neighborhoods and cities, our churches even. How are they being taught to want in those contexts?

It also means that we should commit ourselves, as a family, to the kinds of spiritual practices that form holy desires (i.e. regular Bible reading, service, prayer, church membership, etc.). Even though these spiritual routines can feel rote at times, we have to believe in the power of habit to act at the level of our desires.

Daniel Darling is vice-president of communications for the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. He is the author of several books, including his latest, Activist Faith.

Theology

Behold Now ‘The Behemoth’

Introducing our new biweekly mix about a big God and his big world.

Christianity Today August 1, 2014

We're thrilled to finally introduce you to a project we've been working on for a while here at Christianity Today.

The Behemoth is a small magazine about a big God and his big world. Published biweekly (26 issues a year), it aims to help people behold the glory of God all around them, in the worlds of science, history, theology, medicine, sociology, Bible, and personal narrative.

You'll learn stuff. We'll explain stuff. But we're all overwhelmed with information already, so our aim isn't to make you smarter or to simply stave off another five minutes of boredom. We want to marvel and ponder.

We want it to be pleasing to read and reader-supported, so we're committed to making it ad free. That means you'll have to subscribe to get it. But we're making the first issue free so you can try it out.

I recommend starting with the article on the powerful beast we've named this new publication after. And I'd love to hear what you think about our plans. Email us at editor@behemothmag.com.

News

The Quick Take for August 1, 2014

What the critics are saying about the mystical, whimsical “Magic in the Moonlight” and “Mood Indigo.”

Emma Stone and Colin Firth in 'Magic in the Moonlight'

Emma Stone and Colin Firth in 'Magic in the Moonlight'

Christianity Today August 1, 2014
Sony Pictures Classics

Streaming Picks

New to Netflix this week is the crime drama Out of the Furnace. Our friends over at Indiewire wrote a great review of the film starring Christian Bale and Woody Harrelson—read it here.

If you're looking for a show to start watching with your kids, but can't find anything good on TV, check out Amazon Prime's original live-action children's show. Annedroids "combines comedy, mystery and action in a low-key style," says The New York Times' Mike Hale, with young actors who are actually funny. Read Hale's full review here.

Amazon Prime users can now instantly stream Annie Hall, Woody Allen's classic 1977 rom-com starring Diane Keaton and the director himself. It will make you homesick for New York City, even if you've never lived there.

Netflix recently released The Saratov Approach, a self-proclaimed "inspirational true story." This film follows what happens to two missionaries in Russia who are abducted and held hostage.

Critics Roundup

Mood Indigo "is quirky, but quickly runs out of steam," says Crosswalk's Christian Hamaker. He believes the film is more of a romance in the sense of a Wes Anderson film, and although this is not a bad thing, his approach "undercuts the emotional investment that should make us care deeply about Chloe's (Audrey Tatou) affliction." Variety's Boyd van Hoeij agrees that although the film is whimsical, it doesn't quite make the cut. "The film frequently privileges art direction over emotion and a constant sense of wonder based on visuals alone proves impossible to sustain." One of director Michael Gondry's (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, The Green Hornet) biggest mistakes is his desire to satisfy the fans. According to van Hoeij, "Part of the problem is that Gondry tries to inject too many elements from the novel in an attempt to satisfy fans hoping to see their favorite scenes onscreen."

According to Christa Banister of Crosswalk, "smack dab in the middle of" Magic in the Moonlight, Woody Allen's 44th (!) film, he "actually allows his pride-filled protagonist to ponder an afterlife, the existence of an unseen "spirit realm" and whether prayer truly makes a difference." Banister calls this a "surprising change" for Allen, and although it's no Annie Hall, it's "an enchanting little film" that "explores the magic found in the everyday." Although Banister sings the films' praises, Variety's Scott Foundas suggests that "whenever Firth and Stone are onscreen together, the movie sings; the rest of the time it's never less than a breezy divertissement." Despite this, Foundas admits "France does seem to bring out the best in Allen, who . . . has delivered one of his most beautifully made films."

Movie News

The long-awaited final movie in Peter Jackson's The Hobbit trilogy is almost here. This week the trailer for The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies was released. Check it out here.

In a Comic-Con panel this week in San Diego, Quentin Tarantino confirmed that he will be directing The Hateful Eight, despite originally deciding to forgo the movie because of leaked pages. Find out more about the upcoming movie and the rest of his Comic-Con discussion here.

Hunger Games fans: the wait for the first Mockingjay trailer is finally over! Although there have been several teasers, this week, we caught our first glimpses of Jennifer Lawrence reprising her role as Katniss Everdeen. Watch Lawrence and Game of Thrones star Natalie Dormer in the new trailer here.

Jamie Foxx is set to take on the role of Mike Tyson in an upcoming biopic. Although Terence Winter is still in the process of writing the sports flick, producers are anxious to tell the story of one of boxing's biggest names. Find out all the details here.

Larisa Kline is a summer intern with Christianity Today Movies and a student at The King's College in New York City. She tweets @larisakline.

Culture
Review

Rich Hill

Watching this stuff isn’t easy, but it’s real.

Andrew in 'Rich Hill'

Andrew in 'Rich Hill'

Christianity Today August 1, 2014
Sundance Institute

Although co-directors Andrew Droz Palermo and Tracy Droz Tragos tackle difficult topics in Rich Hill—poverty, sexual abuse—it's obvious why they won three awards at Sundance: they are able to pull the viewer in and provide a feeling of comfort in the midst of terrible tragedy.

Andrew in 'Rich Hill'
Andrew in ‘Rich Hill’

Rich Hill is a documentary that follows the lives of three young boys in impoverished Rich Hill, Missouri. There's Andrew, the thirteen-year-old football player with big dreams. Fifteen-year-old Harley is the oldest of the trio, but his social anxiety and traumatic past make him difficult to keep up with. Lastly, there is the youngest, Appachey, who fights with not only his mother but kids at school, and angrily objects to everything in his life.

"I'm a demented little kid," Harley admits to his grandma. She merely grunts in response, in a way agreeing with Harley through her silence. Harley lives with his grandmother, because his mother is in jail for attempted murder. As the film unfolds, you learn more about the circumstances leading to her arrest and watch a short interview. Although Harley was sexually abused by his stepfather and struggles to attend classes at school, he is somehow able to smile. He constantly tries to make the cameraman laugh and even trick-or-treats just like every other child in Rich Hill.

Appachey is only twelve years old, but is taken to court under the charge of assault. Most of his scenes depict him as easily angered and rude to his mother. She works hard to keep a roof over their family's head, but Appachey cannot deal with the fact that his father left and never said goodbye. He dreams of moving to China, because he loves their art—full of dragons and adventure.

Andrew and his twin sister live with both of their parents. They have moved more times than Andrew can count, since his father cannot hold a job and constantly wants to pursue something new. Andrew's father prepares a bath by heating water in a skillet on an iron.

B

Harley in 'Rich Hill'
Harley in ‘Rich Hill’

efore Andrew heads to a football game, he puts on his hole-ridden green jersey in a dirty house and hugs his mother who isn't mentally all there. Yet, when he's on the field, it's impossible to tell him apart from the other jersey-clad boys. For a few moments there is no difference between the boy who only has fifteen cents to spend at the store and the other boys running on the field. Does anyone even know that he and his family are struggling to make it?

Everyone in this film is a survivors. Despite the conditions that Harley, Appachey, and Andrew live under in the ironically named Rich Hill, there is something strange lingering throughout the film: hope. These people have been through some of the most awful situations and somehow, joy radiates in their lives.

"I praise God. I worship him," says Andrew, "I pray to him every night. Nothing's came, but that's not gonna stop me. This is what comes to my mind: God has to be busy with everyone else." Although he is so young and has only known poverty and struggle, Andrew trusts that God knows what's best and will give him what is necessary to make it by. Andrew may not have a roof over his head, but he has food in his stomach, clothes on his back, and a family who loves him.

Apachey in 'Rich Hill'
Apachey in ‘Rich Hill’

For Christian viewers especially, Rich Hill provides a great base for the discussion of shame and poverty in the church. Seeing students ignore Harley in the halls on his birthday and the close-ups of his face as he realizes no one is planning on celebrating with him break your heart. These are uncomfortable topics, but they are real ones.

Andrew's faith, Harley's joy, and Appachey's dreams are evidence that hope can be found in even the worst situations. Their stories of survival are encouraging and put my own daily struggles into perspective. If Andrew is able to trust that God will provide, why shouldn't I?

Caveat Spectator

Rich Hill is unrated, but there are a few things you should be aware of before watching this film. There is a wide variety of profanity ranging from a few s***s here and there to a character who frequently drops the f-word. One young boy violently pushes his younger sister to the ground. There are a few scenes where characters discuss the sexual abuse of a child and rape, but it does not get graphic. In almost every scene in the film there is underage cigarette smoking. The film is definitely unsuitable for children, questionable for teens, and may even be uncomfortable for some adults.

Larisa Kline is a summer intern with Christianity Today Movies and a student at The King's College in New York City. Follow her on twitter @larisakline.

Culture
Review

Guardians of the Galaxy

Pull out the troll dolls and the black lights: we’re going to space.

Vin Diesel, Bradley Cooper, Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana and Dave Bautista in 'Guardians of the Galaxy'

Vin Diesel, Bradley Cooper, Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana and Dave Bautista in 'Guardians of the Galaxy'

Christianity Today August 1, 2014
Marvel Studios

Guardians of the Galaxy is without a doubt the weirdest Marvel movie to make it to the screen yet—and it's mostly a good thing. The film centers on a motley band of companions who are (according to director James Gunn) "The Rolling Stones compared to The Avengers' Beatles." The movie takes pride in its irreverent subversion of standard comic-book self-seriousness, even more than the usual light-heartedness that Marvel's got on display. While other Marvel films feel like funny superhero movies, Guardians of the Galaxy is closer to a comedy set in outer space.

Chris Pratt in 'Guardians of the Galaxy'
Chris Pratt in ‘Guardians of the Galaxy’

In 1983, the Earth-bound Peter Quill (Chris Pratt) is abducted by aliens immediately following the death of his mother. This launches the best running joke of the whole movie, that the film's "pop-culture timeline" ends in '83—thus we see Quill dancing around with a Walkman on a desolate alien planet and decorating his ship with little troll dolls. Fast-forward to 2015 and we meet Quill—or, as he likes to call himself, Star-Lord—who's taken up smuggling black market items.

But the thievery of an object called an Infinity Stone, an old relic of bunches of power, has got the most powerful forces in the Universe looking to kill Peter and the companions he picks up along the way—including the green-skinned Gamora (Zoe Saldana), an explosophillic talking raccoon named Rocket (voiced by Bradley Cooper), a tortured warrior named Drax (Dave Bautista), and a talking (sort of) tree named Groot, whose lone line—"I am Groot"—is inflected to perfection by Vin Diesel.

While I've got some niggling issues with the movie (which I'll get to in a second), I want to make clear how refreshing Guardians of the Galaxy is in a sea of movies like The Amazing Spider-Man 2 or Man of Steel, which feature roughly 1000% more brooding/sulking/angst than any person goes through in a year. Guardians is a fun movie populated by fun characters where fun things happen. The movie is fun is successful insofar as it's character based; Chris Pratt delivers an intensely Chris-Prattian performance, filled to the brim with wit, charm, and a perfect sense of comedic timing. Other actors get in on the fun, too—Bautista, for whom Guardians is his first major role, excels in the role of an over-literal warmonger (sort of a Conanio ad infinitum situation).

And Bradley Cooper is fantastic as the vaguely-Jersey raccoon science project, managing to do what few predominately film-based actors can and disappear totally into his role. Basically, at no point in the movie do you think "Hey, that's Bradley Cooper," except for the first time the character speaks—and even then, it's only to think, "Hey, that sounds almost nothing like Bradley Cooper."

Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, and Dave Bautista in 'Guardians of the Galaxy'
Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, and Dave Bautista in ‘Guardians of the Galaxy’

The movie is seriously smile-worthy, largely due to the sheer number of jokes throughout. Hardly five minutes go by without something happening on screen that makes you crack a smile. But unlike the gag-heavy offering of something like 22 Jump Street, Guardians keeps its humor mostly character- and quip-based. Humor goes down much easier when it's one character saying a funny thing, rather than a drawn-out series of back-and-forths; as such, Guardians never suffers from the same comedic burn-out as something like 22 Jump.

However, the movie does suffer when it tries to indulge in the same sort of city-ruining present in The Avengers or Man of Steel. The planet whose fate hangs in the balance this time is called Xandar, which never stops sounding stupid; they're presented as unambiguously The Good Guys, with ships shaped like stylized suns and whose official colors are blue and gold. Crusading against The Good Guys is an alien general named Ronan, who seeks to destroy their entire planet for reasons vaguely alluded to; considering that Ronan is The Villain, we're probably better off just trusting that his reasons are dumb.

My point in that excessively capitalized paragraph is that at no point is that central conflict really substantial or meaningful to us, beyond just "I want the good guys to win." The Avengers, Man of Steel, Thor 2, and more all get to cheat a little bit by using the fate of Earth as automatic emotional investment. But when it's a weird distant planet whose name's first letter is an X? It means nothing.

Djimon Hounsou in 'Guardians of the Galaxy'
Djimon Hounsou in ‘Guardians of the Galaxy’

This last point only matters insofar as I really don't want to see Marvel's offerings parallel those of, like, Michael Bay or something—arguably also Roland Emmerich and Zach Snyder—that is, movies which revel in their own carnage, without attaching any signification to the big pretty destruction. Sure, at some point, all human beings feel this Magpie-like attraction to movies that show large things exploding; but we're approaching a point of seriously diminishing returns on how many explosions is enough.

So when you get right down to it, Guardians of the Galaxy is absolutely, 100% in line with Marvel's past offerings; in fact, it follows the Marvel Movie Form down to a perfect T, to the extent that Guardians of the Galaxy is basically just Thor: The Dark World with a new coat of paint. The difference here is in the characters. Pratt and co. are just so fantastically entertaining on screen that, in the short term, you can ignore the fact that we're not really getting anything new here. Marvel is quickly proving that, if nothing else, they know (in a technical sense) what works.

Caveat Spectator

Various mild-to-medium profanities get used infrequently, as well as one implied f-word and the usage of the phrase "a-hole" (as pronounced "eh-hole"), which honestly sounds so much worse than if they'd just said the word. The movie is fairly violent, but bloodless; characters shoot one another, threaten to shoot one another, and fail to shoot one another. Star-Lord and Rocket are both relatively anti-social people (though with obligatory Hearts of Gold); Star-Lord's a thief, and Rocket is obsessed with tricking people into loaning him their prostheses because he finds it funny. A handful of characters get drunk at a bar. A bunch of references are made to Star-Lord's sexual exploits, all of them very mild but still noticeable; references are made to black lights and Jackson Pollock paintings.

Jackson Cuidon is a writer in New York City. He tweets semi-annually @jxscott.

Ideas

Gladys and the Guilty Remnant’s Gospel

Columnist; Contributor

Finally, a key. A fiery, silent key.

Christianity Today July 31, 2014

Silence makes people speak, as I pointed out last week—but it also conceals. So it has been in the universe of The Leftovers, in which the town of Mapleton (and we) have got to be wondering: is the continued silence from God/the universe about where their loved ones went a way to make them cry out, or is it concealing something? And if it's concealing something, what is that thing? Is it God refusing to tell them why they are still there? Is it God refusing to tell them what happened? Is it some other odd, weird, supernatural disappearance in which the perpetrators aren't talking?

Or is it concealing the fact that there is no reason at all, and nobody's listening?

At the beginning of this episode, Gladys—a member of the GR—is spirited away, duct-taped to a tree, and stoned by mysterious dark figures. The blood stains her white garments. Those stones forcing her to break her silence and plead for mercy, which never comes.

That death shocks the GR (although the townspeople seem considerably less shocked), including Laurie, who reacts so violently that she has a panic attack and winds up in the hospital. In response, Patti takes her to a motel, and then, to breakfast—in normal clothes, and with talking. Laurie can't break her silence, but she listens. Patti tells her that Gladys had a similar experience a year ago, that she was beginning to buckle. And then she ominously warns Laurie—more on that in a moment.

Meanwhile, across town, Kevin continues to take the brunt of the universe. Poor guy can't catch a break: everything in his life keeps disappearing and reappearing. It wasn't just that bagel. His family continues to slowly disappear on him, his home security system is kind of impossible to operate, and his shirts went on the mysterious fritz. He's haunted and now actively heckled by the guy who shoots dogs, who keeps popping up everywhere. He can't get the townspeople to agree to a curfew to keep them safe while he's solving the GR's issue.

Most importantly, though, Kevin comes to terms with the fact that Laurie actually did ask for a divorce, and that it probably is going to happen. His anger and deep sorrow nearly propels him over the edge (and I doubt this is the last time). There is something extra painful and echoing in this fresh disappearance, since it is not as if Laurie simply and suddenly disappeared without a trace. Instead, she's slowly slipping away, bit by bit. But he can still see her around. Literally.

But Laurie isn't remaining silent, though she hasn't spoken a word. Gladys's death has cemented her commitment to the GR. And Meg's, too. In a way that is reminiscent of what happened in the early days of the Christian church, Gladys's death has made her a martyr, and that symbol has elevated her to—well, to something. It remains to be seen what.

I think we could say we're seeing a re-enchantment of silence in cinema today. Martin Scorsese has just (finally) begun production on Silence, but there seems to be a lot of exploration of what it would mean to live in a world where God could exist, but appears to be silent most of the time. Fargo, Broadchurch, Calvary, and the list goes on . . . Deists might say he's fallen asleep or walked away after he set the world spinning. Some Christians might say that when God is silent, it means he is saying "not yet," or he is trying to grow us in some way. Christ, of course, called out on the cross for an answer: "Why have you forsaken me?"

Others might say he's might be concealing something on purpose, keeping secrets from us. That's an old story, one that is a sort of cornerstone of the ancient Gnostic gospels. To be honest, I don't know much about them, but I do know they're all about concealing eternal secrets. And apparently the Rev. Matt knows plenty, because he quotes at length from the Gospel of Thomas to Kevin while they are in the hospital. "Teacher," he quotes Thomas as saying, "my mouth is utterly unable to say what you are like. And Jesus said, 'I am not your teacher, because you have become intoxicated by a bubbling spring.'"

Matt continues, but the conclusion is most striking, quoting Thomas' own words: "If I tell you what he spoke to me, you will pick up rocks, and stone me, and fire will come from the rocks, and devour you."

That's what Patti tells Laurie after she's broken her own silence for a bit: "There can't be any doubt, Laurie, because doubt is fire, and fire's gonna burn you up, until you are but ash."

As for Gladys: someone picked up rocks, and stoned her. And the fire consumed her.

Some further notes:

  • So yes, what I'm saying is that it's becoming increasingly evident that the GR is a Gnostic sect, of some kind, and that gives us a way to read them. Remember: they eschew anything resembling earthly pleasure, and they smoke like chimneys, because the body doesn't matter. Which sets this whole Matt vs. the GR thing in a new light, and—if you've read the novels—might signal what's coming next. (Is Gnosticism a reaction to tragedy?)
  • Worth noting: Laurie saw the dog-shooting man in the woods, which led her to discover Gladys.
  • Note that some time in the past three years, it's become the bureau of "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Explosives, and Cults." This is not the first time someone, somewhere, has died—which explains the ominous, creepy suggestion the bureau gives Kevin on the phone about getting rid of the GR.
  • And also, that diner conversation: ominous much? What's coming for Laurie?
  • Notably absent from this episode: Tom and Christine, who are presumably traveling, masked as Barefoot People with round target-like markings on their heads. Don't forget them, though. The cult of Wayne (and the Barefoot People, for that matter) pose a striking counterpoint to the GR.
  • Go back and watch the very first scene.
Culture
Review

Calvary

A good man is hard to find.

Brendan Gleeson in 'Calvary'

Brendan Gleeson in 'Calvary'

Christianity Today July 31, 2014
Fox Searchlight Pictures

Calvary begins with Father James Lavelle (Brendan Gleeson) in a confessional. The man on the other side, rather than confessing his own sins, tells Father Lavelle that he will murder him shortly to make a statement to the world.

Brendan Gleeson and Chris O'Dowd in 'Calvary'
Brendan Gleeson and Chris O’Dowd in ‘Calvary’

Father Lavelle has done nothing to him, but the unseen man was raped by a different priest when he was only seven years old. Killing a bad man would not prompt the shock and outrage he wishes to elicit from the world of witnesses. It might not even get noticed outside of their small, Irish town. He wants to kill a good man, and Father Lavelle is the best he can find.

After telling the priest the day and hour of his reckoning, the man asks if Father Lavelle has anything to say to him. Not right now, the father replies quietly, but he hopes to think of something before Sunday next.

It is a superb opening scene, akin to writer/director John Michael McDonagh calling his shot and announcing he is swinging for the fences. Very few people who love movies will be able to watch it without getting that familiar tingle of excitement that alerts you that you may be about to see something great. But then . . .

The film doesn't flounder or fail exactly, but neither does it live up to the promise of its first scene. Brendan Gleeson is terrific and believable as a man who is put in a situation where God (or the impersonal universe, depending on your point of view) asks him to be too good to be true. Father Lavelle confides in a superior and says he believes he knows who made the threat, but he does not reveal who it is. (It's not officially a confession—the man never asked for forgiveness—so there is no seal of privacy over it.)

What follows is a week in the life of the priest as he visits and interacts with various members of the community. There's a doctor (Aidan Gillen from Game of Thrones) who uses his medical knowledge to mock and taunt the priest with tales of unimaginable suffering visited upon seemingly innocent patients. There's domestic violence afoot amongst the town folk, and a rich art collector who tries to shock the priest by urinating on an expensive painting. Then there's a convicted serial killer who Lavelle visits in prison. He claims that the best part of a murder is the moment you see death in a potential victim's eyes and "you become God." In perhaps the film's best line, Lavelle replies simply, "No, you don't."

Aidan Gillen and Brendan Gleeson in 'Calvary'
Aidan Gillen and Brendan Gleeson in ‘Calvary’

As if the Job-like priest doesn't have enough to worry about, his daughter—Lavelle is a widower who entered the priesthood later in life—wants him to come up with a reason why someone contemplating suicide (who might that be?) should stay among the living.

Any one of these middle scenes would probably be the crown jewel of another film, leaving Christians overjoyed that someone, somewhere finally had a serious religious conversation in a commercial, narrative film. Played back to back, though, they push Calvary to the edge of plausibility and flirt with becoming self-parody. The content is of the highest moral seriousness, but the whodunit (or who-will-do-it) structure is so deeply associated in our imaginative muscle-memory with Perry Mason and Murder, She Wrote that much of that content's power is lost. Lavelle seems human to us, but everyone else is a caricature, existing only to be a suspect or a temptation.

The weaker middle section would probably fade if the finale were more carefully constructed. It's hard, even with a film titled Calvary, to talk about the end without plot spoilers, so I will simply say that the ending's attempt to indict the morally indifferent ends up complicating Lavelle's status as innocent scapegoat. The film also stylizes the climactic scene in ways no other scene is shot, repeating one act in slow motion like a sporting highlight or pale Tarantino imitation. (For the record, I have liked and esteemed several Tarantino films, but they are so over-the-top throughout that moments of self-aware bombast don't ruin the overall effect; while not devoid of moral seriousness, these films don't have enough of it to be undermined by their moments of self-parody.)

I will be the first to admit that Calvary stands taller than the films that surround it. Is it a better film than Lucy, Hercules, Tammy, 22 Jump Street, How to Train Your Dragon 2, Edge of Tomorrow, Maleficent, Godzilla, and The Amazing Spider-Man 2? Of course it is.

But can we mostly agree that such comparisons are a pretty low bar? The film asks, begs, and practically stomps its foot and demands to be compared to the works of Dostoevsky, Flannery O'Connor, and Robert Bresson. As fellow critic Victor Morton pointed out when the film played at Sundance, you can't have a character quote George Bernanos and then pretend you are not asking to be put in the same category as Diary of a Country Priest.

Brendan Gleeson and Kelly Reilly in 'Calvary'
Brendan Gleeson and Kelly Reilly in ‘Calvary’

But the writer that McDonagh ultimately most reminds me of is Graham Greene. That's no insult. The Power and the Glory and The Tenth Men are respectable horror tales of men trying to do right while trapped in impossible situations. And it is to their—and Calvary's—credit that they admit people of faith sometimes do walk the walk as well as talk and talk.

That admission alone earns the film a pass for the cacophony of bleeping language and blood splatter. It just doesn't earn it the right to be spoken of in the same breath as Crime and Punishment.

Caveat Spectator

Calvary is rated R, primarily for one explicit and gruesome act of violence. A man in a confessional describes being raped using explicit language, and there are maybe two dozen or so uses of obscene or profane language. (Somehow when these words are said with an Irish brogue they don't seem quite so egregious. I wonder if people with other accents feel the same way about hearing Americans cussing?) There is some damage against property and cruelty to an animal. Father Lavelle briefly notices someone snorting cocaine.

Kenneth R. Morefield is an Associate Professor of English at Campbell University. He is the editor of Faith and Spirituality in Masters of World Cinema, Volumes I & II, and the founder of 1More Film Blog.

Apple PodcastsDown ArrowDown ArrowDown Arrowarrow_left_altLeft ArrowLeft ArrowRight ArrowRight ArrowRight Arrowarrow_up_altUp ArrowUp ArrowAvailable at Amazoncaret-downCloseCloseEmailEmailExpandExpandExternalExternalFacebookfacebook-squareGiftGiftGooglegoogleGoogle KeephamburgerInstagraminstagram-squareLinkLinklinkedin-squareListenListenListenChristianity TodayCT Creative Studio Logologo_orgMegaphoneMenuMenupausePinterestPlayPlayPocketPodcastRSSRSSSaveSaveSaveSearchSearchsearchSpotifyStitcherTelegramTable of ContentsTable of Contentstwitter-squareWhatsAppXYouTubeYouTube