Friday, May 11, 2007

Sicko

Well, here we go again. Michael Moore is putting out yet another movie this summer. This time it’s his autobiography, appropriately entitled “Sicko”. Just kidding—it’s really about the state of health care in America.

This is a good time, then, for another discussion of the role of moral truth in society. Mr. Moore’s films are propaganda that play fast and loose with the facts. (For brevity’s sake, I will not defend this statement; there are plenty of others who have.) He calls his works documentaries, yet all he truly documents is his insatiable desire to have his own views accepted. If that means a few lies along the way, then so be it. His is a classic example of the ends justifying the means.

Moore won an Oscar in 2003 for “Bowling for Columbine” in the category of best documentary. Did anyone on the Oscar committee bother to do any fact-checking on this film? If I had to guess, I would say no. “This is Spinal Tap” portrays a more realistic picture than Moore’s movie. So why did Moore win the Oscar? Even in the materialistic world of verifiable facts, “Bowling” comes up short.

I think the answer is political power. The reign of morality was overthrown in the last century. One of the results of this was the removal of barriers for the powerful. In a moral void, what prevents a head of state from killing his subjects, knowing that retribution is unlikely? What prevents a dictator from controlling the press and filling the papers with propaganda? What prevents a movie director from using lies and misrepresentations to advance his political agenda (with a little help from his friends at the Oscars), all while under the protection of the First Amendment?

I doubt if Moore cares about the veracity of his films as much as their verisimilitude. He is simply trying to be the strongest in a solely physical world, and in so doing, strangely enough, he is fulfilling the commission bestowed on him (and all of us) by our society. Though he has perpetuated a slovenly appearance throughout the years, I doubt that he is stupid. I think he may be more perceptive than most, and more courageous in a perverse way. At least he lives out what our culture has taught us to believe—but thank God more people don’t!

Whether you watch “Sicko” is, of course, up to you. I myself will pass, thank you very much. But I would encourage you to give some thought about the reasons that overarching moral truths are important. Michael Moore is just one example.

3 comments:

Danny Wright said...

Hi Jon, Great Post.

I have a statement in response to this post, but I would like to see how you-being someone I respect-would respond. It is a statement with which I am confronted often, and which almost always elicits much aggravation, and more words than can be spoken in a hurried sound bite world. It goes like this:

"Well, God is in control"

I know that statement is true, and it does give me comfort, but if that's all that is said in response to your post it would seem to me to be almost..I don't know... flippant, or unconcerned perhaps. The content of your post should, I think, give cause for concern among Christians, beyond such a response. What do you think?

Jon said...

I would say that God is in control in the following ways: History is moving toward the ultimate realization of the kingdom of God, and “God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God” (the oft ill-used Rom 8:28). Therefore, those of us in the Christian community can trust Him in our own lives in light of His coming kingdom.

Perhaps, then, it is the way in which we say, “God is in control.” I don’t think we are right to use this phrase as a cop-out. Such pessimistic fatalism is not supported by scripture, as far as I know. If anything, the phrase, “God is in control,” should empower us to act. Because of Jesus’ priesthood, we can come to God with confidence that He is in control; therefore, He will hear our prayers (Heb. 4:14-16, 1 John 5:14). On the one hand, then, we should not worry about the world on its downward spiral, since God is in control. On the other hand, since God is in control, we should cry out to Him about the world on its downward spiral, and let our actions flow out of our prayers.
This last phrase is key: Pray; then act. Christians might do things a bit more effectively if we asked God for His opinion a little bit more. (I am regularly guilty of this one.)

I hope this somewhat answers your question. I should like to hear your answer as well.

Danny Wright said...

I agree. I think the flippant use of those words is one of the many luxuries that we in the west enjoy. But a peaceful and prosperous society does not remove one from the possibility of tragedy, and it is in the grips of real tragedy, where one has no control, that I find them to be both appropriate, and poignant.

On the contrary, while these words are still true, they seem to me less appropriate, and not at all poignant when they are spoken in response to, and in the context of the failures of modern day evangelism and discipleship.

It seems as if we know that we are not communicating in the same thought forms, as Schaeffer would put it, with our society but... well... God is in control. Meanwhile, Moore and his ilk understand all too well these thought-forms, and they are passionate and animated to utilize them to propagate their message.

Just so you know, this question was out of a desire to try and get some objective perspectives in an attempt to examine myself. Thanks for the advice of "pray, then act", I don't think I hear that nearly enough, and have failed miserably in that arena. Also, I think that very few of my church family, if any, looks at these writings of mine, so if you see anything of mine that you think is poor in content or delivery, please feel free to let me know. It would be a favor, not an offense.