What do yo do when a relationship with someone has broken down to the point where it’s a grudge bearing standoff? David’s relationship with Saul had so deteriorated when the latter wandered into a cave to relieve himself in 1 Samuel 24. He was anything but alone! What did David do? Sieze the day and slay his enemy? Nope.
Saul’s 3000 men watched Saul exit the cave, but then observed his arch enemy, David, exit from the same patch of darkness, carrying not Saul’s cut off head, but his cut off hem. Though Saul had been blood-hounding for David’s life, David spared Saul’s life, doing his enemy a great kindness, returning good for evil.
“Then Saul lifted up his voice and wept” (24:16). By rendering good for evil, David melted Saul.
We see the power of forbearing gentleness to exorcise hate. The true way to overcome evil is to melt it by fiery coals of gentleness. That’s God’s way. An iceberg may be crushed to powder, but every fragment is still ice. Only sunshine that melts it will turn it into sweet water. Love is the only conqueror. — Alexander Maclaren
The story is told of Alexander the Great’s father, Philip of Macedon. He had a mortal enemy named Arcadius who slandered (wrote scathing blogs against) Philip among the other Greek provinces. One day, an advisor to Philip informed him that Arcadius had ventured into Macedon, and counseled that Philip make Arcadius pay dearly for his disrespect. Instead, Philip had Arcadius apprehended, then loaded down the slanderer’s beasts with gifts and provisions, sending him away piled high with kindnesses. Months later, the same advisor informed Philip that Arcadius had become one of Philip’s warmest supporters, broadcasting praise wherever he went.
Philip responded with a smile: “Am I not a better physician than you?”
“Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (Romans 12:21).
A unanimous ruling for religious freedom, and a rebuke to Obama.
It was a banner day for religious freedom yesterday as the Supreme Court ruled that government can’t tell religious institutions whom they can hire and fire as “ministers.” The unanimous decision was a crushing rebuke to the Obama Administration, which had taken the radical position that churches are little different from any other employer in job disputes.
In the High Court’s latest support for the First Amendment, all nine Justices upheld what’s known as the “ministerial exception” in employment disputes, recognizing a healthy degree of autonomy for churches, synagogues and other houses of worship.
In Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School vs. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Cheryl Perich had worked as a religiously affiliated or “called” teacher at the Lutheran school, teaching math and music as well as leading students in prayer. In 2004, she took a medical leave for narcolepsy, a sleep disorder. When she sought to return, the school declined, and she was eventually voted out by the church congregation. Ms. Perich and the federal EEOC sued for backpay, reinstatement and damages.
Writing for the Court, Chief Justice John Roberts explained that the Constitution’s Free Exercise and Establishment clauses both bar the government from interfering with a church’s decision to fire a minister. To do so, he writes, “intrudes upon more than a mere employment decision. Such action interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs” as well as “the right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments.”
The Court rejected the EEOC’s argument that in order to qualify as a minister, an employee should have to spend a certain amount of her time on religious duties. Under such a system, church employees would presumably be required to clock in and out of different responsibilities within their jobs, lending an artificial and secular overlay on the nature of their work.
The Justices also didn’t spare their disdain for the position advanced by the Obama Administration. The Justice Department argued that the same First Amendment analysis should apply to churches as to social clubs. The Court called that argument “hard to square with the text of the First Amendment itself, which gives special solicitude to the rights of religious organizations. We cannot accept the remarkable view that the Religion Clauses have nothing to say about a religious organization’s freedom to select its own ministers.” Ouch.
Also notable is a concurring opinion written by the unlikely duo of Justices Samuel Alito and Elena Kagan—think judicial cats and dogs living together—who add their belief that religious organizations should be protected in staffing decisions regardless of whether or not those groups “ordain” their ministers under the traditional understanding of that practice.
Justice Clarence Thomas filed a separate concurrence arguing for an even broader interpretation of the ministerial designation than is suggested by Justice Roberts’s opinion. Justice Thomas reasonably argues that no outside body should be given power to overrule the church on any grounds in designating ministers.
The decision closes off new avenues for employment lawsuits that would have been opened by Ms. Perich’s position. All 12 federal appellate-court circuits have adopted some form of ministerial exception over the years, but that failed to dissuade the Justice Department from claiming that giving churches discretion in hiring decisions would undermine the Americans with Disabilities Act.
As in so many of its policies, the Obama Administration’s position reflected both its default preference for government control and its secular indifference to American religious sensibilities. This has become obvious in the contraceptive and surgical sterilization mandates the Administration is trying to impose on Catholic charities and hospitals. In this case the Justice Department’s opinion was so radical that it might have provoked the broad and unanimous Court ruling.
Hosanna-Tabor is an important reminder that the core religious freedoms guarded by the First Amendment were not to protect the public from religion, but to protect religion from government. The case is arguably among the most important religious liberty cases in a half century, and the concurrence of Justices across the ideological spectrum will be felt for years. Hallelujah.
In generations past, there was far less talk about “compatibility” and finding the ideal soul-mate. Today we are looking for someone who accepts us as we are and fulfills our desires, and this creates an unrealistic set of expectations that frustrates both the searchers and the searched for.
In John Tierney’s classic humor article “Picky, Picky, Picky” he tries nobly to get us to laugh at the impossible situation our culture has put us in. He recounts many of the reasons his single friends told him they had given up on their recent relationships:
“She mispronounced ‘Goethe.’”
“How could I take him seriously after seeing The Road Less Traveled on his bookshelf?”
“If she would just lose seven pounds.”
“Sure, he’s a partner, but it’s not a big firm. And he wears those short black socks.”
“Well, it started out great … beautiful face, great body, nice smile. Everything was going fine—until she turned around.” He paused ominously and shook his head. ”… She had dirty elbows.”
In other words, some people in our culture want too much out of a marriage partner. They do not see marriage as two flawed people coming together to create a space of stability, love and consolation, a “haven in a heartless world,” as Christopher Lasch describes it. Rather, they are looking for someone who will accept them as they are, complement their abilities and fulfill their sexual and emotional desires. This will indeed require a woman who is “a novelist/astronaut with a background in fashion modeling,” and the equivalent in a man. A marriage based not on self-denial but on self-fulfillment will require a low- or no-maintenance partner who meets your needs while making almost no claims on you. Simply put—today people are asking far too much in the marriage partner.
The Bible explains why the quest for compatibility seems to be so impossible. As a pastor I have spoken to thousands of couples, some working on marriage-seeking, some working on marriage-sustaining and some working on marriage-saving. I’ve heard them say over and over, “Love shouldn’t be this hard, it should come naturally.” In response I always say something like: “Why believe that? Would someone who wants to play professional baseball say, ‘It shouldn’t be so hard to hit a fastball’? Would someone who wants to write the greatest American novel of her generation say, ‘It shouldn’t be hard to create believable characters and compelling narrative’?” The understandable retort is: “But this is not baseball or literature. This is love. Love should just come naturally if two people are compatible, if they are truly soul-mates. “
The Christian answer to this is that no two people are compatible. Duke University Ethics professor Stanley Hauerwas has famously made this point:
Destructive to marriage is the self-fulfillment ethic that assumes marriage and the family are primarily institutions of personal fulfillment, necessary for us to become “whole” and happy. The assumption is that there is someone just right for us to marry and that if we look closely enough we will find the right person. This moral assumption overlooks a crucial aspect to marriage. It fails to appreciate the fact that we always marry the wrong person.
We never know whom we marry; we just think we do. Or even if we first marry the right person, just give it a while and he or she will change. For marriage, being [the enormous thing it is] means we are not the same person after we have entered it. The primary challenge of marriage is learning how to love and care for the stranger to whom you find yourself married.
Hauerwas gives us the first reason that no two people are compatible for marriage, namely, that marriage profoundly changes us. But there is another reason. Any two people who enter into marriage are spiritually broken by sin, which among other things means to be self-centered—living life incurvatus in se. As author Denis de Rougemont said, “Why should neurotic, selfish, immature people suddenly become angels when they fall in love … ?” That is why a good marriage is more painfully hard to achieve than athletic or artistic prowess. Raw, natural talent does not enable you to play baseball as a pro or write great literature without enduring discipline and enormous work. Why would it be easy to live lovingly and well with another human being in light of what is profoundly wrong within our human nature? Indeed, many people who have mastered athletics and art have failed miserably at marriage. So the biblical doctrine of sin explains why marriage—more than anything else that is good and important in this fallen world—is so painful and hard.
The reason that marriage is so painful and yet wonderful is because it is a reflection of the Gospel, which is painful and wonderful at once. The Gospel is—we are more sinful and flawed in ourselves than we ever dared to believe, and at the very same time we are more loved and accepted in Jesus Christ than we ever dared hope. This is the only kind of relationship that will really transform us. Love without truth is sentimentality; it supports and affirms us but keeps us in denial about our flaws. Truth without love is harshness; it gives us information but in such a way that we cannot really hear it. God’s saving love in Christ, however, is marked by both radical truthfulness about who we are and yet also radical, unconditional commitment to us. The merciful commitment strengthens us to see the truth about ourselves and repent. The conviction and repentance moves us to cling to and rest in God’s mercy and grace.
The hard times of marriage drive us to experience more of this transforming love of God. But a good marriage will also be a place where we experience more of this kind of transforming love at a human level.
First it was Alan Colmes; now it is Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post, who went on MSNBC to mock Rick Santorum for how he and his wife Karen dealt with the death of their son Gabriel. (A severe prenatal development led to his very early delivery, and Gabriel died two hours after his birth.)
“He’s not a little weird, it’s that he’s really weird,” Robinson said of Santorum. “And some of his positions he’s taken are just so weird, um, that I think that some Republicans are gonna be off-put. Um, not everybody is going to, going to be down, for example, with the story of how he and his wife handled the, the, the stillborn ah, ah, child, ah, um, whose body they took home to, to kind of sleep with it, introduce to the rest of the family. It’s a very weird story.”
On these comments I have three observations to make, the first of which is that spending time with a stillborn child (or one who died shortly after birth, as in the Santorum case) is commonly recommended. The matter of taking the child home for a few hours is less common, but they did it so that their other children could also spend a little time with the deceased child, and that is definitely recommended. For example, here’s the official page of the American Pregnancy Association (an association of health-care providers that treat pregnant women) about stillbirth. It recommends that parents spend time with the child, as the Santorums did, and the APA writes:
With the loss of your baby, your family members will also grieve. Your baby is someone’s granddaughter, brother, cousin, nephew or sister. It is important for your family members to spend time with the baby. This will help them come to terms with their loss. If you have other children, it is very important to be honest with them about what has happened by using simple and honest explanations. It is your decision whether you would like the children to see the baby. Ask for a Child Life Specialist at the hospital; these are trained professionals who can help you prepare your children for the heartbreaking news, and prepare them to see the baby if you wish.
This is basically what the Santorum family did. They also had a funeral, which is often done in these kinds of situations. It seems to be enormously helpful to people in a moment of terrible pain. So Robinson, like Colmes, was speaking out of a seemingly bottomless well of ignorance.
The second point is the casual cruelty of Robinson and those like him. Robinson seems completely comfortable lampooning a man and his wife who had experienced the worst possible nightmare for parents: the death of their child. It is one thing to say you would act differently if you were in the situation faced by Rick and Karen Santorum; it’s quite another to deride them as “crazy” and “very weird,” which is what commentators on the left are increasingly doing, and with particular delight and glee.
We are seeing how ideology and partisan politics can so disfigure people’s minds and hearts that they become vicious in their assaults on those with whom they have political disagreements. I would hope no one I know would, in a thousand years, ridicule parents who were grappling with unfathomable human pain. Even if those parents were liberal. Even if they were running for president and first lady.
The third point is it tells you something about the culture in which we live that in some quarters those who routinely champion abortion, even partial-birth abortion, are viewed as enlightened and morally sophisticated while those grieving the loss of their son, whom they took home for a night before burying, are mercilessly mocked.
Rick Santorum enters the Bill O’Reilly no spin zone: contraception, Catholicism, gays in military & marriage, the economy, welfare, blacks. Also a Christian Post article on Mr. Santorum’s perspectives.
The Christian Post took a closer look at the potential policies of a Santorum presidency.
Foreign Policy Issues
Santorum has promised a more hawkish foreign policy. On his website, he lists strong demands that would be made of Iran if he here president and admonishes President Obama for his so-called weak policy. He promises to ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons and vows close allegiance to Israel. Unlike Obama, Santorum says he will not meet with the heads of any terrorist state and wants to eliminate the post of ambassador to Syria.
This is in stark contrast to Ron Paul, a libertarian, who takes a more dovish approach to international affairs. Santorum spent time in Iowa this week and criticized his opponent’s foreign policy, calling some of Paul’s plans “craziness.”
“Let’s get serious about what message Iowa is going to send to the country. We want a responsible conservative,” Santorum said, according to the Marion Patch. “Where you can be a dictator is the scary stuff he (Paul) is for.”
Santorum also opposed Obama’s withdrawal plan from Afghanistan. He claims that Obama is trying to win political points by leaving and warns that the Taliban has a good chance of re-inhabiting the region.
Also, while he has lofty plans to scale back trillions of dollars of government spending, the Department of Defense would not be on the chopping block under a hypothetical Santorum administration. According to Foreign Policy Magazine, he said Obama’s defense cuts are a sign that the president is trying to “intentionally degrade our military.”
Economic Issues
In an economic plan titled “Made in America,” Santorum preaches American exceptionalism and vows to empower the economy by cutting taxes, limiting the size of the government, and passing a balanced budget amendment.
Ten things under the Made in America plan that Santorum promises to do if elected:
1. Cut and simplify personal income taxes by cutting the number of tax rates to just two – 10 percent and 28 percent, returning to the Reagan era pro-growth top tax rate
2. Simplify the tax code and reduce middle income taxes by eliminating the alternative minimum tax
3. Simplify the tax code, encourage savings and investment, and reduce taxes by eliminating the death tax
4. Lower the capital gains and dividend tax rates to 12 percent to spur economic growth and investment
5. Reduce taxes for families by tripling the personal deduction for each child
6. Reduce and simplify taxes for families by eliminating marriage tax penalties throughout the federal tax code
7. Retain deductions for charitable giving, home mortgage interest, health care, retirement savings and children
8. Cut the corporate income tax rate in half to make our businesses competitive around the world, from 35 percent to 17.5 percent
9. Eliminate the corporate income tax for manufacturers – from 35 percent to 0 percent – which will spur middle income job creation in the United States and will create a job multiplier effect for workers
10. Spur innovation in America by increasing the research & development tax credit from 14 percent to 20 percent and make it permanent
Social Issues
Abortion – Santorum, like most GOP candidates, opposes abortion. However, while many of his Republican colleagues leave the door for abortion open in the case of rape, incest, and the mother’s health, Santorum believes it should be illegal under all circumstances.
“I believe that any doctor who performs an abortion should be criminally charged for doing so,” he told NBC in June. “I’ve never supported criminalization of abortion for mothers, but I do for people who perform them.”
He also advocates for a constitutional amendment defining a fetus as a child, thus making abortion equivalent to murder.
Gay Marriage – While all GOP hopefuls are against legalizing gay marriage, Santorum is perhaps the most adamant in his opposition. He does not believe states have the right to legalize gay marriage and he supports a constitutional amendment that would prevent states from doing so.
“We can’t say, ‘The 10th Amendment, they (states) can do what they want,'” he said in Iowa last month.
“This is too important for that. There’s a basic and central value. The family is the bedrock of our society. Unless we protect it with the institution of marriage, our country will fall.”
Santorum, however, goes further and believes that the federal government should outlaw homosexual activity. In 2003, he compared gay sex to bestiality and pedophilia and urged the government to outlaw it. When the Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws, Santorum argued, according to The Associated Press:
“If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [homosexual] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. Whether it’s polygamy, whether it’s adultery, whether it’s sodomy, all of those things are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.”
This message was preached by Samuel Davies at Princeton College on January 1, 1761. He sought to arouse apathetic students out of their spiritually fatal ease. Davies died shortly after, on February 4–at the age of 37! Thus in a way—hepreached his own funeral sermon!
“Thus says the Lord—I am about to remove you from the face of the earth. This very year you are going to die!” Jeremiah 28:16
While we are entering upon the threshold of a new year, it may be proper for us to stand, and pause, and take a serious view of the occurrences that may happen to us this year—that we may be prepared to meet them. Future contingencies are indeed unknown to us; and this ignorance is as agreeable to our present state, and as conducive to our improvement and happiness—as our knowledge of the things which it concerns us to know. But though we cannot predict to ourselves the particular events that may befall us—yet the events of life in general, in a vague indeterminate view, are not so contingent and unknowable as to leave no room for rational suppositions, and probable expectations.
There are certain events which regularly happen to us every year, and therefore we may expect them this year.
There are others which sometimes occur in the compass of a year, and sometimes do not; such are many of the blessings and afflictions of life; of these we should be apprehensive, and prepare for them.
And there are events which we know are before us, and we are sure they will occur; but at what particular time they will happen, whether this year or next, whether this day or tomorrow—is to us an utter uncertainty.
Such is that most solemn event—the close of the present life, and our entrance into eternity. That we must die—is as certain as that we now live; but the hour or year when we die—is kindly and wisely concealed from us, that we may be always ready, and stand in the posture of constant vigilant expectation; that we may not be surprised. But certainly it befits us to reflect seriously upon the mere possibility of this event happening this year, and realize to ourselves those important consequences that result from this supposition. The mere possibility of this may justly affect us more than the certain expectation of any other futurity. And it is not only possible—but highly probable, death may meet some of us within the compass of this year! Yes, it is highly probable, that if some prophet, like Jeremiah, should open to us the book of the divine decrees, one or another of us would there see our sentence, and the time of its execution fixed! “Thus says the Lord—This very year you are going to die!”
The Letter to the Hebrews bristles with warnings, calling the Christian to hold fast to the faith: 2:1-4; 3:7-4:13; 5:11-6:12; 10:26-39; 12:14-29. How can this be reconciled with the certain perseverance of the saints to the end?
“For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, . . . and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, . . .” (6:4-6).
Thomas Schreiner writes:
We must remember that the passages are warnings and admonitions. They say nothing about whether believers will actually fall away. They are not declarations but warnings. The common response is that the warnings are beside the point if believers can’t fall away. What a silly waste of time! But that objection fails if the warnings are a means by which God keeps his elect. I would argue that the warning passages are always effective in the lives of the elect, i.e., those who are truly saved always heed the warnings, and it is precisely by heeding the warnings that they are preserved until the end.
Charles Spurgeon argues that the warnings are a means by which believers are preserved until the end.
But,’ says one, ‘You say they cannot fall away.’ What is the use of putting this ‘if’ in, like a bugbear to frighten children, or like a ghost that can have no existence?
My learned friend, ‘Who art thou that repliest against God?’ If God has put it in, he has put it in for wise reasons and for excellent purposes.
Let me show you why.
First, O Christian, it is put in to keep thee from falling away. God preserves his children from falling away; but he keeps them by the use of means; and one of these is, the terrors of the law, showing them what would happen if they were to fall away. There is a deep precipice: what is the best way to keep any one from going down there? Why, to tell him that if he did he would inevitably be dashed to pieces. In some old castle there is a deep cellar, where there is a vast amount of fixed air and gas, which would kill anybody who went down. What does the guide say? ‘If you go down you will never come up alive.’ Who thinks of going down?
The very fact of the guide telling us what the consequences would be, keeps us from it. Our friend puts away from us a cup of arsenic; he does not want us to drink it, but he says, ‘If you drink it, it will kill you.’ Does he suppose for a moment that we should drink it. No; he tells us the consequences, and he is sure we will not do it.
So God says, ‘My child, if you fall over this precipice you will be dashed to pieces.’ What does the child do? He says, ‘Father, keep me; hold thou me up, and I shall be safe.’ It leads the believer to greater dependence on God, to a holy fear and caution, because he knows that if he were to fall away he could not be renewed, and he stands far away from that great gulf, because he know that if he were to fall into it there would be no salvation for him.
Steven Spielberg’s THE ADVENTURES OF TINTIN is a glorious, grand animated adventure the whole family can enjoy. Tintin is a young curious reporter who buys a model of the lost treasure ship called the “Unicorn.” A sinister man approaches Tintin, offering him an enormous sum for the ship. Tintin refuses, valuing the ship for its beauty, not its commercial value. Eventually, Tintin discovers that there are three model ships, all containing a hidden clue to the lost treasure. He and his dog, Snowy, team up with the drunken descendent of the Unicorn’s captain to retrieve the treasure. To find it, they have to contend with the descendent of the pirate who tried to steal the Unicorn’s treasure before it was lost at sea.
THE ADVENTURES OF TINTIN is an exhilarating, family friendly roller coaster ride. The action is exciting. It’s laced with plenty of fun comedy. Best of all, TINTIN has a strong moral, redemptive worldview. Good conquers evil, light brings truth, and the villain goes off to jail instead of being killed. These themes are combined with a couple overt, positive Christian references, including one to “St. John the Evangelist.”
Why do Christians die? Why do churches die? Why do Christians go hungry, endure tragedies, get cancer, and face persecution? Why do pastors fall into great sin and cast shame upon their churches and disgrace upon the gospel?
Why do some churches grow loveless and cold? Why do other churches forsake the truth of Scripture? Why do church members fight among themselves? Why are there so many hypocrites in the church? Why does everything seem to go wrong for good believers even as they try to follow God?
Why do churches take their eyes off the cross and give up on preaching?
Why is the church sometimes ridiculed by intellectuals, the media, the government, and the cultural elites? Why are churches still divided by race and ethnicity? Why are many churches still ignorant of the most basic truths of the Bible? Why can’t we do church better and be the church more faithfully? Why is it so hard being a Christian?
There are at least four good, biblical answers to these questions.
Number one, God is sovereign. For his own glory and the good of his people, our heavenly Father sends trials and allows for suffering.
Number two, we live in a fallen world. All of creation is groaning as in the pains of childbirth. Things are not the way they are supposed to be and not the way they will be one day.
Number three, human beings are sinners. We hurt each other. We violate God’s laws and pay the consequences. We are full of fears, idolatries, adulteries, and self-love that make our lives worse and the lives of those around us.
Those are three good, biblical answers why churches and the Christians struggle and suffer. But there is another reason we sometimes forget.
Number four, the devil hates the gospel and hates all those who love and obey the gospel.
And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. She was pregnant and was crying out in birth pains and the agony of giving birth. And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads seven diadems. His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she bore her child he might devour it. She gave birth to a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which she is to be nourished for 1,260 days. (Revelation 12:1-6)
The passage above is the literal and symbolic center of the book of Revelation. For eleven chapters the Spirit shows us tempted churches, suffering churches, judgments on the earth, conflict in the world, and the call for God’s people to overcome. In chapter 12 the curtain gets pulled back so we can see what is going on behind the scenes. Why all this struggle and suffering? What is behind this war of the worlds? The answer is that the devil is hell bent on destroying the church.
Let us not forget that underneath and behind all the battles in our time is a giant cosmic battle that has been going on for (almost) all time. And, this Christmas season, let us not forget that a child was born to rule the nations with a rod of iron and crush the head of that dastardly dragon.
It’s that time of year again. Navigating social dangers at holiday work parties. Fighting extra calories off. Picking out the perfect present for your girl. Of course it is also the season of holiday movies. From old classics like Rudolph to newer ones like Elf, movies help get us in the holiday spirit, and their endless play on television signals the arrival of the Christmas season. Of course there is no more beloved Christmastime flick than the manly classic, Frank Capra’s It’s a Wonderful Life.
Of course, “manly” is not a word typically associated with the film, especially given the fact that more than one man will find himself teary eyed and avoiding eye contact with his wife at its conclusion. But the film has a good deal to teach us about being a man, the right kind of man. So in the spirit of quality Christmas movies, I offer you a quick guide to manliness, as taught byIt’s a Wonderful Life.
Be a hero where you stand – This is the thread that weaves through George Bailey’s life. Saving his brother in the icy water. Keeping Mr. Gower from poisoning a child. Saving the Building & Loan multiple times. But it is the small things that make the hero; Bailey’s dedication to help others who are down on their luck is the true mark of his manliness.
Treat women well – At a key moment of their relationship, George visits Mary (Donna Reed) at her home and acts like a boor. Luckily, this leads to a final acknowledgement of their love, and for the most part, George is an example of how to treat women well (despite some cultural changes). Despite human, stressful outbursts, he loves his wife, and remains true to her in temptation. He takes care of his mother and even treats Violet (a woman with a dulled reputation) like gold, as a real man should – without taking advantage.
Love your family/family fidelity – In spite of his frustration and dreams, George honors his father’s work and keeps the Savings & Loan running. With a drafty house, sick kids, low wages, work stresses, and a normal man’s frustrations, he loves and supports his family. Is it easy? Heck no. But he comes through.
Facilitate others’ success – Helping people move out of the slums. Investing in the little people. Sacrificing for his brother Harry’s success. George’s dedication to his brother’s success is truly touching. The richness of George’s legacy lies in how he touched others’ lives and made them better for it, quietly sacrificing to improve the lot of those around him.
Stand up for what is right – Bailey’s morals may be simple common sense, but he lives them and fights for them. This is perhaps seen best when George strongly turns down Mr. Potter’s lucrative offer for everything he ever wanted: success, travel, luxury and security for his family, just to maintain the honor of his name. “I don’t need 24 hours!” he tells the man.
Know your faults and correct them – Of course our protagonist is not perfect. When facing personal failure, he is particularly prone to outbursts towards those with whom he is closest. And it takes a strong woman to keep him straight. He also has a knowable weakness for luxury and a misplaced view of himself and life. But George tries to lift himself above it, and in the end – with a little help from a different point of view and an angel named Clarence – he finds in himself what is beautiful in life.
Live your life with gratitude – Life is not measured in salaries, homes, trips, cars or Facebook friends. But it is truly measured in those moments when we love and touch others’ lives. Family and friends. Time and love. It may be sappy, but on your deathbed you won’t be looking to hold the hand of your Porsche.
Finally, it is not just the fictional character of George Bailey that provides valuable lessons in manliness; the real life of the film’s star, my personal acting hero, Jimmy Stewart, does as well. Jimmy epitomized the ideals of a gentleman. He took his responsibility to fight in WWII seriously and flew untold missions over Germany in a B-24 (retiring as a Brigadier General from the US Air Force). Known as a kind and soft-spoken guy, Stewart was discrete and chivalrous in his Hollywood relationships and remained humble despite his great success (his only Oscar stood in his father’s hardware store for years). As a philanthropist, lifelong Boy Scout (Silver Buffalo winner), loving father of 4 (adoptive father too), and a devoted husband for 45 years, Stewart was a man boys could look up to and other men could seek to emulate. President Truman said of him, “If Bess and I had a son, we’d want him to be just like Jimmy Stewart.” His last words were of his wife, “I’m going to be with Gloria now.” You couldn’t ask for a better man example. If you want another example of Stewart working his holiday magic, watch his touching portrayal inMr. Krueger’s Christmas.
Bonus lesson: Oh yeah, and, it’s okay for a grown man to cry.
markchanski 