Back to the Future

October 21, 2015 was Back to the Future day. I'm a little late in observing it, but in the spirit of Steven Spielberg, I offer this post:

Tomorrow, the City of Pocatello is holding an election to determine who will fill three seats on its city council. Council member Eva Nye is retiring, taking with her the sanity and common sense she so often injected into the council’s proceedings. Jim Johnston and Steve Brown are both running for re-election, and former council member Roger Bray is vying to regain a seat after being ousted two years ago for voting his conscience about the non-discrimination ordinance. If it sounds like more of the same sound and fury signifying nothing, don’t be fooled. Voting for president may not do much good in this politically lopsided state, but electing local leaders has a direct, immediate, and lasting effect on your quality of life.

Please bear with me as I relate a case in point. A little more than fifty-three years ago, in March of 1962, the towns of Pocatello and Alameda held a vote that had enormous consequences on the lives of all their citizens. It was the first time residents of neighboring towns in Idaho had a direct voice in settling the question of whether or not to consolidate. Debate raged back and forth. Alameda was the Chubbuck or Eagle of its time, growing faster than any other town in the state, attracting new businesses faster than they could plot the land. Alameda residents were proud of their town and many had no desire to join themselves to a timeworn municipality.

In the days leading up to the event, articles and editorials regarding the vote abounded in the Idaho State Journal. The tone was a good deal more civil than our political discourse today. Strong opinions were expressed, but the general ideology was still rooted in the social contract that had been established during the Depression and strengthened during the 2^nd World War. Most people still believed in pulling together to make a better community in a way that was more than mere lip service.

The day after the election, the Journal trumpeted the results: Chubbuck would remain its own entity, but Pocatello and Alameda would consolidate making Pocatello the largest city in Idaho! When the numbers were broken down and reported, it became apparent how crucial civic participation was in making this historic move. While the citizens of Pocatello overwhelmingly voted to embrace both Chubbuck and Alameda, consolidation couldn’t happen without an affirmative vote from each municipality involved; the question came down to the 68 voters who cast their ballot for consolidation in Alameda and the 48 Chubbuck citizens who were against the move.

Take a moment and think about the difference those 116 people made in the shape of Pocatello’s destiny. What would life have been like had Chubbuck not voted to go its own way? Would Pocatello still be the largest city in Idaho? Would we have been able to keep more industry here? Would Pocatello have grown southward much earlier because that was the only way it could expand had Alameda not voted to join up?

Pocatello is currently governed by a body of six people plus a mayor. These people make all kinds of decisions regarding Pocatello life, both for now and the future. Many of the current felicities and foibles of Pocatello living can be traced to decisions of the city councils past and present. Pocatello friends, get out and vote! The city website makes it easy to see who’s running and what they stand for (http://www.pocatello.us/243/Elections). You can also see who didn’t get their information in on time for inclusion on the website. Please don’t be passive about this chance to have a say in what happens here in the place we call home. Cast your ballot! Make your voice heard! Vote!

Love and Divinity: Words from an Old Hag

“All men are divine.” During my time in Texas, this line became a mantra, a totem for many of us who were there in Corpus Christi. It was a beautiful affirmation of the worth of each individual and transformed us and those who witnessed us for the better. However, as with all divine messages, when taken alone or out of context, this decree of our worth can be distorted into a self-worshipping destruction of the very thing it should inspire: love.

All of us are indeed divine because of our origin. God lives in each one of us to some degree for He is both Life and Love. God is all around us all the time, whether in the heartbeat of a hummingbird, the photosynthesis of a plant, or the song of a mother to her child. He is in the transfer of oxygen and carbon dioxide in our blood. Love is Life and Life is Love.

All love requires some sacrifice. In the case of human relationships, sometimes it’s sacrifice of self for the sake of others and sometimes it’s sacrifice of others for the sake of self. The challenge we humans seem to face in life is knowing which of those two options is the best to choose in any given situation.

We live in an age that teaches us to love ourselves first. It’s really nothing new. Looking out for #1 has been a popular modus operandi since humans came to be. Sometimes, it is necessary to remove ourselves from situations where we are not being loved. Any form of malicious abuse can erode or quickly obliterate our ability to love others, so staying in that relationship accomplishes nothing good. We must leave so love can continue in us and be shared with others.

However, love of self and selfishness are not the same thing. Too often we shrug love off because it isn’t convenient to our purposes, getting in the way of some life plan or ambition. We violate relationships and turn away from love. The zeitgeist tells us we must be fulfilled before we can fulfill others. This has led many people to turn inward, focusing so much on themselves that they become blind, empty, and greedy, voraciously devouring resources to fill a bottomless chasm, further denying their connection to other people and blighting the world around them. While they might have accomplished the ends they initially sought, they are self-exiled, unconnected, alone in a world filled with people. As Jesus said, “…whosoever will save his life shall lose it and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” (Matt. 16: 25-26 KJV)

As we see in nature, death is also life, for out of death springs new life. Again, Jesus said “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” (John 15:13 KJV) When we choose to sacrifice ourselves for others, we give something of ourselves away, a death of sorts. It’s scary. It’s risky. It’s painful. However, new life grows in place of what was sacrificed, transforming us and those for whom we sacrificed into something wholly new. If we choose to nurture the newness with more love, although the healing and new growth can be initially painful, the new creatures that we become are more beautiful and more alive than we were before. Things we thought we needed, things we thought were vitally important to our happiness pale in comparison to the happiness we find in selflessly loving others. This is true in any relationship.

Choose love, my friends. No matter how hard or painful it seems, choosing love is always worth it. Preserving our ability to love is important, but more often than not we are able to do so by staying in the relationship, working through the hard things, choosing love again and again and again. If we do this, then our divinity is truly manifest in every aspect of our being.

We are divine. Choosing to love affirms that divinity. Choose love.

Giants in the Sky - Into the Woods Reflection 3

This morning, I was being what my mother would call "a pill" by playing the London Cast Album of Into the Woods just loud enough to hopefully nudge Chris into waking up before I left for work. (His current Saturday alarm is the opening number of the show, so when he silenced his alarm, I started playing it on my computer. Sometimes I wonder why he stays with me.) As I listened (and Chris pretended to be too asleep to hear), Jack's first exchange with his mother got me to thinking about him. I had overlooked Jack before because I didn't see any depth in him. He didn't really interest me...until today.

The Narrator provides the first mention of Jack in the show, describing him as a sad young lad. Jack had never seemed particularly sad to me in the productions I had seen or been a part of. His youthful exuberance was always the most noticeable trait. Why is Jack sad? What drives him to keep climbing that beanstalk, taking huge risks and violating the moral code of society by stealing from those who offered him hospitality? These actions, which are devoid of any true malice, play a huge part in the disasters that follow in Act II.

Jack is an only child. His father has seemingly abandoned him or died abroad. His mother doesn't understand him and routinely sublimates her unhappiness in life onto him, berating him for his perceived shortcomings and failure to live up to his responsibility as man of the house. He has latched onto an old, dried-out cow as the only source of friendship in his life. In other words, he is deprived of the very kinds of human connection that make people happy, a concept that resonates with and is related to an article in the Huffington Post I recently read on what really drives addiction. This is why he is a "sad young lad."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-real-cause-of-addicti_b_6506936.html

Is it any wonder, then, that when a giant beanstalk springs out of the ground by his home that he climbs it, hoping to find something to ease the emptiness he doesn't even know enough to name? Is it any wonder that the thrill of meeting the giantess and the chance to provide for his family keep him going back for more? Is it any wonder that he readily accepts Red Riding Hood's challenge to go back a third time to steal the harp? He has become an adrenaline junky. The emptiness of his life is filled with thrill-seeking and adventure he had never previously thought possible. He is heedless of the consequences of his actions.

Jack is the first in the show to realize the effects of going "into the woods." In the song Giants in the Sky, he relates the story of his adventures, and we are let in on the growth in his perceptions of the world, his "coming of age," if you will. The most poignant of these observations is that on his way back down the beanstalk, he sees his house and his mother and realizes he had never really seen them before. "The roof, the house and your mother at the door. The roof, the house, and a world you never thought to explore. And you think of all of the things you've seen, and you wish that you could live in between, and you're back again, only different than before...after the sky." The Baker's Wife has a similar epiphany later in the show, but that is the subject of another blog.

I was brought up to believe that we came to this world, our own version of going into the woods, partly to learn by our experience. In fact, it was the only way we could progress from our state of being in the Pre-Existence. It's through our misadventures in this world that we gain the perspective and knowledge necessary to live in another, hopefully better, one. And at the very least, our experiences can give us the strength we need to face Mrs. Giant when she comes down to give us the consequences of our choices. "There are giants in the sky" and if we want to grow, we need to go up and meet them.

Defending Into the Woods - Reflection 2

After reading this guy's review of Into the Woods, I left a rather lengthy comment to tell him why he was wrong. To give credit where it's due, this all came about due to my friend Paul Elison's response to a mutual friend's sharing of the review. This constitutes my second reflection on Into the Woods:

(His review is linked below.)

http://taylormarshall.com/2014/12/into-the-woods-movie-a-dads-critical-review.html

Dear Dr. Marshall,

Not only have I seen the movie, but I have played in the stage version of Into the Woods and am very well acquainted with the text and music of this show. It’s obvious to me from your remarks that you are less well acquainted. It is also obvious to me that your agenda trumps your vision. Please allow me to open your eyes a little.

The passage you quote to make your point about nominalism/moral relativism is incomplete. You have taken part of a thought out of its context and made it look like another thought. Far from leading people away from true religion, the ethos put forward in Into the Woods clears away two millennia’s worth of cobwebs and helps reveal Christ’s message in its pure form.

Once the Baker and Cinderella have told Jack and Red that they have a responsibility to “decide” what’s right and good, they balance that with the warning “Just remember, someone is on your side (our side), someone else is not. While we’re seeing our side (our side), maybe we forgot they are not alone. No one is alone.” The meaning is that while trying to discern/decide right from wrong, we have to consider things from more than just our perspective. Not only does this help build bridges of love and understanding between people, but in so doing, we actually strengthen our own position by identifying our own weaknesses.

We are human. We are very rarely given the grace of seeing the entire picture. Even when it happens, we often misinterpret what we’ve seen. This is why it is so critically important to regularly examine our perspectives and positions for flaws in the light of someone else’s eyes so we can address those flaws and correct them.  Motes and beams, anyone?

I was taught to be wary of evil calling itself good and good evil. We see it happening all around us now. The theme of the novel and musical Wicked, as well as the storyline of Maleficent, both gave me pause when I first encountered them, and I was very careful when I examined what they had to say not to swallow their premise uncritically. However, as the Wizard says in the song “Wonderful” from Wicked, “A man’s a crusader…or ruthless invader. A rich man’s a thief or philanthropist…it’s all in which label is able to persist.” There are many sides to any story, and we would do well to consider them all. Some might say this is leading us to have sympathy for the devil, but what it actually does is help us to judge actions separate from people, gain a better perspective, and in doing so, discern a more effective and less morally-questionable response. Neither these two shows nor Into the Woods promote the nominalism you accuse them of.

Some actions are just evil, and the unrepentant who commit them should be held accountable, but things sometimes truly aren’t what they seem on the surface. For example, during World War II, Caucasian Americans were taught to distrust all Japanese people and we consequently treated Japanese Americans horribly. A more careful examination might have helped us avoid that error and identify who our enemy truly was…those who were seeking to deprive other humans of life and liberty. Instead, we became our enemy, doing many of the same things the Nazis and Japanese did.  Similar demonization of all Muslims is going on, but not all Muslims are guilty of terrorism.

Learning to love others unconditionally is the core message Christ imparts to His disciples. Anything that takes us away from that love is what we need to question. We especially need to love those with views different from ours or those who maltreat us. Getting past the blame game so beautifully depicted in the show is what allows us to love in a Christ-like way.

There are so many philosophical statements in Into the Woods, both overt and implied, that have actually helped me draw closer to Christ’s love and see through the sectarian and dogmatic confusion that shrouds Christ’s message of what love and virtue really are. I think you would do well to take a closer, more open-minded look at the entire text for the stage version of Into the Woods before making such an ill-informed condemnation.

Sincerely,

Trent Clegg

Into the Woods Reflection 1 - Cinderella and the Prince

Into the Woods is my favorite piece of 20th century musical theatre. Period. West Side Story may contain and fuse more elements of the performing arts, My Fair Lady may have a more balanced and easily-digestible book, Les Miserables may have better tunes and deal with redemption, etc., etc., etc., (See what I did there?), but Into the Woods is the most complete reflection on life in this Telestial sphere that I know of. Most people fail to fully appreciate its depth and I have yet to see or participate in a completely satisfactory production of it, one that is able to make each facet reflect the light of life the way it should.

Chris and I went with my uncle, Ryan, to see the recently-released film version the day after Christmas, and last night, Chris wanted to watch the Great Performances broadcast of the original Broadway production I have on DVD. Hence, this is the first in what I hope will be a series of reflections on this endlessly fascinating masterwork of Sondheim's. (The review linked below is pretty fair in its assessment of the film and expresses most of my views on the movie, though not on the musical itself.)

http://www.orlandoweekly.com/orlando/into-the-woods-should-satisfy-most-of-sondheims-fans/Content?oid=2340199

"Not one row!" exclaims Cinderella's Prince at the beginning of the second act of the stage version. Every performer of the role that I've seen fails to show what a clue this line is to the Prince's infidelities, especially in light of the fact that he immediately follows it with "Darling, I must go now." Why does he stray? How does "happily ever after" go awry for these two seemingly well-matched people?

To be blunt, (Emily, I thought your Baker's Wife was really good!) Cinderella is the first girl that ever ran away from the Prince as something more than a coy flirtation. "Wanting a ball is not wanting a prince," she says after the second midnight is gone. She sincerely wants to get away from him so she can sort out how she feels and figure out what she wants. The Prince, for his part, is addicted to the chase, a fact amply explored in both "Agony" and its Reprise. Cinderella makes him work harder for it than he's ever had to before.

Sadly, Cinderella's decision to let herself be caught is a death blow to their relationship. All the practice she's had submitting to her stepmother and stepsisters, combined with her inherent niceness, lead to a conflict-free marriage. While this sounds like a dream to most people, for someone like the Prince, who was "raised to be charming, not sincere" and is completely unprepared to deal with domestic bliss, this takes all the fire out of the relationship and he is again driven to quest after the unobtainable. Had Cinderella been less submissive, had she made the Prince work to keep her, their marriage might have had a chance...or the Prince might still have tired of her and strayed anyway. (There's a reason why sex toy parties have replaced Tupperware parties in many suburban homes.)

In laying this out, I want to be clear that understanding why something happens doesn't justify it. You can understand why the Holocaust happened without justifying the actions of the Nazis. The emotional damage inflicted by infidelity is what makes it morally repugnant...and yet, it is also an opportunity for spiritual, personal growth. Finally, Cinderella knows what she wants! "My father's house was a nightmare. Yours was a dream. Now I want something in between," she tells the prince once she's faced his peccadilloes. While going into the woods (ie. facing adversity) has stolen Cinderella's innocence, it has also helped her answer in an assertive way the questions she asked while stuck on the steps of the palace. She is no longer passively letting someone else determine her future. From that point on, she is capable of caring for a child, imparting true wisdom to Red Riding Hood, and defending herself against the giant that threatens her life.

We've all heard that facing conflict is part of a healthy, lasting relationship. How that conflict is resolved is equally as important. Sadly, Cinderella and her Prince didn't have it in them while they were married, and they were too estranged by the conflict that gave them what they needed to resolve their issues to start over.

"I shall always remember the girl who ran away," the Prince says wistfully. "And I the faraway prince," answers Cinderella. In providing a more honest, consequence-based ending, Sondheim and Lapine have restored a sense of the cautionary to this most popular of fairy tales. And like the Greeks, who knew that theatre was for more than mere entertainment, we can learn from what we see and avoid making the same mistakes in our own lives.

"Into the woods you have to grope, but that's the way you learn to cope! Into the woods to find there's hope of getting through the journey." I love this show!