Called to a Destiny

Brave is Pixar's much-awaited new venture, featuring the first heroine in their seventeen-year run as an animation studio. The film is set in medieval times, in scraggy Scotland, with spectacular waterfalls, glowing sunsets and forbidding forests, giving Pixar plenty of scope for some stunning animation.
Merida (voiced by Kelly Macdonald), the feisty young princess with a head of unruly red locks and a talent for archery, is learning to be a lady. So far it's proving to be a lesson that stretches the limits of her patience when she'd rather be out riding 'through the glen firing arrows into the sunset'. There to ensure that she does not do precisely that is her firm and sensible mother, Queen Elinor (voiced by Emma Thompson). In charge of Merida's training, Queen Elinor is forever instructing her impulsive daughter on table manners, court etiquette, dress and deportment, while her triplet sons run amok through the castle, leaving destruction in their wake. Their father, King Fergus (voiced by Billy Connolly), is the indulgent type and takes a more lackadaisical attitude toward their upbringing. He majors on dinner-time stories and rough play, leaving the disciplining to his wife.


To read more go to...
Culturewatch - Exploring the message behind the media

Seeing through the tears

Film title: Welcome to the Rileys
Director: Jake Scott
Screenplay: Ken Hixon
Starring: Kristen Stewart, James Gandolfini, Melissa Leo, Tiffany Coty
Distributor: Samuel Goldwyn Films (USA); High Fliers Films (UK)
Cinema Release Date: 29 October 2010 (USA); 18 November 2011 (UK)
Certificate: R (USA); 15 (UK) Contains strong language and sex references

 



‘You can't see anything properly while your eyes are blurred with tears.’
C.S. Lewis, A Grief Observed

On the surface Doug Riley (James Gandolfini) seems to be doing OK. He has the wife, the house and the Cadillac, and is still liked by everyone. But the veneer hides a lonely man, floundering in the agony of his daughter’s death. Doug has mastered the part he must play to keep the veneer intact though – the genial work buddy, the concerned husband – and is managing to fool everyone, including, to a large extent, himself.

He is shaken out of his sham existence when he finds his name on a tombstone on the plot adjoining his daughter’s grave – his wife’s approach to planning for the future. ‘I’m not dead yet’, he protests angrily, his first expression of real emotion cracking the long-held veneer. Both Doug and his wife of thirty years, Lois (Melissa Leo), are unable to communicate anything beyond the mundane since the tragic accident that took their daughter’s life. Both just exist instead of engaging with life. Whereas Doug goes through the motions, pretending all is well, Lois has withdrawn from the world, rarely leaving the house even to retrieve the mail from the end of the driveway.

The next day, Doug leaves for New Orleans on a business trip. While there, he ends up in a strip club and meets a young prostitute, Mallory (Kristen Stewart), who reminds him of his daughter. At first he has to fend off her sexual advances, but once she gets the fact that he isn’t interested in soliciting her services, they develop a camaraderie. Doug is drawn to Mallory and her vulnerable position as an underage stripper; her likeness to his daughter stirs him from his apathy and he decides to help. He calls his wife and tells her that he isn’t coming home – he doesn’t quite know what he is doing, but ‘I’m not dead yet’ is all the explanation he can offer her. He then moves in with Mallory, intending to help her turn her life round.

Doug believes that his roles as a father and a husband define who he is. His sense of purpose and his source of happiness are both linked to his identity of being a provider for his family. But his daughter’s death and his wife’s withdrawal shatter his sense of identity, and the experience of finding his own tombstone hits him with the reality of his apparently meaningless life. Desperate to make sense of his existence, Doug attempts to become the father figure in Mallory’s life. He needs to feel needed; it’s vital to his very identity. And he turns to Mallory to satisfy that need.

His ‘truth’ is that his identity is bound up in his role as a provider. And when the basis for this ‘truth’ (namely his wife and daughter) is taken away, he feels lost and set adrift. He has invested so much in his relationships with his family that he has raised them to the position of idols in his life. Nothing in this world can bear the weight of being the centre of our identity, or the sole source of our happiness. So where does that leave us? And what about Doug and Lois? Should they live the rest of their lives under the weight of this unbearable sorrow? Or can the loss of their daughter bring them to the realisation that they will never be fulfilled by the things of this world?

C.S. Lewis observed that God, who has made us, knows what we are and also knows that our happiness can only lie in him:

Yet we will not seek it in Him as long as he leaves us any other resort where it can even plausibly be looked for. While what we call ‘our own life’ remains agreeable we will not surrender it to Him. What then can God do in our interests but make 'our own life' less agreeable to us, and take away the plausible source of false happiness?[1]

This quote might make God seem like an insensitive tyrant and a ruthless, worship-hungry entity. But he isn’t. The Bible says that God is love itself. And out of his love for us, he keeps bringing us back to him – the unchangeable and true source of happiness. He isn’t a ruthless brute; he understands the pain of losing a child only too well: his own son was murdered. He empathises with the loss couples like the Rileys face, but he knows that nothing in this world will last forever, and when we set our hearts on any thing here we set ourselves up for disappointment. He also knows that if our hearts, our identity, our focus in life were set on the one, true, unchangeable God, we’d have a peace that would go beyond our circumstances, in the knowledge that he loves us regardless. Teary eyed, the world may seem blurry, but if we let it, our grief can help us focus on what is of the utmost importance in this life – knowing and loving God.

[2] C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain

Culturewatch - The Guard

Culturewatch - The Guard

A Different Set of Standards

Don’t we all love a story where, in spite of the odds stacked against him, the underdog manages to beat the villain after all? Regardless of society’s postmodernist expectations of unresolved endings, and increasingly blurred moral boundaries, we find the clear-cut good-defeats-bad conclusions oddly satisfying. The ending to Captain America, the latest superhero movie produced by Marvel Studios, is satisfyingly and unapologetically old-fashioned.

The eponymous Captain America starts off as the spindly ‘90-pound asthmatic’ Steve Rogers (Chris Evans), who is so eager to fight for his country in the Second World War that, after being rejected in five different states, he goes to New York to try to enlist under a false name. This is where Dr Erskine (Stanley Tucci) recruits him for the government’s secret Super Soldier programme, which aims to increase the efficiency of the army by injecting soldiers with a newfangled cell-enhancing serum. Erskine sees something in Rogers that no one else seems to appreciate. He sees the character and courage beneath the skinny exterior; he sees the heart of the man, and that is what he bases his selection upon. There is a comically touching scene where, in boot camp, Rogers throws himself on a dummy grenade to protect his fellow soldiers, who have dived for cover. When Rogers is chosen as the first soldier to be tested with the serum, he has just one question: ‘Why me?’ Erskine replies, ‘A weak man knows the value of strength, and knows compassion.’
The world lauds and rewards achievement and ability. While encouraging self-promotion and competitiveness, it often undervalues strength of character and personality. And though in many situations in real life we are quite likely to find ourselves responding in the way the world does, in the dark of a movie theatre we let our guard down and empathise with the underdog. Maybe it’s because we all are painfully aware of our own weaknesses and know the lengths we go to to hide them from the condemning eyes of the world. We’re afraid that our weaknesses might expose us to ridicule or abuse.

While Steve Rogers’s story is fictional, its theme isn’t original. Turning back the pages of history we find David, a scrawny little shepherd boy who went from tending sheep to ruling a nation. This change in circumstances came about, not because of his appearance or his abilities, but because, according to the Bible, God evaluated him for the position by looking at his heart. God sent a man called Samuel to select one of the eight sons of Jesse to be king. Samuel’s first inclination was to choose the eldest and handsomest of the lot, but God clearly didn’t agree:

The Lord doesn’t see things the way you see them. People judge by outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart. (1 Samuel 16:7)

Following God’s instructions, Samuel sidestepped all of the seven older sons before settling on the youngest, and the most unlikely, David.

Throughout the Bible, God seems to favour what the world would consider to be the unlikely and the unlovely. Even for his own son’s genealogy God chose several people of low rank and no status. Jesus’s ancestry includes those with a rather colourful past – a prostitute and an adulterer amongst others; people who had a past they weren’t particularly proud of, who were aware of their shortcomings, but who realised their dependence on God. Apparently God is in the business of uplifting the weak, and has been in it since the beginning of time. According to the Bible,

God chose things the world considers foolish in order to shame those who think they are wise. And he chose things that are powerless to shame those who are powerful. God chose things despised by the world; things counted as nothing at all, and used them to bring to nothing what the world considers important. (1 Corinthians 1:27–28)

Our abilities or inabilities are not a hindrance to God’s love or his purposes for us. His love is not based on what we can or cannot do; he loves us with an unchanging and unchangeable love, and his love can transform us.

Steve Rogers is transformed from lanky lad to muscle man only because of the work of the serum in him. He realised that without the serum his strength didn’t amount to much and so he chose to have it injected into him. The one thing that can transform us as radically is God’s love which he offers to us, but which we need to choose to accept.

The greatest way God showed his love for us was by sending his own son Jesus to take the punishment we deserve for rebelling against God. Grace is the undeserved love and forgiveness God offers us through Jesus Christ. We can choose to accept Jesus’s sacrifice and be forgiven, and when we do we can enter into a relationship with God, who says, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness’ (2 Corinthians 12:9, NIV).

If our weakness makes us realise our dependence on God, then it is a good thing. Then, whatever the world’s take on weakness may be, we can live in the knowledge that we are loved completely and wholly as we are, and that, despite our weaknesses, God can use our lives for great things.

Calendar Space

In India life seemed to trundle along; following the seasons, shaped by a six-day work-week and the occasional national holiday. Sometimes I’d suddenly realise that I didn’t even know what the date was, and that didn’t really bother me; but now, here in England, I find that my time is planned out for the next six months at least! Meetings, appointments, birthdays and reminders are scrawled across the Highland Cows Calendar that hangs above my desk. How did life become so busy? At times, I resent the dictates of a tight schedule; but mostly I enjoy the order and productivity it encourages. It gives me a sense of being in control, which may or may not be right. But I know what is supposed to happen and when it’s supposed to happen; and usually things go according to plan.


Until a crisis comes along; loss of a job, a death in the family, a broken relationship – and the façade of control crumbles. Everything else is put on hold while we try to grapple with fate unexpected.

Recently a friend lost two members of her family, quite suddenly and in quick succession. Needless to say, the family is still recovering from the loss of their loved ones. This Christmas must have been a bit sombre than usual.

As I thought about the situation in her life, I realised afresh how important relationships are. And yet I find, sadly, that those closest to me I treat thoughtlessly. I love them, and they know I love them, but I don't often make a point of telling them how much they mean to me.

So this year I’ve decided that along with everything else that finds its way onto my calendar, I’m going to make a special place for reminders – to do an ‘inventory’ if you like, and take stock of the relationships in my life every so often.

And hopefully one day when eternity comes knocking, and time ceases to have meaning, there will be no regrets of words unsaid, and love unshared.

Rango

Keywords: Identity, relationships, hero, selflessness
Film title: Rango
Director: Gore Verbinski
Screenplay: John Logan
Starring: Johnny Depp, Isla Fisher, Timothy Olyphant,
Cinema Release Date: 14 February 2011 (USA) 4 March 2011 (UK)
DVD Distributor: Paramount Home Entertainment (UK)
DVD Release date: 10 May 2011 (USA); 25 July 2011 (UK)
Certificate: PG (USA) Contains rude humour, language and smoking; PG (UK) Contains mild threat and violence


A nameless chameleon with protruding eyes, skinny neck, a penchant for long words, and an inclination to heroics is launched out of the back of his owner’s swerving car and, at the same time, out of his monotonous, self-centred existence. He finds himself in the middle of the Mojave Desert, surrounded by the shattered pieces of his terrarium and the remaining paraphernalia of his theatrical pastime. Following the advice of a wizened armadillo, the lizard leaves the highway and heads out into the desert in search of water and a frontier town called Dirt. The bright-coloured chameleon is a stark contrast to the medley of scaly, slimy and mangy creatures that inhabit the lawless outpost. An obvious outsider, he needs to make a good impression on this wily bunch and so he reinvents himself as Rango (voice of Johnny Depp), a legendary lizard who killed the Jenkins brothers – all seven of them – with one bullet. By a stroke of luck, Rango becomes the swashbuckling hero he always wanted to be, and is nominated sheriff for the drought-stricken town.

Rango is the clever conception and pet project of director Gore Verbinski. Filled with witty dialogue and subtle references to classic Westerns like Once Upon A Time In The West and Chinatown, it is a movie that will delight children and adults alike. Verbinski decided to buck the current 3D trend, and the resulting 2D product is commendable in its portrayal of gorgeous desert vistas and detailed characters, for which visual consultant Roger Deakins, director of photography on the Coen brothers’ films can be credited.

Rango is entirely unprepared for life in the desert; out of his element in this hostile environment he is desperately trying to blend in. Considering he is a chameleon, this should be easy, but unfortunately it isn’t. As a pet lizard at the start of the film, Rango is isolated and preoccupied with himself, whiling away the hours by acting as the hero in Shakespearean plays. However, as the movie progresses there occur several instances where he is confronted by the question, ‘Who am I?’ Verbinski highlights these moments by zooming in as Rango’s face freezes and the background darkens. Rango’s usual response is, ‘I could be anyone.’ He chooses whom he fancies being this time round and then promptly steps into character. So while he can easily act as whoever he chooses to be, he doesn’t know who he really is. The movie explores various existential themes through Rango’s search for an identity, and in the process raises a few questions for us to mull over: Can we be anyone we want to be? Or are we made with a specific identity? The Bible claims that God made each of us in his own image but with individual identities. But when we used the freedom God gave us to rebel, and go our own way, that image was marred. So while, to a large extent, our decisions mould our character and we can choose who we want to be, all of us have characteristics that are reflections of our maker.

Rango always dreams of being the hero. Perhaps, in his visualisati  ring audience, P P 0 inti P ' BC^ b2/ z L3 L4 C s, super-powers and Spandex, or figures like James Bond and Robin Hood. But doesn’t true heroism highlight a serving attitude and selflessness to the point of death?

According to this definition, Jesus is the most incredible hero of all time. As the Son of God, he loved us so much that he came to this world as a human being to take the punishment we so rightly deserved for our rebellion. He did that because he knew that the only way we could come back into a relationship with God was if he died instead of us, and so free us to choose whether or not we wanted to accept his sacrifice and reconnect with our maker. Now that kind of selfless giving seems like something only the ultimate hero would do. If heroism is one of God’s characteristics, that will explain why we, who are made in his image, all long to be the champions of our story.

For Rango, the realisation that heroism actually means serving comes slowly. In a predictable turn of events, his lies eventually catch up with him, and he is humiliated and evicted from Dirt. He heads out into the desert again, where in a daze he crosses the busy highway unscathed and makes it over to the proverbial ‘Other Side’. Again, as an indication of the movie’s existential leanings, the Other Side – visually, an over-exposed salt flat – can be interpreted as a depiction of heaven. Here Rango encounters the Spirit of the West (voice of Timothy Olyphant), who reprimands him for ‘walking out on his own story.’ Rango realises that the choices he has made so far have been primarily to gain new friends and be popular. The movie plays with the familiar western trope of a run-down town in need of a saviour, and its unlikely hero. Rango’s solitary life has made him self-centred. But now it is no longer only about him; it is about them – his friends. Now he must be, not who he wants to be, but who his new friends need him to be. His life-long uncertainty about his identity is resolved when he realises that the relationships he has built dictate, to a large extent, who he is supposed to be. Rango walks into the blinding light and there receives an understanding of his destiny. He becomes the person the town folk needed him to be. He becomes their hero.

If that is true for Rango, could it be true for us as well? The Bible says that when we agree to enter into a relationship with God, he calls us out of the darkness of our rebellion and into his marvellous light1 so that we can then represent God to others in our words and actions. Do our relationships define our identity? And if so, would a relationship with God give us a clearer understanding of who we were truly made to be?

The Fighter

Film title: The Fighter
Tagline(s): Every dream deserves a fighting chance
Director: David O. Russell
Screenplay: Paul Tamasy, Scott Silver, Eric Johnson
Starring: Mark Wahlberg, Christian Bale, Melissa Leo, Amy Adams
Cinema Release Date: 10 December 2010 (USA) 2 February 2011 (UK)
DVD Distributor: Vision Video (UK); Universal Studios (USA)
DVD Release date: 02 December 2002 (UK); 14 January 2003 (USA)
Certificate: 15 (UK); R (USA) Contains strong language and hard drug use


Warning: This article contains plot spoilers

The Fighter is as much a movie about a family’s fight for reconciliation, as it is about a boxer and his comeback to the world of welterweight championship. Based on a true story, the film is set in Lowell, a town languishing in industrial decline. Micky Ward (Mark Wahlberg) is a light welterweight boxer, who has had a run of defeats against badly matched opponents. These fights were arranged by Dicky (Christian Bale), his trainer and older brother, and by his mother, Alice (Melissa Leo), a know-it-all nagger, who runs her family of nine children and a timid husband with a tight reign.

All his life, Micky has lived in the shadow of his loud-mouthed, attention-seeking, elder brother. Surprisingly, for a boxer, Micky is a quiet, shy guy. Aware of his mother’s favouritism towards Dicky, he deals with being sidelined by retreating into a desperate silence. Family loyalty leads him to be clannish to the point where he cannot voice his frustration about his domineering mother, clingy sisters and overbearing brother without feeling guilty. He falls in love with Charlene (Amy Adams), a tough-talking waitress who encourages him to maintain a healthy distance from his family and set clear boundaries in his relationship with them.

Things begin to change when Dicky is sent to prison. Micky finds a new trainer and, with support from his father and Charlene, breaks away from his mother’s management and hires a new manager. Soon enough, he begins winning every match he fights.

One of the central themes is Micky’s struggle to separate himself from his family and to make an identity for himself. If we are to utilise our abilities and follow our dreams, it is often necessary that we first sort out the issues from our past that have the potential for affecting our future adversely. As the old proverb goes, we don’t get to choose the family we’re born in, and it can be very difficult to distance oneself from the influence of a destructive family. Micky found it incredibly hard admitting that the people who were supposed to be his family had let him down. He felt that his identity, and his talent as a boxer, was tied up with his relationship with his family. He needed the support of someone who believed in him because of who he was, not because of who he was related to. Charlene gave him the courage he required to define boundaries with his family. However, she would have preferred him to have nothing more to do with them from then on. She helped him on his way to finding out who he was when he wasn’t being influenced by his family. Clearly, the message being spelt out here is that, to become who you were meant to be, you need to get rid of the baggage that families can sometimes become.

However, in a deciding match before the title bout, Micky’s boxing plan fails miserably, and he takes a beating round after round until he resorts to the tactics his brother taught him, which leads to a win. He realizes that he needs to continue training with his brother, if he is going to use his potential to the utmost. Charlene, however, feels that Micky is risking his success on the chance that Dicky will prove to be reliable, and she decides to leave rather than watch him fail. Knowing that Micky needs the stability and support that she can offer, Dicky goes after Charlene and convinces her to return. And so the brothers begin training together again, and the Ward family attempts to be less criticising and more attentive to Micky’s opinion.

Families are important; other than the obvious fact that we need parents to bring us into being and then to nurture us, we are also relational beings by nature and our development into mature adults depends on the relationships we have growing up. The Bible very clearly explains that God intended that we live as part of families, and that we have a mutual responsibility within the framework of a family to make it work.



At first Micky resorts to the extreme of cutting himself off from his family as he tries to figure out who he is as an individual. We empathise with his need for a separate identity, as it is a need experienced by us all at some point. According to the Bible, our identity, in itself and in relation to others, needs to be found in our relationship with God. As human beings, we are created in the image of God. If that is true, perhaps we would find out more about ourselves if we can find out more about him. And while we can try various sources of information to find out more about God, the best way to get to know him would be by developing a relationship with him. However, the Bible also says that we all have rebelled and fallen short of God’s standards, and our imperfection acts as a barrier between us and God’s perfect nature. But despite our imperfections, God loves us and wants to give us a new identity in his family. The only solution to that problem was Jesus dying on the cross, to endure the punishment we deserved. In doing so, he made a way for us to come back to God. Accepting God’s offer of forgiveness for our rebellion allows us to become what God wants us to be. And since God is our maker, who would better know what we are supposed to be like, and what our identity should consist of? This realisation releases us from the need to live up to the unhealthy expectations that society tends to place on us and instead frees us to live, with God’s help, according to his expectation.

And perhaps that is a better way of getting rid of the baggage from our past, rather than, like Micky, getting rid of our families’ altogether. The Fighter demonstrates this note of reconciliation when the brothers get back together to train for the title match. Micky wins not only because he sets boundaries with his family, but also because he is able to rely on their support when he needs to. In the final scene, his family, his trainers, his girlfriend and his manager join him in the ring to celebrate his victory, which he would not have achieved without them all.

The Beaver

Film title: The Beaver
Tagline(s): He’s here to save Walter’s life
Director: Jodie Foster
Screenplay: Kyle Killen
Starring: Mel Gibson, Jodie Foster, Anton Yelchin, Jennifer Lawrence
Cinema Release Date: 16 March 2011 (USA) 17 June 2011 (UK)
DVD Distributor: Summit Home Entertainment
DVD Release date: 10 October 2011 (UK); 23 August 2011 (USA)
Certificate: 12A (UK); PG-13 for mature thematic material, some disturbing content, sexuality and language including a drug reference (USA)



There is something lacking in all of us – a missing piece. There’s a little bit of a black spot or a dark space.

For Walter Black (Mel Gibson), that dark space has been growing for a while. He feels powerless against it, and can only watch helplessly while it engulfs him completely. He is unable to deal with life and is unhappy with the person he has become. Instead he finds it easier to just zone out, and becomes unproductive. He drifts along, going through the motions, just existing. He is absent as a father, unreliable as a husband and uninspiring as a CEO. We find him in this state in the opening scene of the movie, floating on a lilo with a glazed expression. But when his suicide attempt goes awry, Walter reaches for the beaver, a glove puppet he found in a dumpster. It is his attempt to engage with life once more – but to do so from a distance, and so he uses the Cockney puppet to communicate with everyone he meets. He believes that the darker side of his nature is so beyond help that everyone, including himself, needs to be kept away from it.

Once the beaver is on the scene, Walter is transformed as a person and things begin to change for the better. He plays with his younger son, becomes the attentive husband and takes his company to new heights with his innovation. In a way, he almost seems to finally attain that ability to engage with life, even if it is just superficially, and from behind the safety of a furry puppet. However, because he isn’t dealing with the problem of his mental illness, but with just its symptoms, things slowly begin to deteriorate behind the farce that he is living.

Director Jodie Foster, artfully details the development of the beaver from puppet to person, in both Walter’s consciousness as well as the audience’s perception. There are scenes where Walter is completely out of the frame and it becomes difficult to remember that the beaver is actually a repressed aspect of Walter’s nature that is finally being given expression in a destructive manner. The beaver almost seems to be a separate entity with a, sometimes sinister, opinion.

As Walter/the beaver puts it, "We start to see ourselves as a box that we're trapped inside and no matter how we try and escape – self help, therapy, drugs – we just sink further and further down. The only way to truly break out of the box is to get rid of it all together . . . I mean, you built it in the first place. If the people around you are breaking your spirit, who needs them? Your wife, who pretends to love you; your son, who can't even stand you – I mean, put them out of their misery!"
Sometimes we tend to place a buffer between ourselves and our weaknesses or faults, but if we aren’t careful that buffer can become our weakness. In Walter’s case, the moulting beaver causes him more harm than good. It seems for a while that the puppet is actually helping him, but when his wife, Meredith (played by Foster), finds out that the beaver is not a therapeutic measure suggested by his psychiatrist, she realises that he has become a danger to himself. Walter stubbornly refuses to get rid of the beaver, and instead watches his wife and children move out. Interestingly, throughout this time, Walter believes that he is ‘under the care’ of the puppet, and yet it is the puppet that holds him back from going after the people who love him most. With time, Walter recognises that he has to make a choice between the beaver and his family; he needs a new start, for which he will have to make a clean break and let one of them go. So in a drastic step, Walter makes a decision that alters the course of his life. It also leads him to reconcile with his family and, with their support, to deal with his mental health issues.

Marc Lee from The Telegraph captures the quality of the movie in his review, describing it as ‘dark and unsettling but funny, too, with a winning quirky charm’.1 He commends Foster’s directorial skill as she maintains a fine balance between the portrayal of the comical and dismal aspects of the story. While the movie received a hearty ten-minute standing ovation when screened at the Cannes Film Festival, it opened to mixed reviews from film critics, possibly due to the negative press surrounding Mel Gibson’s personal life. Perhaps the role of Walter Black as a disturbed and depressed individual struck too close to home to Gibson’s recent misdemeanours in real life.

The Beaver reconfirms the idea that we have virtually no control over what happens to us; that bad things happen to good people, and that pain is a part of life, the obvious moral being that escapism is not the solution. Ignoring problems will not make them go away; admitting that they exist, however, is the first step towards resolving them.

There is an aching truth behind Walter’s words, a longing for a new start, as he says in an interview,

‘We reach a point where, in order to go on, we have to wipe the slate clean. . . . Starting over isn't crazy. Crazy is being miserable and walking around half asleep, numb, day after day after day. Crazy is pretending to be happy. Pretending that the way things are is the way they have to be for the rest of your bleeding life.’

This cry for help isn’t only Walter’s cry; it is echoed by all of humanity. And according to the Bible, Jesus is the only one who has come up with a satisfying answer to that cry of desperation. In a drastic step of his own, Jesus died on the cross in our place, accepting the punishment for our rebellion and making God’s forgiveness available to us. When we come to God and admit that we have done things our own way, and that we want to accept the open invitation of a relationship with Jesus, the Bible says our past is wiped away and God forgives our disobedience. He offers us a brand new start, with him leading us through life this time round. In the light of this offer, it does seem crazy to continue being miserable, to continue living life on the surface, to continue pretending that ‘Everything will be OK,’ as Walter’s son, puts it. Through Jesus Christ, the offer to turn our lives around in now available; but ultimately the choice must be ours.

And when all is said and done, which of us would not give our right arm for a new beginning?

Source Code – The Relentless Ticking of the Clock

What would you do if you had only a minute to live?

Time and time again, Captain Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal) is faced with the certainty of death. He finds himself on a Chicago-bound train, opposite a woman named Christina Warren (Michelle Monaghan), whom he doesn’t recognise, but who is chatting to him as though she knows him. Bewildered by her familiar attitude, Stevens seeks refuge in the toilet where, to his horror, he finds that the face in the mirror is not his own. Rifling through the wallet he finds in his pocket, he realises that he is in the body of a suburban school teacher, just as an explosion rips through the train.

With this opening scene, Duncan Jones’s sci-fi thriller Source Code draws the viewer into the fast-paced, nail-biting plot for the next hour and a half. Tightly scripted by Ben Ripley, the movie shuttles back and forth between a time in the recent past, and the present. Immediately after the explosion, Stevens finds himself in a pod-like container where he is told that he is under the command of Officer Colleen Goodwin (Vera Farmiga) and Dr Rutledge (Jeffrey Wright). He learns that he has been drafted into a top-secret scientific mission to prevent a series of bomb attacks on Chicago. The military has developed a futuristic technology called ‘source code’ by which they can reassign time for a certain period in the past. Now, his task is to go back to the eight minutes before the explosion to try and identify the bomber.

Thematically, the movie borrows heavily from films like Groundhog Day, Sliding Doors and even Inception. Theoretically, the concept itself is full of holes, but while it doesn’t hold up to close scrutiny it does make for good cinema. The story line required three main sets between which the plot moves: the train, the mysterious pod where Stevens finds himself between source codes, and the scientific lab from where Goodwin and Rutledge direct his entry into each source code. Jones’s challenge was to keep the story fresh and engaging for the audience, despite the repetition of the same scenes. He managed to keep the plot gripping enough by giving the audience exactly the same amount of information as the characters. Gyllenhaal and Monaghan are excellent, bringing slight nuances to each repeated depiction of the same scene. Each time Stevens is hurled into a source code to gather more evidence, two things happen simultaneously - the idea that he can actually prevent the explosion from happening altogether grows stronger, and he finds himself falling a little more for Christina.

Before becoming a director, Jones trained in philosophy, and in this story, as in his debut Moon, he continues to explore questions of identity and the implications of the possible mutability of time. And while, according to Philip French of The Guardian, ‘the proliferation of recent scientific and technological discoveries more than hint at the possibility of such matters [like time reassignment] moving on from metaphor to reality’1, it hasn’t happened yet. Time still does not wait for any man and it still cannot be changed. If anything, the movie stresses the importance of living fully in the now. Desperate to prevent another tragedy from happening, Stevens uses every minute in each source code to search for clues about the bomber, and about his own identity. In his last source code, Stevens doesn’t know if his plan to save the train is going to work, and the nearness of death brings him face to face with the dearness of life. With eight minutes to go, Stevens makes choices that reveal his priorities in life – he makes a call to his father with whom he had parted on a strained note, kisses the girl he has begun to fall in love with, and encourages a compartment full of indifferent commuters to somehow connect despite their differences.

Isn’t it interesting that in the last moments of his life, Stevens focuses on the most important aspects of life? Making amends, patching relationships, letting past hurts go, and present loves know. But why does it always take a crisis before we begin to make changes to those things that really matter in life? Why do we allow things that shouldn’t have a place in our lives to linger – broken relationships, cruel barbs we so heedlessly throw in a moment of spite, unsaid words of love and reconciliation? Do we allow ourselves to be lulled into numbness by the anaesthetic routine of life, denying the pain we cause and receive? Will it take the unavoidability of death to jolt us out of that numbness? And by then will it be too late? Or do we think that if we ignore the inevitability of death, we might actually avoid it?

For Stevens, it was the reality that he had moments to live that made him want to set things right. All of us have made mistakes in life; we all have regrets. At some point or another we have all given in to the selfishness of our nature and made choices that go against our consciences. Time and again we choose to rebel against God, hurting others and dulling our conscience in the process. We live as though there will be no accounting for our lives. The certainty of death, however, has a way of putting life into perspective, and the movie’s tagline captures the longing we have for one more chance to ‘change the past, [and] save the future’. While the past is unchangeable, the future can still be saved. Prompted by his sense of duty, Stevens chose to enter into another reality to stop the bomber and save the passengers on the train. On the other hand the Bible says that Jesus is the Son of God who entered into our reality because he loved us. He chose to become a human being and to take the punishment we deserved by dying in our place. If we believe that he did this for us, and accept his offer of a relationship, our past will be forgiven and he offers us a brand new future with him beside us. Here is a chance to make the changes we long for - to ask for forgiveness for all the pain we have caused, and to start again with a clean slate. And while we may still have to live with the consequences of our past, we can live knowing that we are forgiven by God. We don’t have to wait for a crisis; we can choose whether we want to accept that offer now.

We don’t know when we will die, but it is certain that we will. We might have more that just eight minutes to live, but we all are on a train that’s hurtling towards the end of time, and now is the time to make a decision.

Driven by Thirst: Meek's Cutoff

Director: Kelly Reichardt
Screenplay: Jonathan Raymond

Starring: Michelle Williams, Bruce Greenwood, Will Patton, Paul Dano, Shirley Henderson

Distributor: Oscilloscope Pictures (USA); Soda Pictures (UK)

Cinema Release Date: 8 April 2011 (USA); 15 April 2011 (UK)

Certificate: PG (USA / UK) Contains infrequent mild violence and language

Warning: This article contains plot spoilers

Kelly Reichardt’s latest film, Meek’s Cutoff, leaves you thirsty. The arid landscape - the brown, ochre and yellow of the desert, the sparse scrub and bleached sky, the parched earth and cracked salt flats – leaves you feeling dry mouthed and dehydrated by the end of the movie. Meek’s Cutoff is not a stereotypical Western, with gun-slinging men, saloons and sheriffs. In fact, there’s almost nothing ‘western’ about this movie, other than its geographical location. Like her previous two movies, Wendy and Lucy and Old Joy, Reichardt has again made a road movie of sorts – only there is no ‘road’ in this historical drama, and canvas-covered wagons replace cars.

It’s 1845, and three pioneer couples, one with a twelve-year-old child, are being led off the Oregon Trail and over the Cascade Mountains via a supposed short cut by Stephen Meek (Bruce Greenwood), a mountain man and their guide. We first meet them as they ford a river. The arduousness of this task is stretched over the dialogue-free, first ten minutes of the movie, hinting at, and preparing the viewer for, the scarcity of words to come. Meek, who is anything but what his name suggests, is the only exception to this lack of conversation, and his flood of anecdotes and unasked-for advice make a blaring contrast to the minimal dialogue from the rest of the characters.

After trudging through windswept and scorching wasteland for days, the party realise that they are lost and that Meek is leading them blind. The men are riled and gather to discuss their dilemma, debating whether or not to shoot Meek and retrace their steps. True to nineteenth-century culture, the women have no say in the decision making. And as viewers, we too are only allowed to eavesdrop on the conversation from a distance, along with the bonneted women, which lets us sympathise with their lack of control over the future. Divided in their opinion over Meek’s fate, and swayed by his blustering bravado, the men decide to let him guide them on for a few more days before taking any action.
During this time the group captures a Cayuse Native American (Rod Rondeaux) who had been following them for a while. Meek is all for killing him immediately, claiming he’d lead ‘an army of heathen’ to them. However, Solomon Tetherow (Will Paton), the oldest man in the group, convinces the frightened party that they should keep the Indian alive since he probably knows the layout of the land and could lead them to water. And so once again the women fall in line with their menfolk’s decision and the wagon trail moves on – this time following the Indian.

Reichardt prioritises the women’s perspective of the journey - we see them grinding coffee, gathering firewood, mending clothes, and fixing meals, all after a long day of walking under an unrelenting sun. They stay with the canvas-covered wagons, and make camp while their husbands ride off to scout out the land ahead. Their opinion isn’t sought after or validated, and they depend entirely on their husbands for their survival in this harsh environment. At least, Millie Gately (Zoe Kazan) and Glory White (Shirley Henderson) do. Emily Tetherow’s character on the other hand, develops with the movie: she goes from being reserved and quiet, to more independent and vocal in her opinion, as the group’s supplies and endurance dwindle. Superbly played by Michelle Williams, Emily portrays the strength that pioneer women in the 19th century would have needed as they forged into unknown territory. While the men are easily led like dumb sheep, Emily isn’t taken in by Meek’s blundering lies. And when things come to a head with the capture of the Indian, she becomes the moral compass for the group, and the main contender against Meek.

The Cayuse Indian is never given a name; he isn’t even given a voice – his dialogue, in his native language, is not translated or subtitled for the benefit of either the characters or the viewers. Reichardt explains, ‘I didn’t want to give the audience any information that the immigrants didn’t have. They have to figure out what this person is all about without the resource of language.’ To the travellers he is a dangerous savage and a natural enemy.

To Emily, however, he becomes the last hope for a future. She is able to rise above her cultural upbringing and societal norms, to show him some kindness. Her initial motive is to do something for the Indian so that he would be indebted to her, and if a time came when she was at his mercy, she would have something to bargain with. But she slowly grows to trust this stranger and even stands up for him against Meek’s bullying.

But what is the Indian all about for us, the audience?

The movie’s ending is unresolved and ambiguous. Does Reichardt want the audience to decide for itself the consequences of the travellers following the Indian, or is she pointing towards the uncertainty that we all face when it comes to matters of trust? Seeing that the Indian eventually led the travellers to a tree that held out hope of water nearby – and through it, hope of life – can he possibly be likened to another man who held out hope of an eternal life? The question of the possibility of life after death cannot be answered for sure while we still live, but as mortals haven’t we all wondered, if there is more to this life? If there isn’t; if this is all there is, then doesn’t our existence seem a bit pointless? Somehow, there seems to be in all of us a longing for eternity, a thirst for a meaning to our existence. And Jesus offers to satisfy this otherwise unquenchable thirst. He said that the only way we could go to heaven, and have eternal life, is by believing in him. As preposterous an idea as that may seem, what if he were right? What if there is a heaven and the only way to enter it is through believing in Jesus Christ? Of course, we don’t know for sure; there is no foolproof guarantee that what he said was true. As Solomon puts it, ‘We don’t know, either way.’ But we do have to make a choice, and it will be a life-altering one: dare we trust Jesus’s claims? Maybe we ought to consider that question and its impact on our life while weighing the last line of the movie as Meek says,

We’re all just playing our parts now. This [the future, past, and present] was written long before we got here.

What if he was right?

This article was first published at http://www.damaris.org/content/culturewatcharticles/1296

No Man is an Island

A few years ago I would have disagreed with John Donne at the statement above. At that point, you could've given me a book and a coffee and I'd be quite happy not to see another human being all day. And then I moved away from home, out of my comfort zone, and made some friends. One in particular showed me what friendship truly meant. So when I had to pull up the tiny roots I had let down, and move to a different city for my next job-assignment, it dawned on me that I would have to start again and make friends in a new place, cause my books no longer satisfied me. I had experienced the joy good company brings, and longed to belong again. I was an island no more, I had become part of the mainland, and though I still kept myself to the coast, I was part of it nonetheless. But I also realised that to have good company, one has to be good company. To have a friend, I'd have to be a friend. It was a lesson in sowing and reaping.


Since I have been here in England, I've had several single friends share the following thought, “If I did not contact any of my “friends”, would anyone miss me enough to get in touch?”

I can understand the hurt, despair and aloneness behind that statement but I can also sense the danger that follows in the trail of such a thought.

Everyone needs to feel loved, wanted, essential.

Everyone hopes to be missed.

Everyone wants to belong.

For a single person these needs aren't met as easily. Singles obviously aren't part of a family, and unless they are supported by a strong network of friends, it becomes very easy for a single person to isolate himself/herself. In a family unit there usually is a sense of accountability, members hold each other responsible. Each person has a role and everyone else depends on him to play it. For a single person, no such accountability exists. And while the freedom of such a state is wonderful, its loneliness is unbearable.

When the answer to the question above is experienced in the negative, as it often is, a single's sense of value and identity is threatened. It then doesn't take long for him to fall prey either to self pity and depression or to anger and sulkiness, both of which usually lead to withdrawal and isolation.

As a church, we are community minded and play an admirable role – engaging with students, kids, families and the elderly. But as a response to that question, lets resolve to do just a little bit more. Perhaps as families - we could keep a caring eye out for singles in our community and in the church – drawing them into our homes and family life, this fellowship is vital. And as singles, I wonder if we could be more intentional in - making friends – reaching out – being interested in others – being that ideal friend we've always wanted to have. Let’s not wait for someone else to make the first move, there probably is someone feeling exactly the way you do. And then let’s persist in maintaining friendships, it involves an investment of time that a Sunday morning is just not enough for.

Chicken Tikka From Scratch

Tried this recipe for a group of friends, and captured each step on the camera .. it turned out yummy btw :)

For one medium chicken

First marinade for 3 hours

Lemon juice - 2 tbsp

Ginger and garlic paste - 1 tsp each

1/2 tsp turmeric

1/2 tsp chilly powder

Second marinade for 3 hours

Hung natural yogurt - 200gms

Lemon juice - 2 tbsp

Ginger and garlic paste - 1 tsp each

Food coloring - orange - 1 tsp approx to get the desired color

After marinating the chicken pieces, grill till they are slightly charred.

For the gravy -

Fry 2 finely chopped onions till they start to turn golden brown

Add - 1 tsp turmeric, 1 tsp chilly powder, 1 tsp cumin powder, 2 tbsp coriander powder - fry for a min, if it sticks to the pan add a tbsp of water.

Add a can of tomato puree, abt 200 gms, and about 3 fresh medium sized tomatos chopped. cook until the fat seperates.

Add chicken pieces, and cook for another 15 minutes.

Add 100ml cream, let it simmer for a couple of minutes.

Add crushed fenugreek leaves for flavour.

Check for seasoning

Serve hot with rice or naan

 

Ladders, interviews ... and Soton

Luggage sorted – check

Travel card taken – check

Packed-lunch packed – check

So around nine in the morning, I left to go the office that sunday to pick up some stuff. By the time I got back it was about a quarter to ten. As I got closer to the house, I realised that I had forgotten to take my keys. All my luggage was inside the house, and I had a train to catch by ten-thirty! The seriousness of my predicament sunk in when I figured out that my housemates had left an hour ago, and the only other couple who had a key to the house, were away on holiday. Help!

I called my landlady, and as she suggested tried looking under all the flower pots – and found crawley insects and dried mud.

10:00 am - Tried the neighbour down the road, but they weren't in and I kept getting an answering machine on the phone.

10:03 am - Tried all the office keys that I had hoping one would click in place – in vain.

By now I was panicking, and I called my poor landlady again, who in turn had also begun panicking for me since she knew I had a long journey ahead. I had an interview the next day, and I figured that if a solution didn't present itself within the next few minutes I was going to head to the station and catch my train with nothing more than my purse, my phone and some documents – I was dressed in a t-shirt and jeans and didnt even have a jacket!!! By now I was praying hard – desperate and very very nervous at the ticking clock.

!0:08 am - I finally banged on the door of the guy who lives in front of us and pleaded for help. Poor chap, here he was enjoying a peaceful Sunday morning... Anyway he came around with a tall ladder and tried prying open the front windows on the first floor unsucessfully.

10:10 am - The next door Indian lady was involved in the drama at this point. She allowed us to carry the tall ladder through her narrow, long house (which was a feat in itself).

10:16 am - We propped it up against the back wall and then Michael (the guy with the ladder) clambered over the roof of their conservatory, and then shimmied along the our kitchen roof, before making it to my bedroom window, which thankfully was open. As we saw his legs disappear through it, I couldn't help wonder if my room was tidy enough, I didnt want to scandalise my poor benefactor ... I figured however, in the grand scheme of things it didnt matter if my underwear was lying around!

10:16:30 am – He opened the door. (Major sigh of relief)

10:18 am – Grabbed my bags, reset the alarm, and I found myself out of the house and in the front seat of his car. He'd kindly offered me a lift to the station.

10:20 am – I couldn't believe I'd made it with ten minutes to spare!!!

xxx

Got to Southampton in good time, then spent the next two hours tramping it to my lodging for the night. A lovely family welcomed me into their home. I spent the evening listening to the tiny three kids chatter, and then reading them an encyclopedia for a bed time story!! Later on the parents and I chilled out with a tv dinner. The mum, who is a splitting image of Jacqui Kennedy, is a head-hunter herself and we had a great chat over dinner. Before breakfast, the next day, we managed a game of hide and seek, but then it was time for the oldest one to go to school.



That morning I had a two hour interview, which was more of an informal chat, and which resulted in me being offered a writing internship with Damaris. I was given two weeks to get back to them. Later that afternoon, I caught a bus to go check out the apparently famous Ocean Village. Fifteen minutes into the ride, I turned to the little old lady behind me to ask her how much longer it would take, only to find that we had already gone through it! Grrrr! So I just sat the ride out, until the last stop and got off at a little village called Hamble. I shambled around the tiny shops, bought myself some lunch and found a bench down by the quay, over which I hung my tired legs while I ate and watched the gulls squabble for the leftovers.

xxx

So I find myself back home, decision made – I am going to move down to Southampton, find a part-time job to help pay the bills and begin that internship (about which I am a whole lot more excited than I sound, it is the move to Soton, as they call it, that does not excite me at all, anyway I'm trying not to moan ;) )

I left a box of cookies for my 'Knight With a Shining Ladder' the other evening. A few more weeks left in dear old Lboro'

Floating On A River

I had a wonderful evening yesterday. A friend invited me to go kayaking with her and a couple of others. The western sky had a tatter of purple clouds on the horizon, and the setting sun outlined them with gold as we let our kayaks into the water. The experienced club members took off, moving swiftly upriver. There were several other newbies who had about as little experience as I did, so it was fun learning together. We spent the next hour and a half practicing different strokes with our oars, giggling when we bumped into each other helplessly.
To begin with, I was tentative – the thought of capsizing and being trapped under the boat, struggling to breathe would be one of my worst fears come true. Slowly I got the hang of moving forward and backward, turning around and sideways – using the paddle to manouver the boat. Every now and then though, my kayak would shoot off in an unexpected direction - I got stuck in some blackberry brambles that grew along the shore, then got caught by the leafy fingers of a weeping willow tree and finally hard-nosed a decrepit barge that had been abandoned further downstream. It was like my kayak had a mind of its own, and needed to be coaxed in the right direction, with a little encouragement from the oars :) However towards the end I found myself becoming a little more adventurous, my strokes became purposeful, I dug deep and pulled the water back, the effort tiring and pleasing at once.
Richard, our guide for the evening gave me a tip, “Keep looking as far ahead as possible” he said, “Keep your eye trained on where you want to go, so that as soon as your kayak moves out of the line you want to be headed in, you'll notice it out of the corner of your eye and can take immediate corrective action”. And it worked!!! I'd spot a plant sticking out of the water in front and head for it, and if my kayak wavered ever so little I could still get it back on track quickly!

What a trouble saving trip – you can almost see the analogy coming can't you? :) Keep your eye on God - the reason for your existence, instead of the worries that seem to surround you, and if your life goes off track ever so little you can straighten up again.

---

The river was calm and we could see the bottom quite clearly through the deep green water. Mossy rocks and long sea-weedy plants clung to the river bed. We kayaked under an old old bridge...dating back to the 1800s. It had been reinforced, and you could tell from its underside where the new bridge extended the old. A couple of ducks and moorhens kept us company, drifting along with the current. We even spotted a duck with its nest and a duckling on the water.

I find that I prefer a kayak to a canoe. In a kayak, you are on the same level as the river and seem to almost become part of it. The wildlife on the shore and the river sort of accept you, as they would a big plastic yellow duck. A canoe on the other hand distances you from the river, raises the edges, sets boundaries, where you stay in and the river stays out. It makes you the viewer, and the river - the viewed. Besides you end up with as much water in the kayak as there is out of it! I was soaked and sitting in a little puddle by the end of our trip :) you can't get much closer to the river without swimming in it :)

The tiniest person out on the river last night, was a little boy who could not have been over 4 yrs old, and seemed to be swallowed up by his life jacket. He stood at the front of the canoe, facing the river, holding on to the oar while his dad rowed. He honestly believed that he was helping papa row. I loved the picture the two of them made. It reminds me of how sometimes I believe I am helping God row the boat of my life. It makes me feel in bit more in control. As though God needs my help! But graciously, like that dad on the river, he lets me hold onto the oar and move it back and forth, until I realise that I don't have to. Thankfully, I sooner or later I remember that He is in control and I can let go the oar and enjoy the ride :)
 

A House That's Lived In

I love a house that's “lived in”

with clutter here and there

a magazine left open

a jacket on a chair



A smell of something cooking

a special recipe?

An over-eager offer

of hospitality



I love a house that's “lived-in”

it seems to stand apart,

for in it is a woman

who has a loving heart. -               Anonymous



I saw that poem, framed and mounted, on the wall of a friend's house whilst visiting, and fell instantly in love with it. The dad very kindly penned it down for me on a piece of paper before I left. It captures the desire I have, of one day having a home that is hospitable, open to friends and family and strangers.

It also emphasises the importance of the role of a woman in making a house a home. I'm courting the wrath of feminists when I say this, but I believe that the woman in Proverbs 31, is being held up as a role model. Not so that we 'nomal' women work ourselves into a frenzy trying to achieve perfection, but so that when we study those verses closely we realise that that woman's life is structured on kindness, mercy, love, patience, industriousness and dignity. She is wise, and trusts in God for everything. Seems to me her conduct is very Christ-like, and isn't that what we are meant to be aiming for anyway – to learn from Jesus and show it in the way we live?

One day I'd like to have a home like that. A haven, where all are safe and happy. Where joy is a way of life. Where encouragement and kindness abound. Where love has priority. Where dreams are nourished. Where a life of adventure is kindled, and respite from the storms is found. Where prayer is the first impulse and the last resort. Where happy pets scurry and squawk. Where little feet, learn to crawl and then toddle and then run. Where little hands learn to grasp, and then draw and then scrawl and then write. Where young voices sing along with the old. Where smells of baking fill the air. Where music lightens the heart. Where the door is always open to strangers. Where God is first.

Can the Bible become an idol?

A friend asked me, “So what did you read in the Bible today?”
And I was stumped. I fumbled around with a lame answer and quickly changed the subject.

But later on, for the life of me, I could not recall what I had read that very morning!
True, I had been in a rush to get somewhere and hence had hurried over breakfast and God-time, but I could not remember exactly which passage I had been reading from.

Other than embarrasing me, that got me thinking.

I realised that my 'quiet' time had become a ritual, nothing more than a habit that I followed – like brushing my teeth every morning.

An unthinking routine.

My relationship with Jesus had come to a standstill. Like a stagnant pond, I was subsisting on the algae that had taken root over the years but there wasnt any fresh water, or revelation, evident in my life. I hadn't back-slidden as such, I'd just stalled. The Bible had become a replacement of the relationship I had shared with God.

But you see, to have a relationship, you need to communicate, to talk and to listen. Lately I had been talking at God and not waiting long enough to listen to what he had to say in return. As long as I met my reading quota for the day - one chapter from the Old Testament, one from the New, one Psalm and one from Proverbs - I was ok with the state of things.

Thankfully God wasn't. And as he often does, he sent a reminder in the form of that question.
I've realised that even a good thing, like the Bible, has the potential of becoming an idol*, when you replace God with it.

Learning from Saul

1 Samuel 10:20-24

20 So Samuel brought all the tribes of Israel before the Lord, and the tribe of Benjamin was chosen by lot. 21 Then he brought each family of the tribe of Benjamin before the Lord, and the family of the Matrites was chosen. And finally Saul son of Kish was chosen from among them. But when they looked for him, he had disappeared! 22 So they asked the Lord, “Where is he?”

   And the Lord replied, “He is hiding among the baggage.” 23 So they found him and brought him out, and he stood head and shoulders above anyone else.

 24 Then Samuel said to all the people, “This is the man the Lord has chosen as your king. No one in all Israel is like him!”

   And all the people shouted, “Long live the king!”

I think, often we can be like Saul. We know what God asks of us, we know what he wants us to do, we know that we are equipped and anointed, we can see the direction he is pointing us in – but we are scared, we doubt ourselves, we think he has made a wrong decision, we lack the confidence to step forward and take responsibility.

And so we hide.

We hide behind the 'baggage' of life.

Behind what has been 'done' to us.

Behind 'why the past' is the reason we cannot move forward into the future.

Behind 'busyness', doing everything except what he requires us to do.

Behind – excuses.

But God finds us out and leads us on. Saul was found hiding in the baggage compartment, and when he was brought (read dragged) out, he stood 'head and shoulders above anyone else'. This guy was huge, AND he was the handsomest man in all Israel (1 Samuel 9:2)! Amongst the twelve tribes of Israel, there was no one else fit to lead the nation. Yet he had self-worth issues (1 Samuel 9:21) which continued for the rest of his life. He never felt he was good enough. The feeling of being inferior and falling short of what was expected haunted him always.

Like Saul, we vacillate between our feelings and our calling.

We need to start seeing ourselves as God sees us. Our self worth is determined, not by what the world says about us, not even by what we tend to think of ourselves, but what God has to say about us, as his children. When we accept what Jesus did for us on the cross, we are forgiven and accepted into God's family. And when God looks at us, he sees, not what we have been, but what we are in Christ. That is where our identity lies, and that is where we should look whenever self-doubt creeps into our consciousness.

If God has called us to do something, he will equip us to do it well.  It’s all about stepping out in faith, knowing that God will come through. He knows all about Human Resources, he knows each one of us personally and he does not need to conduct an aptitude test to determine, whether or not, we are suited for the job. All he requires of us is to be willing and obedient.

Broken

As soon as it begins to matter

Headlong you turn and scatter

When people get too close

You want to flee

Don’t worry friend, it’s only me.

I know the past has been real tough

Life dealt you blows all off the cuff

Like a beautiful stallion

broken by brute

At the slightest sign of

Potential hurt,

is ready bolt.

You're now under the Master’s care

His gentleness will all hurts repair

And slowly you will learn to trust

And learn to love

even if it hurts