7.13.07
Starbucks
-morgan young
Untitled
I have a problem. Yesterday I saw what was to me one of the most poignant and thought-provoking movies I've ever seen. A movie that challenges a cultural paradigm that affects all Americans financially. A movie that poses a Herculean question that our country needs to ask itself. My problem is the movie is Sicko by Michael Moore.
This morning as I'm reflecting on it and my mind is reeling with questions and thoughts about it, I want to email all my friends and family to urge them to see it post haste. But I quickly find my mind sorting through a mental rolodex. "No...can't send it to him---he's too conservativeno,... there's no way he/she'd get passed the words 'Michael Moore'..."
Perhaps the bigger picture of my problem is that our country has come to unknowingly embrace close-mindedness and labels. And as much as I'd like to believe that I am open-minded, I must admit that I am not. I consider "Fox News" to be an oxymoron. I cannot stand listening to our Commander and Chief apart from the parody and zings of The Daily Show.
It seems like we are too much a culture of agendas, walls, and impenetrable viewpoints. This morning I feel our collective walls with such reality since I want so many people to see and hear what I experienced yesterday, knowing they never will. If only there were some way I could remove Michael Moore from the movie and replace him with...who? Who is really credible to the whole of our culture? Colin Powell? The ESPN guys? Tom Brokaw? Is there anyone whom the majority of people in our seemingly polarized culture would embrace?
As much as this movie could be a catalyst for change, I imagine it will only be seen by those who accept Michael Moore. Sandra was telling a friend that we were going to see Sicko. Her friend said, "I would never see a Michael Moore film after he did Fahrenheit 911." Then added without skipping a beat, "Even though I never saw it."
I wonder...what if God decided to bring a prophetic message to the masses this year and to deliver it chose: Paris Hilton...Michael Moore...Sean Hannity...Newt...Hillary...Bono or (Kokomo Mayor) Matt McKillip?
Would we hear it? Or are we be inclined to judge the beverage by the cup? Decide to open the gift based on whether or not it's decorated with elephants or donkeys? Review the script based on the author's name instead of its content?
"Yes, but God would never choose people like that!"
Really? If I read it correctly He used prostitutes, adulterers, murderers, and swindlers in His unfolding story. So why not use one of those people? I don't think God always used the people that would have been on my list.
"Yes, but you're missing the point of 'credibility'---if someone isn't credible I don't listen to them."
(A frequent thought of mine, I must admit.) This is dangerous thinking. Dangerous because I don't judge credibility objectively. I think I do, but I don't. I judge credibility based on my beliefs, my personal convictions, my view of the world and even my interpretation of the Bible. If I'm not careful, "credible" simply becomes a word that means "resonates with my worldview."
And to dismiss a message based on the messenger's credibility also assumes that people I don't respect could never say anything worth hearing. This conveniently allows us to paint a person as one hundred percent void of value. I'm not an expert on humanity but I've observed that every once in a while the biggest idiot in the room will say something worth hearing (for the record, there are indeed times when I am the biggest idiot in the room). Humanity's nature is definitely suspect, but at the same time there seems to be something redeeming (and even the occasional word of wisdom) in everyone if we listen long enough.
As I write this I realize that labels have marginalized all of us. Even though people close to me (for the most part) respect, love and trust me, as soon I send them an email with Michael Moore's name in it, all that I am is reduced to, "Oh...that's right, Morgan is a liberal," (delete). And with that label, all the influence and credibility I had established is reduced to a small font under the heading "liberal." I assume this to be true because it is what I do when I see email from my conservative friends and family.
Seeing that movie has shaken something loose in me. In his closing comments and actions Michael Moore sounded and looked more like the compassionate Christ follower than the caustic anti-establishment film maker. His actions and words were reflective of the group that is perhaps among his harshest critics; highly ironic.
And in the movie he did something. He took a handful of people who had no hope and got them medical treatment. And he financially bailed out his biggest enemy from his own escalating health care bills.
Calculated or not, he did those things---regardless of motive or movie, he physically and financially helped his fellow man. He helped the "least of these." As a Christ follower I felt conviction; the conviction of standing for a lot of things verbally more than in simple observable actions.
And honestly and ironically I must admit even this writing is primarily a salve for my own agitation---medicine for my own imperfect soul. And apart from that, perhaps this is merely dots on a screen that prevented many would-be readers from making it thus far; having stopped at "Michael Moore."
