Thoreau’s Walden by Hope Kenyon (age 15)

In Walden, by Henry David Thoreau, spending time in solitude is important to the narrator because it gives him the opportunity to analyze the necessities, frivolities, and anxieties in human life.

During his time in solitude at Walden Pond, the narrator explored the human ability to live on very little. He discovered that to live well, a person needs only the necessities of life. “It would be some advantage to live a primitive and frontier life, though in the midst of an outward civilization, if only to learn what are the gross necessaries of life and what methods have been taken to obtain them,” (pg. 113). If a person learns what they need to live, then they will no longer have to spend their life trying to find out how to live and can now begin to do what ever they want. Life is full of things to explore; therefore there is no need to spend it all trying to discover simply how to survive.

Frivolities are what society has said will improve a person’s life, yet for someone trying to live more fully, these things only get in the way. The problem with the meaningless things society gives people is that they push the truly important things out of the way. “As for Clothing, to come at once to the practical part of the question, perhaps we are lead oftener by the love of novelty, and a regard for the opinion of men, in procuring it, than by a true utility,” (pg. 120). The novelty and men’s opinions of an article of clothing are not nearly as important as the clothing’s use in the person’s life. If the sole use of a piece of clothing is for other people to admire the wearer, then there is not any true point in buying it, for the novelty does not last long and people’s opinions change often. Humans have the strange ability to worry more about the state of their clothes than about the state of their mind. “No man stood the lower in my estimation for having a patch in his clothes; yet I am sure that there is a greater anxiety, commonly, to have fashionable, or at least clean and unpatched clothes, than to have a sound conscience,” (pg. 121). People who place too much value on outward appearances lose their ability to think rationally and to properly judge character. When the frivolities of society have more control over a person’s daily life than their conscience, then they will lose sight of what really matters.

Anxiety is like a human craving, such as chocolate. People know they do not have to have it and would be better off without it, but they still give it to themselves. Humans have made their own lives busy. “It lives too fast. Men think that it is essential that the Nation have commerce, and export ice, and talk through a telegraph, and ride thirty miles an hour, without a doubt, whether they do or not,” (pg. 173). People believe that the only way to live is if they constantly have to do things. However, a continually full schedule keeps people from enjoying and exploring life. “Our life is fritted away by detail. An honest man has hardly need to count more than his ten fingers, or in extreme cases he may add his ten toes, and lump the rest,” (pg.173). When a person simplifies their daily routine, they will have fewer things to remember; therefore they will not have to worry about forgetting something and they will have more time to relax and have fun. The key to decreasing a person’s anxiety is to simplify what a person has to do so that they can spend more time doing what they want to do.

Thoreau makes the point that when a person steps back from society for a time, they can see the world for all its silliness when it comes to people’s obsession with unneeded items and unnecessarily long “to do” lists. Walden may at first seem to the reader to be a personal record of a hermit’s random babblings and opinions. However, once the reader enters into Thoreau’s world through the pages of the narrative, they realize that he is challenging people to break the social laws and etiquette, if only for a few moments, to see what they can discover. The reader is given the opportunity to explore life; the narrator is simply daring them to try. However, the decision is completely up to the reader.

Questioning Solo Efforts - "Love You, Mean It" - Kim

Recently I read Love You, Mean It by and about four 9/11 widows. These women bonded to each other to bring healing to one another’s broken lives.

In each other they found people who were going through the same pain – and at the same time, present tense. Not “Yeah, I went through that two years ago, but now I’m fine and you will be too.” But instead, “Yes, I feel that way now, just like you. Oh, it hurts so much. I ‘get’ what you are saying and why it is (present tense) so hard.”

From the reading of this book, it doesn’t appear that all or any of these women are believers. I wonder if in the absence of a vital relationship with God to cling to, they desperately needed people who could understand them; feel with them; comfort them up close, not at a theoretical distance.

What about believers? Are the strong ones meant to only have God as their solace? Yes, God is there to be the ultimate comfort, but no, He does not do all His comforting in the solitude of our devotional life. It seems He comforts us as believers through others, too.

God seeks to show His glory by how He uses the Church, His people, to meet needs in lives. If an individual survives tragedies all through (by means of) their quiet devotional life in Christ, isn’t there the chance that the individual, rather than God, will get the credit? Isn’t that the danger Mother Theresa understood (as revealed in her letters that have been published recently)? But if people are part of the healing, if others come through for the one hurting, lending an ear or a hand or an understanding heart, it is more likely to show that an individual is not strong enough to do it all themselves. We need others. We need God to orchestrate healing for us through the lives of those around us. We need Him to bring someone, perhaps wholly unexpected, to be just what we need, when we need it.

In Mother Teresa’s story, we could see those people who corresponded with her, encouraging her, allowing her to share (vent) her heartache, as God’s ‘helpers’. We can give glory to God for giving Mother Teresa friends she could confide in. We can see Mother Teresa as a faithful servant who needed people in her life, as we all do – and not seek to make her into a “saint”, in terms of a somewhat traditional view: one who did remarkable things because of her own devotion to God. Shouldn’t a person’s life reflect the glory back to God, not onto themselves? That seems to have been what Mother Teresa was concerned about.

Mother Teresa understood our human tendency, particularly as it pertained to her own life. Wanting to isolate the individual and view their accomplishments as solo efforts, we thus dim the light on God’s role.

Are solo efforts what God intended? All these women, including the 9/11 widows and Mother Theresa, found healing in community. Community is God’s gift to humankind. We were not meant to go it alone.

Phantom of the Opera - Kim

Recently I watched the “Broadway Across America” production of the “Phantom of the Opera”. Early in Act I, I wondered if this theatre production would evoke the empathy for the Phantom as the movie did. Without all the close up camera shots would we as an audience feel the anguish of this sorrowful character like I did when I viewed the movie version?

Fast forward to the curtain call. The minor roles appeared first on stage to receive their due. In my opinion it was a fantastic performance and everyone deserved the enthusiastic applause we offered. When “Raoul” and “Christine” came forward to take their bows an even greater applause was heard. Here were the beautiful heroes of the story.

The standing ovation, however, came when the Phantom appeared. Perhaps this standing ovation was just our commendation for everyone and the Phantom merely ushered it in as he completed the cast appearances. But I sensed that at least a significant part of that ovation was given because we felt that he was the true star of the show.

Perhaps all of us relate most to the “misfit” in the story. Maybe that is really how all of us feel on the inside, like a misfit in society. We’d like to be the Raoul whose love for Christine gave him courage to seek to save her and to even sacrifice himself if necessary. Or we’d like to be Christine whose bravery came in embracing what she feared, out of love for her hero Raoul and out of compassion for the Phantom.

But likely while we all wish to be them, we find our inner, honest selves most often identifying with the sorrow, the anger and the loneliness of the Phantom. We want to experience true love, want to have what it appears others have, but feel like life has dealt us deformed parts to work with. And even when we put our best foot forward, it just doesn’t seem to take us where we want to go. Somehow, no matter how hard we try, we never measure up to “fitting in."

All of us wish the world would see the “hero” inside us who feels like a misfit. We all long for a standing ovation, an acknowledgement of our validity, for our true hearts to be revered or at least understood rather than our outward appearances or awkwardly lacking social behaviors to be the horrifying focus of who we are seen as.

Here we stand, hearts wanting to be loved and understood. Here we are, wishing that a few would see what we long for and not close the curtain before we get our chance to take a bow.

Kim

Tolerance Essay by Hannah (age 13)

Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “Hatred darkens life; love illuminates it.” This means hatred makes life absolutely depressing and gloomy but love makes it happy and joyful. There was a time when if you were black you had to use different facilities than white people. Also when Hitler did not tolerate Jews he actually hated them and thought they were wrong, even though it was their opinion of their religion. There are still times today when people are not tolerated, for example when people get bullied for their religion, skin color or the way they act.

In the past, black people had to use different restrooms, water fountains and schools than white people. It was just not fair at all. Black people could not help their skin color, but still they were discriminated against. Many white people would not tolerate black people sharing things with them. Although this has changed now, back then it was a terrible and depressing time for America. Martin Luther King Jr. stepped up and made his speech on equal rights, so that people began to notice that all people are the same no matter what their skin color is. They are all humans. Now the government says that we should tolerate all people because they have equal rights.

Another dark time in the world was when Hitler did not tolerate the Jews for their religion. Instead, he made them go to the camps and eventually they were going to be thrown into gas chambers. This is just plain wrong, for it was their personal religion. We should not discriminate based on religion. Hitler’s hatred killed a lot of people and it didn’t help him to become a better person. Eventually Hitler died. Now regulations in Germany and many places in the world say that you cannot discriminate against someone for their religion. This makes the world a happier place. However, in some places people may not discriminate against Jews, but they may do it to people of other religions.

Even though there have been many improvements, some people have still found a way to discriminate against people who are not like them. For example, some people in schools these days bully against their fellow classmates for their religion, skin color or the way they act, such as if they are mentally ill or have a disability. This problem can be solved if people get in trouble for bullying or realize we are all equal because we are all humans.

As you can see from what has happened in the past and from what’s happening right now, change can happen easily enough. If people realize that hatred or intolerance makes life depressing and gloomy, but love or tolerance makes it happy and joyful, then people won’t be discriminated against or bullied. This will make life better for all people.

The Mission

I watched "The Mission" this past weekend with my sons. Hadn't seen it in a long time. I’d remembered the one theme of individual redemption, but had forgotten the parallel one – corporate sin.

In “The Mission” the struggle between organizational self-preservation clashes with the organization's chief missional objective. Which Neihbur was it who wrote that it is even easier to sin corporately than it is to sin individually? Certainly we are seeing this truth verified in the current Wall Street meltdown as honest and upright men (mostly) rob and destroy the resources of countless others.

The movie itself is hauntingly, painfully beautiful in every way, not the least its plot and character development. Just as the story appears to reach a climactic conclusion with the first theme, the drama starts anew. But far from bifurcated, the movie subtly weaves these two themes of corporate and individual struggles with sin and righteousness from beginning to end.

The Cardinal's dilemma is presented right from the start and the ongoing challenge of full redemption lies unsolved till the last. Is it even then resolved? I believe it is. Echoing the Apostle Paul's words that we are to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, the characters each wrestle with redemption's implications to the end of the movie and their own lives.

As to the Cardinal's dilemma or should we say, society's dilemma, the drama is the individual's redemption struggle writ large. How do we, the Community of the Redeemed, live out our faith in this present world? At the least it can be said, the task is never easy, the choices never quite so unambiguous as we desire.

The movie's underlying theme seems to be how far, in the end, are we to trust God. Am I really to risk earth bound pragmatic hopes for eternal truths? What do I do when faithfulness and justice fight to the death? Is it better to sacrifice the individual for the sake of the greater good? Is it ever acceptable to gamble small cultures for future options in much larger world conflicts?

When given the supposed choice between doing justly and rightly now and doing justly and rightly later, what are we to do? Life’s quandaries are far more often duels between competing “goods” than between good and bad. As much as we prefer the David and Goliath scenario of obvious good versus obvious evil, we are rarely granted such clear-cut options.

What we mere mortals can never predict, can never control is outcome, consequence. The effects of our actions, good or bad, are never fully predictable. At least in earth-bound conclusions. We want our world neat and orderly. We want the right to prevail, the wrong to fail. Instead we live in a quirky universe of fuzzy math and unlimited possibilities.

At the last, we can only do what is right and just now and trust God (assuming we believe there is a God) with the results. If what I do and my brother does appear, even in our best efforts, to clash, I can only trust that God is big enough to handle both of us. Redemption is trusting God for the salvation of me, my brother and everyone else.

Like a parable, the movie ends ambiguously. We, the viewers, are left to decide who has done right. It does feel like expediency has won over values. The Mission of the Church has morphed into the Cardinal’s Compromise to save the institution. The mission has been forfeited so that the organization might carry on that mission.

I wonder if there are times when, given such a choice, it is better to risk the institution than the mission. Let God be the keeper of our own future, be it corporate or individual.

As to the other theme, I have rarely seen as effective a cinematic portrayal of the process and profound depth of redemption. Two thoughts come to mind. One, redemption is played out in community. Are sins ever completely individual or even just between me and my Maker? Thus resolution is never solitary either. In the movie, it is only when the mercenary is proactively set free by those he has harmed – and before the whole community – that he is truly freed of his burden.

Two, true freedom comes by facing our failings, not by avoiding them. We do ourselves and others no blessed service when we simply break off relationships that have been damaged. Facing the problems fair and square and working through the mess to resolution is the only path to freedom. To avoid is to withhold, to rob ourselves and others of the gift of hope.

If a good movie is one that has you chewing on it days and weeks later, then this one is a 5-star gem.

HNK

Hi and welcome to the K6 Review. We'll be posting reviews on books, movies, music, art, whatever else comes to mind, including commentary on life as we see it. Who are we? We are the Kenyon 6 -- Hannah (age 13), Hope (age 15), Stephen (age 18), Robert (age 20), and parents Kim and Howard. We've lived nearly the past two decades in China, which means as kids we've grown up over there. Now we live in the American Northwest.

You may or may not agree with our posts, but we do hope whatever we write causes you to think! You are always welcome to comment.

All our entries are posted by our Dad (HNK). Whoever writes a particular post will sign his or her name. So if you make a comment, sign yours.

Keep watching this space!

The K6