The history books will record Roger Ebert as a great film critic. He was that and, I am certain, much more to those who loved and knew him best. His loss has been felt by many around the globe because of the millions he touched. Ebert took us to the movies for years; he guided our ticket purchases, awakened in us a poetic appreciation for films we might not otherwise have seen; and best of all, he called the public away from the mindless, lowest common denominator of entertainment. His ability to critique film and his way with words had the effect of “raising all our boats†in the areas of culture, intellect, emotion, and even an awareness of the sacred.
Ebert’s ability to awaken us is what makes his death feel so tragic; but it is also what makes his now popularized letter, “I Do Not Fear Death,†equally as tragic. Ebert’s final critique came to us not in the form of a film review, but in a staunch and unwavering gaze cast toward seeming permanence of death. It has taken the Internet somewhat by storm and praised by many.
I confess, I found little praiseworthy in it. In fact, it primarily aroused in me a deep sense of pity to see a man with such brilliance and appreciation for beauty in life take those gifts and place them in a room with such a low ontological ceiling.
Ebert begins his letter with the assertion that there is “nothing on the other side of death to fear.†The belief in nothingness after death is what Nobel Prize poet Czeslaw Milosz called “the true opium of the people.†Ebert himself confesses in his letter that the prospect of eternity “frightens me,†lending great credence to the observation of Milosz. The opium of nothingness can produce an intoxicating bliss when we come to believe that we’ve no one to answer to on the other side of death. The liberation granted in a belief of nothingness is probably far more pleasurable than any notion of God, for it is according to Milosz, “a huge solace in thinking that for our betrayals, greed, cowardice, murder we are not going to be judged.â€
I am not surprised to see Ebert’s letter so readily received by so many. Who wouldn’t want nothingness after death? Nothingness allows us to follow our own bliss in the time we have, to suck what marrow we wish from the bones of life, to find our own sense of purpose and meaning—to ultimately make a go of it with the ideals that suit us and please us best. That’s opium indeed.
What this worldview ultimately lacks is a cross. The cross of Christ stands in stark opposition to the blissful addiction of nothingness. The cross implies direction and purpose, and it carries a stronger resolve than the comfort of just ceasing to exist. The cross indicates that it is often our discomfort that opens us to the deeper courage. The narrowness of it funnels our lives into tight ideological spaces, which ultimately wring out of us the greater nobility.
I believe I probably would have never written a response to Ebert’s letter had he not quoted Walt Whitman. I am in love with Whitman and the familiarity of his “Leaves of Grass” wash over me much like holy writ. To equate the line, “I bequeath myself to the dirt to grow from the grass I love,†to a belief in nothingness after death is a gross misreading of the good gray poet. In the lines preceding, Whitman says things such as:
“I know I am deathless…The smallest sprout shows there really is no death, and if there ever was, it led forward to life…There is that in me—I know not what it is—but I know it is in me…it is not chaos or death—it is form, union, plan—it is eternal life.â€
The idea that Whitman may in fact be under our boot sole testifies to his belief in life after death; it is neither a denial of it, nor is it some kind of awkward groping into nothingness. Ebert lowered Whitman’s ontological ceiling to fit his own, and this perhaps disturbs me as much as anything.
Ebert continues his letter by making references to Richard Dawkins and meme theory, which is little more than a tautological blanket tossed over an inept, naked Emperor who has spent the last 500 years trying to cage Platonic idealism. It is precisely the kind of mechanistic stain that Ebert applies to his own wife’s experience of the sacred in his letter: “Do I believe her? Absolutely. I believe her literally—not symbolically, figuratively, or spiritually…I believe she did it in the real physical world I have described, the one I share with my wristwatch.â€
I understand the sentiment—Ebert wanted to contextualize the experience without cheapening it and he made a valiant attempt. Yet, at the end of the day what he aims for is hardly possible. He does cheapen it…like a bad director or script writer.
The beauty of a good film is that it takes us beyond the screen and into the wonder and imagination of the intangible. To say that such an experience shares the same space as a wristwatch is on its very best day, a gangly truth. That Ebert would never use such vernacular for his favorite film and yet chooses to apply it on the grand screen of human life is cause, not for celebration, but unmitigated remorse.
I give his letter 2 out of 5 stars and hold out higher hopes, both for our species and for Him Who awaits us all in the Great Beyond.
David Allred is the lead pastor of High Places Community Church at 123 Randolph Road in Oak Ridge, and he works alongside founding pastor Martin Fischer. High Places owns and operates the historic Grove Theater, which is also home to numerous Arts organizations who share a vision for improving quality of life in Oak Ridge. For more information, see http://highplaceschurch.com.
Curt Kelsey says
C. S. Lewis wrote in a letter :
“Note that life after death which still seems to you the essential thing, was itself a late revelation. God trained the Hebrews for centuries to believe in Him without promising them an afterlife, and, blessings on Him, he trained me in the same way for about a year. It is like the disguised prince in a fairy tale who wins the heroine’s love before she knows he is anything more than a woodcutter. What would be a bribe if it came first had better come last.”
Chris Mankey says
“The opium of nothingness can produce an intoxicating bliss when we come to believe that we’ve no one to answer to on the other side of death. ”
Actually your religion teaches that you have “no one to answer to” on the other side of death. As long as you convert.
Curt Kelsey says
Has this world been so kind to you that you should leave with regret? There are better things ahead than any we leave behind.
Read more at
Chris Mankey says
“Has this world been so kind to you that you should leave with regret?”
Do you hate the world so much you need another one?
“here are better things ahead than any we leave behind.”
Nope, there’s deah and non-existence to look forward to.
Ck Kelsey says
Says who ?
“To sustain the belief that there is no God, atheism has to demonstrate infinite knowledge, which is tantamount to saying, “I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge.”
Ravi Zaccharias
Chris Mankey says
“To sustain the belief that there is no God, atheism has to demonstrate infinite knowledge, which is tantamount to saying, “I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge.”
Nope, atheist’s take the position that god hasn’t been proven to exist. And that the burden of proof is on the believer. No proof=no belief.
David Allred says
I would definitely take issue with this concept. God is undoubtedly real, but the question has always been, “A Real What?” Is God a real idea? A real arrangement of neurochemistry? A real person?
To say that God does not exist is short-sighted, since God clearly does exist, at the very least as an ontological concept, as real at least as democracy, or economy, or any other number of guiding ontologies that saturate the human condition.
Ck Kelsey says
If I say their is a such thing as WIND ,and you say “NOPE” that’s not a position I agree with …then the burden of proof is on YOU because so many know that it does exist. Get used to it ,when you grow up you will see how that works:)
Curt Kelsey says
For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
When does this take place if not on the other side ?
Dave Smith says
Is the fact that this news site is attracting an increasing number of Internet trolls evidence of its rising visibility on the net?
One of this troll’s favorite posts appears to be “^%@$ you”.
This is a thoughtful, well-written and timely opinion. It is deserving of intelligent comments and discussion, not drive-by sniping.
Ck Kelsey says
I agree Dave ,it was a very fine article and well written.
Chris Mankey says
“One of this troll’s favorite posts appears to be “^%@$ you”.”
Sorry, I never posted that hear. Don’t make up more lies to support the ones in the bible.
Chris Mankey says
“This is a thoughtful, well-written and timely opinion. It is deserving of intelligent comments and discussion, not drive-by sniping.”
Nah, it’s just a Obsurantist version of the ” you don’t believe because you want to sin ” garbage that christian always come up with. I already said this in an earlier post that mysteriously disappeared.
John Huotari says
Chris,
Profanity is not allowed here. Therefore, I removed the comment in question.
Thank you.
David Allred says
My suggestion would be to take that one up with Milosz, it was his quote. I happen to know a great many atheists and agnostics who are immeasurably more moral than some church-goers I know. I don’t think that is what Milosz is saying at all. It’s about psychological comfort and the propensity to chose comfort over discomfort. A primary critique of religion, specifically Christianity, is that it is an illogical pursuit of comfort. With faith, life is forever — that is comforting, so the argument goes.
Milosz’ quote and Ebert’s letter tell us something different however. Maybe it isn’t so comforting at all to think that life goes on. Perhaps, it is, as Ebert says, “frightening.” The opium at play here then has nothing to do with sin or morality, but everything to do with the perceived comfort of living life with no one or nothing to ultimately answer to.
I certainly wouldn’t say that’s all there is to the matter. But I don’t believe the argument can be easily dismissed if one wishes to remain rational in the face of real world, everyday, empirical psychological anxieties.
Even if Dawkins is right and religion is a meme, it’s survivability speaks volumes of its utility.
Curt Kelsey says
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
C. S. Lewis
Chris Mankey says
“I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”
Meaningless.
Ck Kelsey says
If it were meaningless you would never have responded to it. And then checked the up arrow to show you approved of your “meaningless” comment . 🙂
Dave Smith says
I recommend that you resist feeding the troll by responding to his comment(s).
Ck Kelsey says
I agree Dave.It seems the old adage is still true about Atheists .”They know so many things that aren’t so”
Chris Mankey says
“If it were meaningless you would never have responded to it”
Yep, the fact that I responded to proves that it means something.
“And then checked the up arrow to show you approved of your “meaningless” comment . :)”
No, I approve of my meaningful comment about your meaningless one. Actually, C.s lewis’ meaningless one.
Jay Smith says
Mr. Allred. I’m a little confused by your issue with the Whitman quote. In reading your take and Ebert’s take, I see the both of you reaching the same conclusion. The idea of living on through the grass and ground we walk on, Ebert is using it conceptually while you opt for the more spiritual interpretation. I think there’s room for both in Whitman’s words.
As for the rest, I’ll leave you to your opinion on the letter.
I, personally, appreciate the letter for what it is and don’t find any reason to slight it.
But again, different world views, different opinions.
David Allred says
I took Ebert’s use of Whitman as sort of a pseudo-nostalgia; the wistful longing of something akin to an idealized cup of tea. I believe Whitman truly did see Life, as in the thing with a capital “L” as being eternal as well as his role as an active participant in the eternal march. I certainly wouldn’t say that Whitman was a Christian or had a “streets of gold” kind of mentality — but I also don’t think he would ever dare confuse the world of his wristwatch with this eternal “BE-ing” to which he felt insatiably drawn, sort of webbed in a great nexus of identity, that ultimately, I believe was spiritual for Whitman.
Whereas Ebert seems to approach these concepts with his mind, Whitman was about a total body emersion in the life/death cycle which ultimately seems more healthy to me than what I read in Ebert’s letter.
I suspect it is more an issue of verbiage than anything. And that Ebert and I would have quite a wonderful conversation over coffee, each with his favorite underlined portions of Whitman in tow.