Musings of a Protestant

From Above and From Within

2009-04-05T13:34:00.000-07:00

While walking through a neighborhood in Rancho a few days ago, I had an interesting thought. From the hiking trails there, which take one up into hilly areas, one can see the city from a sort of bird's-eye view. It's a very commanding, fascinating way to view your own community, and gives one a good idea of the lie of the land. At certain point on one of the trails, though, a concrete stairway leads down directly into one of those neighborhood. I took that route and ended up wandering through Rancho's neighborhood for an hour or two. Then I was able to see what each house looked like instead of seeing a sea of red tile roofs interspersed with some other buildings. What occurred to me is that both views, both experiences, had shown me something that the other could not. The commanding view from the hills showed me how the city was planned and where it lies in terms of Southern California geography, but it could not show me what walking down the neighborhood streets did: the character of each house, and how life progresses at the individual level.

It is probably an obvious conclusion, but I think that to view life, the world, faith, and any other important thing properly, one must similarly come at it from both perspectives. We hear of generals or statesmen who have singular ability in seeing the big picture, or in their minute administrative abilities and attention to detail. It is probably rare when a man possesses both in equal measure. And is it not so that we have a God who is both above all and in all? Unlike the polytheistic deities, who work within the natural world, God is independent of His creation and understands it (because He made it) from a planner's perspective. Yet unlike Islam's impersonal Allah, He also became a man, as an infant laying His eyes first on the rough walls of a Judaean stable. I cannot think of a more grounded, earthy perspective on life than this: growing up, as we presume, learning carpentry; reaching out to the poor, the sick, the corrupt and the unlovely; staying in the homes of friends and countering the specious arguments of the smug religious establishment with truth and common sense. God is not merely the world's engineer, or its judge. He is these things, and He would not be God if He were not. But He has also known what it is to be its tenant. To walk in the Columbia Gorge or around Trillium Lake or over the foothills of the Saddleback Mountains is quite another thing than looking at them on a map or a satellite image. But without looking at maps we could easily become lost, trapped by the limitations of seeing things only from the ground. Happy for us that we have a God who does both perfectly.

Lessons from Sloths

2009-03-16T12:05:00.000-07:00

Last school year I read and did a presentation on a book called Life of Pi. Written by a Canadian author in roundabouts 2001, this is the story of a young Indian boy who survives a shipwreck and drifts through the Pacific in a lifeboat for an incredible amount of time (at least a couple hundred days) with a tiger, a hyena, an orangutan, and a zebra aboard with him. Finally it is only he and the tiger and they must survive together in a kind of symbiotic relationship, while in the meantime he instructs the reader in some gooey postmodern hash about understanding animals, and relativism, and how every major religion is just wonderful and should learn to get along.

I bring up this book because it starts by talking about sloths. As I recall, it praises their slow-moving and contemplative natures, encouraging the reader to step back and take a look at life and the world and all that typical guru stuff. This is a common call. Close your eyes. Step back from the rat-race. Contemplate nature. See deep inside yourself. Get in touch with the good energy out there.

I thought about something this morning that was very convicting for me. Recently, in how many concrete ways have you expressed your faith? I knew that the number was painfully and ridiculously low. I knew also that the ways in which I had expressed concrete actions or thoughts contrary to my faith were very many, whether laziness or selfishness or gluttony or any number of other things. The point being, that if someone analyzed my life over the last two weeks or month, other than attending church and reading the Bible a few times they would find it hard to point to something that explicitly identifies me as a Christian.
This was, as I said, a convicting thought. And it made me think of those sloths.

I think it is a great error and even a great heresy to teach that the key to right living and healthy spirituality lies in severance from the world. It lies in severance from the actions and attitudes of the world and the total embrace of the actions and attitudes of Christ. Let's take a doctor as an example. Christ said that He came to heal the sick, so I figure it will make a decent analogy. Doctors strive through any means possible to prevent death by repairing the body and treating unwholesome symptoms. They themselves do not partake of the disease if they can help it. Infecting yourself with rabies does not in the slightest help a rabies victim. But ignoring rabies and letting it rage unchecked in someone's system will not help any more, and in the end that doctor will be held accountable for making no attempt to save his patient's life.

I feel that this latter option is what the proponents of a "batten down the hatches" spirituality are doing. I'm thinking of more than just Christians here, although of course I would apply it most specifically to them. Various Eastern religions seem to contain aspects of this as well. But I think we know best those Christians who interpret the Bible's words about being "not of this world" as meaning that it's okay for them to just sing praise songs and to preach daily, not to the lost, but to the found. It's like a trail guide running around the shelter at the end of the trailing, joyfully shouting to those inside: "You found it! Isn't it great! We're such privileged people because we found it! Now let's warm our hands over the fire."

Meanwhile all over the forbidding country outside the shelter men and women are struggling through dark forests, drowning in bogs and falling into pits. It's not wrong to rejoice with someone at having found the light--in fact, the Bible commands us to--but we need to rejoice together as we go out into the world and use our unique talents to show that light to others. What does Jesus say about putting your light under a basket? He says it's not the way to do it. Not only is light smothered under something of no good to anyone else, it is swiftly no good to itself either: it runs out of oxygen to burn and snuffs out.

There is plenty of room for contemplation. In this land of plenty, this America, we have plenty of time to ponder the wonder and glory of God and the universe and the imago Dei in man if we simply take the effort to make that time. It is the helter-skelter, submissive, uncontrollable activity that these gurus are warning against, the Eastern mystics who want us to just close our eyes and breath: senseless activity, a scrabbling for nothing, appointments and deadlines and 8-hour jobs that ultimately have no meaning or purpose as we descend into retirement and then finally into death. A tale full of sound and fury.

But, though they are right to dislike purposeless action, they are not right to advocate the life of the hermit, the life of distance and separation. There is another kind of action that is crying out for fit instruments for its application. If a picture is worth a thousand words, then this kind of action is worth a million. It may not be a missionary journey to Cambodia (though I'm sure they need missionaries there), but it had better be something, friends. It is action born not of selfishness or the inability to control our schedules, but of the belief that there is work yet to be done, work that cannot be left to others. Others will work, sometimes more and sometimes less, but that couldn't be less important for our own duty to join in. If my friends, or my family, or my pastor--or almighty God--were to take a review of any given week in my life, what would I want to hear? Would I want to hear, You blew it? Would I want to hear, Good talker but not a deed to show for it? Or would I want to hear, This man lives, speaks, thinks, works, worships, helps, hinders, as he ought?

Here's the tough question: what would you hear?

Trading Homo Sapiens for Homo Ignorans

2009-02-18T17:21:00.001-08:00

This is something I posted in my academic blog, The Quintessence of Dust, and I figured I would post it here as well, since the topic is suited to Musings. The text I quote is The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism by Anthony Keller, the pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan, New York.

----------

So, I've been musing a bit about this passage in Keller on page 117:

All Christians believe all this--but no Christians believe just this. As soon as you ask "How does the church act as the vehicle for Jesus's work in the world?" and "How does Jesus's death accomplish our salvation?" and "How are we received by grace?" Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Christians will give you different answers. Despite the claims of many to be such, there are no truly "generic" nondenominational Christians. Everyone has to answer these "how" questions in order to live a Christian life, and those answers immediately put you into one tradition or denomination or another.

Christians seem to struggle with this a lot. It can be somewhat embarrassing to declare that you have been led to find the truth and then admit that others teach a radically different practical application or interpretation of the same truths. Some Christians teach that grace is so predominate in salvation that our actions do not matter. Others teach that works can of themselves produce meritorious results and grant us a better place in heaven. Still others teach something in between. This is only one of a host of disputes, ranging from whether infants should be baptized to whether salvation can be lost.

Both Keller and Miller are not concentrating on these disputes for obvious reasons. Since they are trying to convince non-Christians of the basic veracity and authenticity of the Christian faith, a detailed description of doctrinal disputes would be distracting and probably bewildering to much of their intended readership. Christianity can be boiled down, so to speak, into its most basic tenets, those truths which the Bible unmistakably teaches. I am not, therefore, blaming either author in any way for avoiding these sticky issues, given their stated intents.

But the subject of intramural disputes got me thinking. Are Christians the only people who disagree as to the practical application and interpretation of their faith? Certainly not. I am not familiar with all the 'denominations' of all the world religions, although I know that Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims have tended to disagree on a few things. Even atheists tend to agree only to the extent that they deny the existence of any deity (and often hate the very idea of his existence). Keller cites the atheist scientist Stephen Jay Gould disagreeing with fellow atheist Richard Dawkins on a key belief of many atheists, that religious faith and science are incompatible (90-91).

No animal is uncertain of how to live. Apes do not form anti-vine-swinging lobbies, nor do lionesses debate hunting methods. Fish do not have various schools of thought as to how one should best swim, or whether swimming is necessary at all, or whether every fish simply dreams that he swims but in reality always remains stationary. Humans are the only living things that debate how to live: whether they should be humble or arrogant, meek or aggressive, hungry for power or eager to help others, whether to worship themselves or something outside themselves, whether something they hear is true or false. Keller and Miller would be out of a writing job if this were not so. And this is also, I think, a compelling argument for both truth and goodness. This may seem a logical leap, but this impulse is absolutely unique to humans. We are the only creatures who can reorder our lives based on something other than external circumstances, and we are constantly trying to do it, either because we have failed to live up to a particular standard or we have become convinced that a different standard is more worth achieving. I do not believe that we would do this if there were not some sort of ultimate standard to which all humans know they must attain.

As I recall, C.S. Lewis (whom, I notice, both authors we are reading seem to quote frequently) makes a similar argument in the first chapter of Mere Christianity. He calls it an appeal to 'fair play' or some kind of moral standard. We do not feel offended that someone has stolen our property for no reason at all. We recognize that something outside of ourselves has been violated. We may be more properly categorized as homo ignorans than homo sapiens, but this is what the Bible would lead us to expect. We are born piloting the ships of our lives without a map, and most of our lives are spent, whether consciously or unconsciously, in seeking a light by which to steer. In this case ignorance may be the first step toward truth.

Trust in Him Alone

2008-12-09T23:14:00.000-08:00

It has been a while. I ask your pardons all for having neglected this site for so long, but I either couldn't think of something to post, or didn't have the perseverance to write up a post. I have something short to share now, though. (Knowing me, it may end up being long; we'll see!)

I think most of us tend to take our circumstances for granted. I know I did. It may be affluence, it may be your favorite bicycle, it may be your own health, it may be your father's life, it may be your best friend's trust. We all know that they will eventually pass away (though as for fathers and friends, we will never lose them forever if they have faith in Christ). The bike will wear out, our health will fail from old age if from nothing else, and anyone who took out a sub-prime loan knows that affluence isn't permanent. But while these things are with us, I think we have a tendency to rely on them as semi-constants. Our routines, from the breakfasts we eat to the dynamics of our families, tend to define who we are. I submit that, although family and friends and even good breakfasts on a crisp and sunny autumn morning are wonderful things--blessings from God that should be enjoyed with thanksgiving--we should nevertheless take care that we are prepared to lose these things. In The Two Towers, Tolkien said through the character of Aragorn that a man who cannot give up a treasure at need is in fetters. We do not usually even give up these treasures voluntarily. They are taken from us, by time, by disease, by betrayal, by human weakness.

Because life really is precarious--because it can change in three seconds while tying your shoes for church--we need to have an anchor which nothing that happens to us can dislodge. We must look to something beyond ourselves, to something beyond our beloved wives and beloved children, our trusted parents and our familiar territories. We must look to Christ. My friends, there is one promise that is never broken, one friend who never turns His back, one who never dies, and never sleeps, and never passes away. That is the one without whom nothing would be of lasting importance.

When Jesus told His disciples to hate their parents and brethren and love Him, He did not mean that every Christian should be at enmity with his family, or not love them dearly. What He meant, I think, is that we must love Christ first and above all things else. It may be a bit like what Dietrich Bonnhoeffer said--that we can never truly love someone else unless we love that person through Christ. In this life, on this side of Heaven, everything that we know will ultimately pass away, from a stillborn child to the oldest grandparent dying in sleep, except for God, and the promise of the Gospel. Cling to Him, and then you can be the truest friend, the most devoted spouse, and the most honest businessman. You never, ever know what is going to happen to you, so you have to be prepared for anything. And you can be. Not because you are strong, but because He is strong. May God's name be glorified.

And yes, that turned out to be fairly long. Good night to you all!

Japan, Firebombing, and Nuclear Warfare

2008-07-31T10:29:00.000-07:00

Reading Retribution: The Battle for Japan has given me a lot of food for thought, and a lot of things to go on diatribes about to my patient parents on walks. :-) It's a fascinating book to read, though much of what it chronicles is brutal, horrifying, and regrettable. I didn't realize before, for instance, that the battle for Manilla cost the lives of 100,000 Filipino citizens.

A very interesting subject which the author has just been raising is that of the bombing of Japan. As I understand from the cover flap, the author defends the atomic bombings. I can't describe or answer his arguments, yet, because I haven't come to that part of the book yet, but I think he believes that they reduced the potential cost of an amphibious invasion of Japan. Given the massive human cost already incurred by the Pacific war and the legendary fanaticism of the Japanese army, that was probably quite true. Reading this book, however, though I can agree on principle that the nuclear bombing probably reduced the potential casualties that would have resulted from the U.S. strategy, I'm not convinced that the conditions wherein a nuclear bombing is the only answer to 'reducing casualties' are conditions into which we should have entered. That's a roundabout way of saying that we had such an economic stranglehold on Japan, such military supremacy, that we should never have obliterated so much of their civilian population. I'm not a seasoned historian and I'm not thoroughly familiar with every aspect of that theater of war, but to me the immense moral problem of, for instance, torching 100,000 civilians of Tokyo with napalm, leaving a million homeless, and obliterating 10,000 acres of buildings more than balances out the satisfaction of coercing a nation into signing formal surrender documents--particularly a nation which had already effectively lost the war.

Yes, more kamikaze missions might have threatened American ships and sailors, for a while. That's not a good thing. But Japan was running critically low on fuel, aircraft, and trained pilots (and willing suicide pilots). They were low on food, pitiful in industrial capacity, and completely outclassed militarily. Our extremely successful submarine blockade would probably have reduced them to desperation before long, though mass starvation would not be an appealing eventuality either.

Until late 1942/early 1943, I can understand a certain prevailing fierceness about our war effort: until then it was by no means clear that the Allies were going to win the conflict, and so some nations, primarily Britain and Russia, were actually fighting for survival. I'm sure countless atrocities occurred among the Allies that never should have, particularly in Russia, but I can understand why the Allies wanted to take the war to the enemy, and do it fast. After 1943, though, when industrial might, technological superiority and military initiative were almost entirely on our side, we continued grinding down the Axis through total war in our eagerness for the conflict to end sooner. Granted, we had suffered much, but that is no good excuse for inflicting the same suffering on the enemy--and the U.S. suffered negligibly compared to, for instance, the Soviet Union, which blasted, butchered, and raped its way through Eastern Europe to Berlin in 1944-45 in revenge for the 20 million civilians and probably more than 5 million soldiers who had already perished since Operation Barbarossa.

The Japanese treated POWs and civilians brutally in many, many cases. They were a rapacious militaristic empire with domineering ambitions. Such unbridled aggression and flouting of human rights required a reckoning as much as Germany's perverse ethnic cleansing and dreams of world domination did. But the B-29 pilots and commanders seemed, on the whole, remarkably callous about the manifold terrors, torments, and deaths that their incendiary bombs were inflicting on hundreds of thousands of people who had little to do with the militaristic governments that had launched them into the war.

Curtis LeMay, commander of the XXI Bomber Command responsible for bombing Japan, for instance. He claims there was "no point in slaughtering civilians for the mere sake of slaughter." Yes, but... "All you had to do was visit one of those targets after we'd roasted it, and see the ruins of a multitude of tiny houses, with a drill press sticking up through the wreckage...The entire population got into the act and worked to make those airplanes or munitions of war...men, women, and children. We knew we were going to kill a lot of women and kids when we burned that town. Had to be done" (qtd. in Hastings, Retribution 309).

That is a paltry defense at best, especially when Japan's inferior aircraft had almost been cleared off the sky at this point, so much so that the triumphant Hellcats and Corsairs were running out of targets to shoot down, and the Japanese navy could be bombed and torpedoed with increasing ease. The very B-29s involved in this operation met negligible fighter resistance: of the 414 aircraft downed over a five-month period, only 148 were due to enemy action, which includes anti-aircraft fire as well as fighter activity. 151 were lost because they failed to operate properly in flight (Hastings 314).

Here is the defense offered by the official USAAF post-war history of this bomber group, which probably gives the strongest argument in favor of incinerating civilians:

In its climactic five months of jellied fire attacks, the vaunted Twentieth killed outright 310,000 Japanese, injured 412,000 more, and rendered 9,200,000 homeless...The 1945 application of American Air Power, so destructive and concentrated as to cremate 65 Japanese cities in five months, forced an enemy's surrender without land invasion for the first time....no U.S. soldier, sailor or Marine had to land on bloody beachheads or fight through strongly-prepared ground defense to ensure victory in the Japanese home islands." (qtd. 317)

Yes, true--but my question is, should it have been our purpose to inflict unconditional, prostrate surrender on an already crumbling nation, no matter what the cost to the civilian population? Were our only options Invade or Torch? Could we actually say it was in defense of our nation to obliterate most of Tokyo and 64 other Japanese urban centers, to torch infants off their very mothers' backs as they fled from walls of flame and turn whole families to ash inside their bomb shelters? Will those responsible for such actions be able to successfully defend them when they are judged?

I can't say that there are easy answers to those questions, nor can I give answers for most of them. Perhaps some of this post will have to be amended once I read more of the book. So far, though, I think that those who condemn the decision to drop the nuclear bombs should be more concerned with condemning American Pacific Theater war policy in 1944-45. Was it a brutally necessary strategy for saving American lives--which aren't intrinsically more precious than Japanese lives--or was it just a gross excess of slaughter that should have been avoided at all costs? A lot of soldiers, politicans, and historians might opt for the former, but if someone told me that the key to saving a few of my buddies was to murder three mothers and their young children, I don't believe I would take that path. In any case, it seems to me that we could have kept Japan subjugate and incapable of significant resistance without an outright invasion. Sooner or later they would have been forced to surrender.

Thoughts?

New Kinds of Evil

2008-07-25T20:51:00.000-07:00

In my Shakespeare class this summer, many of the plays that we're reading are scraping the bottom of the Stratfordian barrel, more or less. Some are speculated to be unfinished, or collaborative efforts. Some are early plays and betray a lack of authorial assurance, or major character problems. With the help of our tutor and mutual discussion, however, we typically find much more to even these least read, least regarded plays. One theme that has recurrently come up in our discussions is the preservation of some good (purity, honesty, faithfulness) in the face of often very strong evil. In The Two Gentlemen of Verona, for instance, Julia's sworn betrothed Proteus abandons her for another woman on first sight, then angles to get his own best friend banished in order to have a crack at his new love. In spite of all this treachery and callousness, however, Julia remains stubbornly faithful. This kind of enduring goodness pops up all over Shakespeare.

It is fascinating to trace, study, and ponder these themes that so much creative work across so many cultures shares. It's also interesting to look at works of art that play around with these themes, maybe not denying them but challenging them. No Country For Old Men is a fairly good example. There is not much "redemptive" about the story, as folks like to say. The good characters, those that survive, are bewildered and helpless before the immensely powerful evil characters, who come off with even more destruction and less liability than the Dark Knight's almost unstoppable Joker. The main villain isn't immolated or shot by a hero rising from the mud for the last time--his worst injury, in fact, comes from a freak car accident, which has more in common with the random violence that he unleashes than with the Sheriff's old-fashioned sense of morality and justice.

The result is a rather depressing novel, but a thought-provoking one. It doesn't deny the good, and in fact the good does survive, though it's kind of cowering under the table by the end. What emerges as a key question is good's power to prevail against a "new" kind of evil. It's really, again, not far removed from some of the themes raised in the Dark Knight--anarchic depravity that doesn't fight like a gentleman. I suspect it is too early to really analyze such things, but many people like to point to this as an evidence of new questions coming to light after the Twin Towers terrorist attacks and the Iraq War. Terrorism is dirty fighting, and it doesn't fit in smoothly with even World War II standards of combat. Millions of private citizens died in the Second World War, but most of these deaths were either organized genocide, collateral damage from bombing and shelling, or post-conquest violence (as in the siege of Berlin). Terrorism, where a small band outside normal government boundaries intentionally targets civilians in order to create fear and satisfy vendettas or religious imperatives, is relatively new, at least to the experience of the average American.

It is not very surprising, then, that many people are pondering the implications of how people can or should adjust to a different manifestation of violence and evil. Nor is it surprising that some people question the ability of goodness to actually survive evil, though men have been doing that since long before September 11, 2001. Many works of art where the end is depressing do not necessarily indicate an author who firmly believes in the ultimate triumph of evil--evil does win many battles, and it would be a poor imitation of reality to perpetually invent fictional scenarios where everything turns out exactly as hoped, and all live happily ever after (not a bad thing of itself, necessarily, but sometimes a hallmark of poor writing or film-making, when forced upon the plot).

I suspect that there are some people, however, who do have a depressing outlook on the war between good and evil. (There are even those who deny its existence, which is absurd.) The answer to this sort of worldview can be found in yet another theme of Shakespeare's which our tutor has mentioned several times: the relevance and vital importance of the afterlife. It is easy to look upon the success of evil with dismay if one does not recognize anything beyond life on earth. It is not only easy, in fact, but logically it is inescapable. If self-sacrifice, courage, and purity carry nothing over after death, then tragedy on earth becomes permanent tragedy. Nothing will make it right again, and the book that leaves you with a host of characters dead at the end (Hamlet, say) leaves you hopeless.

We need not fear each new manifestation of evil if our eyes have been opened to look beyond this life. If one limited his scope to merely earthly concerns, certainly things would look bleak. What does Darfur mean, what do the 9/11 attacks mean, if each casualty simply molders in the grave without a shred of consciousness that lives on? But if we understand that any stand against evil, even the most cruelly unsuccessful of stands, has transcendent meaning, then we have grasped a very wonderful truth. Though the times for mourning may sometimes seem to brutally outnumber the times for rejoicing, they do not give us cause for despair.

Art should absolutely tackle evil. It is an integral part of life until the Second Coming and a confusing, terrible, but somehow necessary part of God's redemptive plan, and to ignore it would be to ignore what makes story Story: conflict. Nevertheless, art which embraces hopelessness is also ignoring a huge part of reality, to its peril. Weeping endures for a night, but joy cometh in the morning.

Interesting Quote

2008-07-18T22:04:00.000-07:00

"We honestly believed that America, a nation of storekeepers, would not not persist with a loss-making war, whereas Japan could sustain a protracted campaign against the Anglo-Saxons.”
Colonel Masanobu Tsuji, quoted in Retribution: The Battle for Japan, 1944-45, page 6.

It seems the opinion of us hasn't changed much in 67 years.

Concerning Aragorn, the Dead, and Oaths

2008-07-05T22:31:00.000-07:00

In The Lord of the Rings, we learn that Isildur placed a curse on the race of men that broke their pact with him, thenceforth condemning them to walk as the living dead. Aragorn, being the rightful heir of Isildur, could break the curse by allowing them to fulfill their oath. As I recall, he was the only one who could do so.

Although it is quite possible that Tolkien simply found this useful to get the good guys out of their scrape--he did stack the odds rather high--I think one is reminded of something important here. In Tolkien's world, breaking an oath is an organic sin. The men who lived on that mountain were cursed because their oath was taken with reference to a higher power or standard, and violating it was an offense to the higher power as well as the other party in the oath. Breaking an oath is not simply bad form. It is contrary to nature.

Perhaps, if sin had never come into the world, we would not require oaths and pledges. Certainly most oaths, such as the well-known Hippocratic Oath or the oaths of citizenship most or all countries require, were devised to help ensure compliance to certain rules or laws--taking an oath adds solemnity to an occasion and also allows one to be easily prosecuted for breaking his word. Presumably one of the reasons that God seals His covenants with promises is because He knows our hunger for something in which to trust. Unlike God, men sometimes break their promises, of course. Either they repent of what they promised, or they never meant to keep their word in the first place and only used it to attain a certain position or gain a person's trust.

Though one may escape human punishment by breaking an oath, however, it will not escape the notice of God. The Bible warns us not to make oaths lightly, and says that a righteous man "sweareth to his own hurt." Even if a promise turns out to be to our disadvantage, or an annoyance, we cannot simply cancel the promise on those grounds. (Obviously, if one promised something sinful, that would cancel the obligation.) One of greatest uses man makes of his creative abilities for sinful purposes is the twisting or negation of truth and sincerity, and it is the duty of every follower of Christ to ensure that his life is not marked by such tendencies. We know the great comfort of God's faithfulness, and of him to whom much is given, much is required: would not those who enjoy God's complete trustworthiness be ungrateful servants to make it hard for others to trust them in turn?

Breaking a promise is not just unfair, or harmful, though it is both. It is also a violation of our natures. There may be times when misleading someone is not a sin (the Egyptian midwives, for instance, or Rahab), but those times are rare and, I think, fairly easy to discern. When telling the truth would result in the deaths of innocent people, then I think one is called upon to mislead or even to lie if necessary. But breaking any promise whose keeping does not lead to evil is serious business. This is one of the many things that should set the children of God apart from the world: they can be taken at their word. Isildur's punishment may have been harsh, but Tolkien recognized that the failure to keep an oath was not just an unfortunate business. It is a grievous and unnatural transgression. And just as only Aragorn, the Numenorean king, could release the dead from their oath, so can only God forgive us when we break our promises to others or, worse, to Him--which, alas, is not a rare thing. Is is not a comfort to know that He never breaks His word?

What's, um, "Happening"?

2008-06-14T00:23:00.001-07:00

I was, for a time, rather fanatically devoted to M. Night Shyamalan's The Village. I still enjoy the movie. I see it more as a love story than just a mystery-thriller, and it has often deeply moved me. I like Shyamalan's previous work, too--The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, and Signs all had their merits. The Village was interesting in concept, well-acted, and well-scripted except for some stilted dialogue at the beginning. The story was provocative and intriguing, and content-wise, the film was acceptable for anyone old enough to handle some tension, jump scenes, and one act of violence.

Then Lady in the Water came along, a movie that seemed better fitted for the children's story it began as than a film marketed to adults--except that the interposition of a scary wolf-like creature made it unacceptable for young children. The movie was confusing and rather poorly-conceived, and seemed to make little effort to engage the audience in a convincing fictional world. I mean, three apes show up at the end to kill the bad creature.

Now there's The Happening. I haven't personally seem the film, but according to Plugged in Online, it is essentially a horror-film rendition of An Inconvenient Truth. Shyamalan was quoted in the same review as stating that the original cut of the film would have received an X-rating--or even been banned in the United States. Some editing took it down to a tidy R for sanitized occurrences of gruesome suicide, like a man getting his arms torn off by a lion.

Shyamalan has never done this before. Sure, his other films were intense, but they were not gruesome. Every other movie he's made has received a PG-13. I'm not against all R-rated movies--I own several--although I'm always mighty curious to know exactly why the R was given, because it's a mixed bag. It can mean simply some intense violence, like The Last Samurai. Or it can mean The Departed's 237 F-words. But coming from Shyamlan, this is weird--editing down the gore from a sure-fire NC-17 rating? Evidently he also throws in some crude sexual slang to top things off. And the reason everyone is getting sawn into mincemeat, or whatever, is because of man's inhumanity to...the environment.

The question du jour, then, is what in blue blazes is Mr. Shyamalan up to, and why?

Interesting Quote

2008-05-29T14:14:00.000-07:00

I ran across this quote from a letter of Henry Ward Beecher to Secretary of War Edwin Stanton in the book A Ruined Land: The End of the Civil War: "We are in danger of too much northern management of the negro. The black man is just like the white, in this--that he should be left, & obliged to take care of himself. I think nursing will only pauperize him. I see in the movements about here a tendency to dandle the black man" (256-257).

Any thoughts?

What are your crutches supporting?

2008-05-26T20:06:00.000-07:00

Your average skeptic or atheist is likely to consider Christianity a 'crutch.' Because it's so nice to believe in a Savior and a God who takes care of you, those not man enough to face reality buy in to the dream (their reasoning goes), because they cannot live without it. One can easily answer this claim, of course. God has manifested Himself in incontrovertible ways, and by no means is facing up to your sin and then denying self a command for the fainthearted.

In a sense, of course, every belief system is a crutch. Atheists' disbelief in God is a crutch for their faith in science, their faith in their own reasoning, their supposedly courageous embrace of 'reality,' and their self-absorption. It is a crutch that provides their rationale for ignoring God's commands. Polytheism is a crutch constructed out of the desire to appease the natural world. Humans are crippled: that's the point. We can't make it on our own. So, rightly construed, it is not really inaccurate to call Christianity a crutch, because it recognizes a key truth that Christ, of course, knew. Humans cannot spiritually (or physically, for that matter) support themselves. We do not move and act in a vacuum, but rather in the context of our beliefs about core aspects of humanity and the world.

But enough clarification. If Christianity may be rightly understood as a crutch, that is, Christ bearing our burdens, in another sense Christianity can be a crutch in a disturbing and insidious way. A way that gives the atheists some room to point their fingers. It is one that many Christians, I fear (including this one) are guilty of to one degree or another, perhaps especially in the West. We can make Christianity a crutch to support our daily routines--to make ourselves feel good about our lives. We pray, read the Bible, attend church, take communion, and put fish on our bumpers, but when it comes to stretching beyond those activities, which in the United States are, except in a few rare circumstances, entirely without opposition of any kind, we balk.

Vibrant faith can be tough as nails. It can be as simple a difficulty as smiling at someone your flesh wants to hate, or as hard as raising an autistic son for twenty-five years, dealing in a Christ-like way with a beloved spouse's adultery, or staring down at a gun barrel and saying "Christ is my Lord." We don't have to be missionaries to Bengal to be good Christians. I don't feel a call to be a missionary. But if I were, for a moment, to let concern for the world's opinion influence the content of my essays or novels, or to keep my mouth shut when I should speak because I fear what men might think--then I have made a concession to the world. When someone else is hurting, when an issue needs defending, when a friend needs rebuking, when our testimony needs to be given, when our precious self needs denying, when ten children need to be raised, when a monotonous job requires twenty years of your uncomplaining labor, when a dream needs to be abandoned, when an addiction needs to be broken, faith says Go. The flesh says Wait, the flesh says It's too hard, the flesh says You'll be embarrassed, the flesh says You don't want to get involved just now, but since when are we supposed to listen to the flesh?

We must be careful that our faith isn't a little furry thing we keep under the table. We crippled humans, dead in sin, certainly need a crutch. But Christ did not die so that we might live comfortable lives. War is not comfortable. We are at war. A war almost literally as old as Adam. Whatever our place in it, whatever our duties, great or small, at home or abroad, let us look to Christ and be bold, vigilant, and undismayed.

Petroleum Musings

2008-05-24T11:58:00.000-07:00

I've been thinking about colleges for months now, but only very recently has the possibility of a massive slump in the airline industry been a potential factor in my decision-making process. During my brother's whole four years as an undergraduate, flights, though not effortlessly affordable for everyone, were certainly available. Now some people are predicting a 20% drop in flights (I don't know with how much authority). If the situation is indeed that dire for the airlines--if gas prices really sink them--then attending a college 2,000 miles away is suddenly not just daunting on the emotional level of being far from home, but also daunting to the pocket book, and perhaps as a logistical difficulty too.

There is a book that came out some years back, which as far as I know is still popular today, called Who Moved my Cheese? that many business distributed to their employees as a kind of inspirational manual. I've never read the book, and it seems a bit of a childish story to market to adults, but I know that its main thrust is that trusting blindly in the eternal presence of a particular resource without planning for its eventual exhaustion is foolhardy. Two people find a big stockpile of a cheese somewhere and use it as a food source, but one is prescient and the other is not. The prescient one explores further and finds other sources of cheese, but the thickheaded one keeps on eating without any exploration until, lo and behold, all the cheese is gone. And so he asks where it went, not even comprehending that some day he would eat it all.

We seem to be reaching that point. We aren't running out of petroleum products yet, though many sources have been deemed inaccessible, and oil companies barred from tapping into them (offshore reserves, Alaska, etc.). But for the first time in my living memory, and for the first time since the late 70s, we're facing a belt-tightening oil dearth where skyrocketing prices have left SUV sales in the dust and attracted everyone to hybrid cars. Civilizations sprang up and survived without petroleum for millennia, so it's not as if people can't do with out it. It's not like the dearth of food in Ethiopia. Our society, however, is one built on petroleum. Modern western society is built on petroleum. Cars, ships, airplanes, stoves, lawnmowers, bulldozers, semi-trucks, and factories all depend on it. In the adjustments that we will have to make over the next few years--for we will have to adjust to some extent, whether the effects of this are mild or catastrophic--I see a lesson in caution, reticence, and stewardship. It is a lesson I fear will be forgotten as soon as the situation stabilizes. But the truth is that wise men husband their resources while there is an abundance, not while there's scarcity. The man who frantically scrabbles around for coin when his creditors come knocking is the foolish one, but likely enough he was laughing at the man who carefully husbanded his money when there seemed to be no fear of want.

Dorothy Sayers predicted in one of her essays on work that the "whirligig of production" couldn't go on spinning forever. One of the unfortunate aspects of our society is the seemingly insatiable drive to keep on producing, and consuming, more and more. It is ironic, though not terribly surprising, to see people blessed with so much prosperity lumbering around in indolent obesity while 10,000 miles away 120,000 Ethiopian children have a month to live. The whirligig has overheated a bit, and people are waking up, looking around, and adjusting the speed to compensate. I hope--I dearly hope--that the lesson will be learned that the produce of the earth is meant to be enjoyed, but not to be squandered. We can never assume that what we use will last forever.

Obama's Foreign Policy Stance(s)

2008-05-22T08:17:00.000-07:00

Here is an intriguing article by Karl Rove (that scary guy who most liberals seem to hate). And here is another one from David Reinhard in the Oregonian.

SETI

2008-05-14T11:47:00.001-07:00

For some years now, since some modicum of technology has been in place to scratch around above our atmosphere, people have been searching for extraterrestrial intelligence--or, as most people know them, aliens. An entire company or research team was created by alien-believer Carl Sagan called SETI--Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence. Science fiction writers have for years envisioned cultures on Mars or other celestial locales. On the Internet, Mom recently came across a survey asking whether the proven presence of extraterrestrial life would undermine one's faith.

I got thinking and wondering about this. Why the rage to see if there are other peoples in the universe? Natural curiosity may have something to do with it, of course. After Amundsen, we didn't have many frontiers left to conquer, and there would be brain-food for more than just explorers: sociologists, psychologists, linguists, philologists, politicians, philosophers, theologians, writers, tourists, and many others would have a vested interest in the place. There has thus far been no credible evidence for the presence of extraterrestrial life, however, to my knowledge, and the expense of looking for it is quite large. If the technology is innovated that would allow men to travel and explore to further reaches of the solar system or beyond, the cost would rise considerably.

I very much doubt that there are aliens, and if there are, God didn't see fit to tell us about them and (I would guess) would have made them impossible for human ingenuity to find. But supposing we found some evidence of them, the extra-Hollywood notion that these extraterrestrials would be both pacific of intentions and advanced far beyond humans in development also seems doubtful. How could we possibly guess with any certainty whatsoever one way or another? The assumption or hope that aliens would not only understand us, but also desire contact with us, and peaceable contact at that, and then perhaps solve the world's problems, does seem to be present in some circles.

It occurred to me that there may be something more basic at work here than mere curiosity which might explain this curious hope in benevolent and spiritually advanced aliens. After all, if exploration or professional interest were the only motivator, I would think that suspended judgment and caution would be the order of the day. Now, not having done much study at all on this field, my theory could be wrong or in some ways misguided, at least as concerns some particular individuals. I'm sure not everyone thinks this way. This tendency I am about to mention is not, however, limited merely to this field. It is, in fact, a tendency that can be found almost everywhere, and I would be surprised not to find it somewhere in the field as theoretical and limited as this.

What I would guess is that part of this hope in benevolent aliens comes from the universal desire for an outside source of power and help (that is, the remnant of the inbred desire for union with God). Alien civilization, if it existed, would be 'out there,' mysterious, and ripe for speculative projection. And what better to speculate about than a race of supermen, angelic creatures, who could reach down from the depths of space and wipe out the curse? If only the misery and conflict in the Gaza Strip, Burma, China, Darfur, etc. could be wiped out by the waving of a Martian wand. This desire for a savior is, of course, unsurprising, but it is very sad that it should be directed toward the supposed presence of space aliens. After all, is this professional curiosity or a timid cop-out? There are very human problems that are affecting millions of people right now. The one answer to these problems is the power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and spreading that Gospel, as the Scriptures and history plainly demonstrate, is not a walk in the park. It takes faith, guts, resources, and all the varied talents of the body of Christ. I find myself often harping on these posts about how resources are being used up in vain pursuits. By and large, this seems to be one of them. Even if we found a footprint on Alpha Centauri, it's almost 26 trillion miles away--more than an eight-year round trip if we could build a space ship that could maintain the speed of light for the equivalent of two terms of presidential office. Imagine finding that there were only footprints and bones there.

Space exploration is fascinating to a degree, but honestly, where is it going to get us? To me it seems like only a vain hope to find some shortcut to solving the world's problems. To invent the technology, if it could be done, might take centuries, and the monetary cost would be staggering. And I believe that it would all be for nothing anyway. Once again, shall we turn our attention to more immediate problems, and stop frittering away our time on things like this? I don't think that huge amounts of money alone can solve those problems, of course, but the vast resources of wealth and machinery available to us in this century could clearly be marshaled more effectively.

So Much Better Than This

2008-05-03T13:26:00.000-07:00

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face...
~1 Corinthians 13: 12a

When I mow the lawn, I wear earmuffs (the kind that reduce sound, not the ones that warm the ears; I gather that they have the same name). Mowing both our lawns probably takes half an hour or so, and by the time I finish, my level of hearing feels fairly normal. I've grown used to the earmuffs, and I don't actively think, "Wow, how dull everything sounds!" But when I take them off, there is a rush of noises that realize I had not been hearing: small insects, passing cars, the breeze in the leaves.

The same goes for sight. Anyone else who wears glasses or contacts will know what I am talking about. As you grow older and your vision changes, the prescription in your particular lenses is not correcting your sight enough, but you don't really notice, because you are used to them. Then an optometrist puts a new pair of glasses on you and the distant sign in the store suddenly leaps into clarity. Colors are sharper and richer. For a few hours (until you get used to the new pair), the world feels like it's been baptized with light.

C.S. Lewis compares the "new world" Narnia at the end of The Last Battle to a country seen in a mirror: better, richer, beckoning exploration, full of promise. I think one may also compare the experience of Heaven, insofar as the Bible tells us of an experience that we cannot fully understand until we get there, to taking off earmuffs or putting on glasses. Everything that we see, hear, touch, feel and think in this world will pale in comparison to that which comes after. We cannot feel the comparison empirically, but that is only because the dark glass has not yet been taken away.

When I look around at springtime, I experience wonderful things: fresh green leaves, colorful blossoms, and awakened birdsong. How wonderful it is to know that things will be so much better than this for those who love the Lord.

This Alternative Fuel Needs an Alternative

2008-04-23T18:32:00.000-07:00

I am by no means against alternative fuels--if they can be produced in a way that does not have huge and harmful repercussions. Ethanol, unfortunately does. According to Wikipedia, the United States has 131 ethanol refineries capable of producing 7 billion gallons a year. An extra 72 refineries are going to be built. Incidentally, the stuff increases carbon emissions by a factor of 92 when virgin land is cultivated for ethanol production ("Food Riots Made in USA," The Weekly Standard, April 28, 2008).

That aside, the big problem here is that producing ethanol sucks up an enormous amount of corn production, which seems to be directly contributing the food shortage crisis. In a CNN article title "Aid group to cut food rations to millions," posted yesterday, the articles says that a woman affiliated with World Vision attributed part of the crisis to "the diversion of corn to the production of ethanol rather than food." Another problem is "spiraling fuel prices," but ethanol, which doesn't come cheap itself, is not going to fix that problem and thereby neutralize its negative effects. An article by William Tucker in The Weekly Standard called "Food Riots Made in the USA" puts it bluntly: "In order to understand the steep rise in world food prices...you need to travel to Iowa. Right now, we're trying to run our cars on corn ethanol instead of gasoline. As a result, we suddenly find ourselves taking food out of the mouths of children in developing nations. That may sound harsh, but it also happens to be true." This same article states that "One-third of the American corn crop will be converted to ethanol this year."

One-third is a mighty big fraction when you consider that the U.S. produces 280 million metric tons of the stuff, almost half the world's production. Too big, by my lights, for a fledging alternative fuel that is sapping the world food market and setting up many developing countries for some rocky times ahead. Tucker's article cites two agricultural experts at the University of Minnesota who "predict that by 2025 biofuels will be responsible for 600 million more chronically hungry people." The fuel issue is real. I don't love depending on a product that is difficult to renew and is inherently something of an environmental liability (and is generally under the control of countries not too thrilled with us). Maybe some day we'll have a fuel so harmless that you can drink it in a milkshake. But right now, the priority is on the 1.5 million people World Vision had to stop feeding who are facing the prospect of starvation or malnourishment.

Back off on ethanol, work toward stabilizing the food situation, and then reassess. Don't blindly keep producing ethanol and hope things will iron out.

We live in a disturbingly litigious society...

2008-04-07T12:44:00.000-07:00

And Texas A&M seems keenly aware of that fact. An excerpt or two from their "Camp and Enrichment Program Waiver, Indemnification, and Medical Treatment Authorization Form" which accompanied their little promotional booklet in the mail advertising their Summer Honors Invitational Program:

1. EXCULPATORY CLAUSE. In consideration for receiving permission to participate in any and all activities of Summer Honors Invitational Program (herein referred to as "activity"), which is sponsored by Texas A&M University Honors Programs, (herein referred to as "sponsor"), I hereby release, waive, discharge, covenant not to sue, and agree to hold harmless for any and all purposes sponsor, The Texas A&M University System, the Board of Regents for the Texas A&M University System, Texas A&M University, and their members, officers, servants [sic], agents, volunteers, or employees (herein referred to as RELEASEES OR INDEMNITEES) from any and all liabilities, claims, demands, injuries (including death), or damages, including court costs and attorney's fees and expenses, that may be sustained by me/my child while participating in such activity, while traveling to and from the activity, or while on the premises owned or leased by RELEASEES, including injuries sustained as a result of the sole, joint, or concurrent negligence, negligence per se, statutory fault, or strict liability of RELEASEES. I understand this waiver does not apply to injuries caused by intentional or grossly negligent conduct.

2. Indemnity Clause. I am fully aware that there are inherent risks to my child/myself and others involved with this activity, including but not limited to cuts, ankle sprain, etc,, and I choose to voluntarily participate/allow my child to participate in said activity with full knowledge that the activity may be hazardous to me/my child and my property....

[...]

6. Voluntary Signature. In signing this agreement I acknowledge and represent that I have read it, understand it, and sign it voluntarily as my own free act and deed; sponsor has not made and I have not relied on any oral representations, statements, or inducements part from the terms contained in this agreement....I understand I can choose not to sign this document and free myself and my child from its terms and the associated risks of the activity simply by not participating in the activity and choosing some other activity available to me/my child that has a lower level of risk to myself/my child....

Want to go now?

Hypothetical Musings

2008-03-31T18:54:00.000-07:00

So here is a question I find intriguing. What would the federal government do--what could it do--if (for example) the state of California decided to secede? What would the rest of the world do? It's a chance in a million or less that any state would dream of secession, let alone be able to convince 20 million+ voting citizens to agree to it, but permit the hypothesis. What would be likely to happen? It's a little bit amusing, because it seems like popular opinion would keep the government's hands tied. Would it bring in tanks and impose martial law? Blast off a chunk of California real estate at the San Andreas Fault with Cruise missles, a la Lex Luthor? Go pleading to the UN? Just let it slide? :-)

He is Risen!

2008-03-23T08:04:00.000-07:00

Happy Resurrection Day!!

"And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.

And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?

And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great.

And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.

But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.

And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.

Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.

And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.

After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.

And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.

Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen."

~Mark 16

How Much Would You Pay?

2008-03-22T16:21:00.000-07:00

Only in this society? It's his decision, but I wish he'd burnt $1350 dollars by giving them to me! Seriously, though, think of all the useful or interesting or even simply nice things that money could have been spent on: a lawnmower, a new coat, a nice painting, maybe a couple hundred pounds of food bound for Darfur.

Amateur Economics

2008-03-19T08:27:00.000-07:00

I am not an economist, so I'm sure the issue is ten times more complicated than this. But investment, stocks, and the like are built on credit and trust, right? Investors know the money isn't all there in hard specie. The "fake money" that the Jeffersonians thundered against in the early 19th century is common currency now. Why, then, do investors make a run on banks and firms when something shakes their confidence? Doesn't a run benefit almost no one? They can't all be so reflexively greedy that each one is so desperate to be the lucky one who gets a real return on his investment before the bank can't pony up. I sometimes get the feeling that if all these investors just kept their heads and had patience, things would stabilize. But they never do, so there must a lot more to it I'm completely unaware of. Any economics whizzes out there who can shed some light?

2008-03-18T07:55:00.000-07:00

I had an interesting thought yesterday. It seems like the more liberal-minded, the majority of those one would associate with the democratic party, cannot stand the idea of there being anyone struggling to keep a decent standard of living, and so they race to prop up everyone immediately. The more conservative-minded--but I can't include the majority of Republicans here, because some of them probably don't want this or haven't thought about it--recognize that this will end up making almost everyone fall harder. And so they are willing to go through a somewhat difficult transition in order to dismantle or diminish some of the government structure most people have come to depend on and find other solutions that work better over time--even, I would hope, if the transition were difficult for them personally.

Maybe that just applies to me and a few other people, and the differences between the parties are different or more complex, or both. But that thought struck me and I wanted to write about it. :-)

Blind Spots

2008-02-26T20:35:00.000-08:00

Many modern intellectuals of the secular mold don't much care for the mores of the Victorian era. "Victorian" is common parlance for stuffy or prudish, and many people not in specialized and intellectual fields share the same general mindset. After all (one may imagine them generalizing), not only were the Victorians prudes who repressed matters of sex, but they were also snooty white supremacists who, even if they didn't have slavery outright, as Britain did not after the 1830s, certainly thought of Africans, Chinese, American Indians, and the like as 'inferior' races. And they whip out something like Kipling's "White Man's Burden" to prove it.

A huge amount of effort over the past 40 years or so has gone into eradicating any hint of racism or what one might call monoculturalism from thought, writing, and practice. Some of this has been misguided, some of it likely more politically than morally influenced, and some of it outright ridiculous, but the point of my post is not to delve into that, especially since I'm in no wise prepared to argue about it in depth, should anyone want to. Of course I believe that treating fellow men and women with one sort of physical characteristics as inferior to men and women with a different set is simply ludicrous. In principle, trying to free a culture that was once highly prejudiced from that prejudice is a good and needed thing. I also freely admit that the Victorians had a big blind spot here. Kipling was probably really sincere about the white man's burden, which may prevent one from accusing him of sheer arrogance, but it does not make his position all right.

It's oversimplifying a lot to take the Victorian era alone to task, as if it were the only age to endorse slavery, but it's plain to just about everyone that the majority opinion of the time had a blind spot; a big blind spot that caused injustices and even atrocities to be perpetrated against non-whites.

But a kind of irony emerges when we consider the subject of sex. As much as intellectuals like to repudiate the racism and prejudice of the 19th century, they may even more enjoy rolling their eyes at the lack of "frankness" about sex in a pre-Freud world, and, most of all, finding Freudian elements in a pre-Freud world. I haven't taken the trouble to look at any curricula of the "gender and sexuality" majors at several of the various colleges who've sent me mail, but I don't doubt that many of them involve digging up hidden sexual repressions and veiled references in Austen, Dickens, and the rest.

The Victorians had their Wickhams (whom I realize dwells locked in the Regency era, but had he been real and lived to a ripe old age, he would have died a Victorian) and other unscrupulous types, of course, but even the generalized and caricatured view of this era indicates something that was really there, that is, a general moral sense and reticence that dominated civilized society during that time.

The ironic thing is that modern society, while so vigorously scrubbing out racism, is not only ignoring but encouraging the creeping stain of promiscuity. In shredding one of the great blind spots of the Victorian era, we have welcomed the destruction of one of its great virtues. We have exchanged one blind spot for another. We applaud both the abolitionists and anyone who subverted or even seemed to perhaps subvert sexual taboos.

I have already said that racism and prejudice are bad things. But the new blind spot is just as bad, if not worse. Racism is a mindset--an arrogant, misguided mindset, but a private one that can be shelved in public. Shattering barriers around the public discussion and depiction of sex on a graphic level, however, and reinterpreting old art or infusing new art with a kind of frenzied obsession with sex, is more open and immediate in its ill effects. Unhealthy sexuality spawns feminism even as women are more and more being made objects of. It shatters families. It ruins childhoods. It encourages violence, selfishness, dissipation, and inconstancy. It makes a mockery of covenant faithfulness.

Racism may not be gone (although there's far more of it in other countries than here), but there are enough people monitoring it with eagle's eyes that the chance of it breaking out in force any time soon is pretty slim. But promiscuity is with us everywhere: on our billboards, in our magazines, our movies, our books, our operas, our musicals, our plays, our streets, our homes. We need to take some energy away from redressing an old blind spot and start paying attention to the new one that's eating away at our society as we speak. In my mind, it doesn't matter quite so much if a college frat party hires one stripper as opposed to another because of her race. What matters is that we have strippers.

A Party Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand

2008-02-23T22:51:00.000-08:00

Yeah, you two, take each other out, please. I know this is neither unusual nor restricted to the democratic party, but the pictures were so funny I wanted to put it up. And I do hope they fragment their party. ;-)

Interesting Verse

2008-02-16T20:59:00.000-08:00

We are reading through the book of Romans as part of the Bible reading for our family devotions, and when I heard this verse, I thought it interestingly addressed what I wrote a while back about New Year's day:

"He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks."

So maybe we were both right. :-)

2008-02-16T00:22:00.000-08:00

Once again it is brought home to me, with this latest school killing spree, just how much safer colleges and high schools could be if teachers were given concealed firearms and appropriate training. If schools offered adult-supervised handling, safety, and target practice courses with all types of firearms for interested students.

Maybe if people stopped being so wary about guns, criminals could no longer gain such absolute power over their victims with just a couple of illegally-purchased firearms. Then distraught students won't need to scream "call 911!" and hide in classrooms until the police arrive--after four or five people are already dead.

If a man had been there...

2008-01-29T10:40:00.001-08:00

Why are we letting women do this?

Change: we know we need it, but do we know what kind?

2008-01-27T15:00:00.000-08:00

All the heavy-hitters this presidential campaign, especially the democratic ones, just love to talk about change. I read an article by Mark Steyn in the latest issue of National Review where he said that those who claim to desire change really want "a restoration of the quiet life." This is probably true. The reason that those who want change want this, though, is because the lives of most people are not very quiet: they may rumble quietly or feverishly toss, but whatever their condition, it likely isn't quiet and happy contentment. So many voters, bitterly dissatisfied with Bush, long for something new, something different, something progressive. Obama, Clinton, and Edwards like to point out the flaws in Bush's administration and promise better things in theirs, and politicians have been making the same promises since the days of--well, of politicians.

The point is that very few candidates, and only those in unique positions, would likely ever interview a talk show host and say, "I promise the American people to continue to preserve and promulgate for the next four or eight years the exact same policies that my predecessor pursued." When a presidential election comes around, the promise to make changes is simply expected.

It is unsurprising that just about everyone's nose begins to sniff the air excitedly with the word change comes into play. Deep down we all recognize that things are deeply wrong with life on this earth. We see a tide of illegal immigration, wars in the Middle East, horrific violence in Kenya and Somalia, unsettling rumblings in the Russian government, decreasing populations (thanks to our friends from the 1960s), Palestinian unrest, potential nuclear threats in Iran and North Korea, a failing health care system, and so on. Every single area of human enterprise is somehow flawed, and people are divided on almost every important issue, so when a candidate comes promising change, it's likely that at least half the population is going to get excited. It's innate in us to want something more, something better. Struggling with their lack of hope, those who do not have Christ eventually grow restive under any system, because it fails to satisfy. Those who do have faith in Christ have an unshakable hope, but that is not to say that we are satisfied with American politics, as they are anything but thoroughly Christian at the moment.

So everyone wants change. That's not new. But "change" is a word whose denotation is amoral. Connotationally, it appears to have come to mean something good, or at least "what voters want to hear." But, to use a simple analogy, let's suppose there is a vineyard somewhere that a man owns and maintains. His time of ownership comes to an end and I make a bid for the title, along with another chap. I and the second candidate both promise that dramatic changes will take place one this vineyard if we become the owners. If I removed bad grape plants and replaced them better ones, improved irrigation and upgraded the farm's technology, and found alternative means of pest control that didn't have any health hazards, I would be making good my promise. But if the second candidate burnt the whole place to ash and said, by jingo, he was going to grow date palms on this property, so would he. Change can either mean improvement or degeneration; starting with a mediocre policy, the imposition of good or bad policies is equally progressive.

I know it's been said before, but voters must determine what kind of change is being offered by these candidates. If it's change to a more intrusive and controlling government that, taking historical precedent and the nature of man into consideration, we really want, all right. I won't like the choice, but America will have made it honestly (and should face the consequences just as honestly if things go wrong).

When someone promises to change something, our first reaction should not be to welcome the news, but to ask what is going to change, and how.

New Year's Hullabaloo

2008-01-05T18:29:00.001-08:00

This turn of the year more than any other, I wondered why everyone made such a big deal out of it. Crowds gathered in places hours before the actual celebrations began, people lined up for parades, and a CNN article quoted a woman who said she "had to be there" once in her life, or something to that effect. I would be the last person to say that the highest meaning of everything is merely its materialistic parts, but honestly, the new year is an artificial construct on our calendars that marks each time the earth circles the sun. New Year resolutions are one thing--since the event has taken on a cultural significance of change and renewal, then I don't think anyone is overdoing it by making resolutions. It is arguable, however, that a resolution fit for inaugurating the new year is worthy to be made at any time of the year, and ought not be postponed until January 1st.

What does seem like overkill to me is the big events, the shooting of fireworks, the throwing of parties. Are people just looking for any excuse to throw a party? Are they trying to find significance in a day that doesn't celebrate any event of significance? Maybe I'm being a trifle cynical, but I found all the hoopla surrounding the new year rather shallow. Sure, it's 2008 now, not 2007, but so what? Midnight slipped by on December 31st, and there was no worldwide flash of light or tectonic tremor. This new year, which does not represent (as far as we know) exactly the anniversary of the earth's starting point around the sun when it was first created, only a random point on its orbit, will have whatever tenor and importance that we give to it. The fact that the new year came around may be fun, interesting, or whatever, but why do we shoot off fireworks as if it's the 4th of July? There's nothing wrong with that, but why? Am I just a stick-in-the-mud, or does this seem a little overblown? I'm happy to be proven wrong, if proof can be offered in a relatively subjective case.

"Baby Grace" and Other Musings on Life, Death, and Abortion

2007-12-24T09:39:00.000-08:00

Some of you may have heard of "Baby Grace," the two year-old named Riley Anne Sawyers who was brutally killed by her own mother, not long ago. Even before that, I learned that the girl had before been ordered by her father to call him "sir" and use other sorts of deferential expression that no two year-old could ever be expected to understand. Her murder and maltreatment were an appalling example of human depravity, and something that nearly every person, barring the mentally ill, would decry as a travesty and a horror. Most would consider the mother worthy of death or at least, for those who do not support the death penalty, long imprisonment.

In fact, although nobody likes to hear about a murder, we are especially horrified and angry when a small child is intentionally and cruelly killed by an adult. The helplessness and vulnerability of young children aggravates the heinousness of the act. Even a hunter lawfully hunting game, something which I believe is quite morally acceptable, will, if he is a sporting man, not shoot a very young animal. We feel an innate responsibility, a protectiveness, for the young. I believe, as likely most of my readers do, that this is a God-given impulse. Men and women alike, unless they bury or deny their natural feelings, want to nurture and protect young children. They are small, physically weak, untutored, and (bless their hearts) blissfully naive.

That I am even writing a post such as this, though, proves that there are those who deny or ignore these impulses and maltreat or even kill young children. There are parents who truly abuse their children, sometimes in terrible ways. Such is the condition of our fallen race.

This opposite and destructive impulse has extended for many thousands of years to life in the womb. If we have traced the beginning of abortion practices, I do not know it, but the ancient Greeks certainly practiced it, and it would be excessively trusting to assume that prior cultures did not do similar things. Like homosexuality, rape, and the like, abortion has been with us since Adam and Eve fell.

But many people, of course, tell us that abortion is very different from something like rape. They say, in fact, that it is quite the opposite. Rape is the violation of a woman's right to her body, whereas the act of abortion asserts that right. Abortion is absolutely not murder, but rather the extinction of tissue that would turn into a baby if allowed to develop. It is a perfectly acceptable choice to make, and cannot be compared with something like the murder of Riley Sawyers.

People say that they have debated and discussed abortion so often as to be tired of it, but Americans will continue to lock horns over this issue until it has been decided one way or another. The stakes are high, after all. If the pro-abortion camp is right, then we who are pro-life have tried to deny a basic right to suffering women, forcing a lot of hardship on them by burdening them with responsibilities for which they are not ready or which they do not want. We have also done no less than accuse them, the participating doctors, and the politicians and Supreme Court justices who support the practice, of murder--mass murder, in fact. No one, obviously, likes to hear such a charge, and most anyone is going to defend himself against it.

But if the anti-abortion camp is right, then the pro-abortionists have, I believe, a much heavier reckoning to make. Rather than making some women miserable, they have destroyed millions of little babies who would have grown to be both men and women. They have ruthlessly campaigned against life itself. Some of them have confused or indoctrinated women into ignorantly murdering their children, and many of them have done it blithely and of their own free will.

What have I to add to the debate? Besides another simple vote on the pro-life side, I have this. It has to do with Riley Sawyers and others like her. Why is that we execrate even desperate prostitutes who leave their children in garbage cans or strangle them, hours after their birth, while many of us vociferously campaign for the right to kill a child (just as brutally and painfully) mere hours earlier? The prostitute even has desperation and the pressures of her job on her side, but any sensible person, as far as I know, would advocate adoption over murder. Most mothers who abort their children do not have a similar kind of desperation on their side. Some of them choose to abort because their lives are directly threatened, or the baby is likely to grow up severely impaired or deformed, or on account of an abusive boyfriend, but I'm not talking about that here. I'm talking about the sort of women who simply don't want a child, not on account of desperation or mortal peril, but on account of convenience.

Isn't there a double standard here? Honestly, even other prisoners are a terror to the man who is in prison for murdering and abusing a child. Naturally, reflexively, and powerfully, we move to the defense of the young. In films (or in real life, though it likely happens less often), if a madman enters a house, brandishes a gun, and gives a terrified mother the option between dying herself or watching her daughter die, for what do we consider the mother more noble? Of course, for selflessly putting her life on the line. And we're not even talking about the mother's life in this case.

The truth is, most people on the pro-abortion side, if many of them have thought things through this far (and I honestly haven't talked to many supporters of abortion, or known them personally), seem to have convinced themselves that this very helpless life we are so zealous to protect becomes fair game when ensconced in a woman's womb. Instead of viewing it as more helpless, they actually view it rather like a tumor. Certainly it is considered part of the mother's body, and not a separate life form. (One is tempted to inject here that, although the woman bears the burden and pain of pregnancy, it does require a man to make it happen.)

The tumor argument breaks down rather quickly, as one might expect. If we compare an infant in utero to your typical tumor, the differences are numerous. We'll even posit that this everyday tumor resides in the mother's womb. One will find that this tumor does not move, kick, breath, or depend on a supply of placental material to survive. Even if the tumor could be induced to exit the birth canal after nine months--I'm sure many people afflicted with tumors would like that--we would find it to be what anyone expects a tumor to be: a blob of tissue. It does not emerge into the light of this world screaming and bawling, or kicking its feet into the air and waving its fists. It is inert matter. It never has been or can be made into something remotely alive.

A proponent of abortion will likely admit that there is indeed a difference between a tumor and a baby after birth, but before, she might argue, the differences are not so readily apparent. I roundly deny this for two reasons: one, there is absolutely no foundation to the argument that a tumor and a human infant act or even look the same way in the womb, as any ultrasound will make apparent; two, the extrapolated argument is logically weak and ought to be labeled absurd by any sensible person. Usually the argument by extrapolation works the other way. The baby is very much alive when born, so by rights it should still be alive in the womb. I could not go out into the Mt. Hood National Forest and smash up some eagle's eggs because eagles are endangered, and the embryos in their eggs are little eagles. Are we, simply because humans are not endangered, to skim off forty million of our progeny because we don't want them around?

Proponents of abortion have, whether they are willing to admit it or not, aggressively penetrated and casually besmirched with blood the awful and noble mystery of life. It is either unparalleled arrogance or unparalleled folly (and those may easily go together) that could induce anyone to violate such an unknown and sacred territory and pass it off as a brave thing to do. Perhaps they have, like devious pagans at the threshold of a temple, forgotten that the womb protects the embryo much as temple guards, rites, religious authority and a due sense of awe preserve the sanctity of temples. The Supreme Court justices who agreed on Roe v. Wade themselves admitted that it was unclear to them where life began. If you don't know, then never, like an impious coward, assume that you have carte blanche to carve up fetuses for your own convenience. We speak of the rape of the environment, but should we not rather be rethinking the rape of the womb? Far worse, I think, will be the retribution on their heads for the death of tens of millions of children than the felling of however many acres of rainforest.

People will try to tell us to shut up about abortion, whether because they are adamantly for it (and afraid of opposition) or simply tired of talking about it. But we cannot be silent. Anyone searching for some crisis in America, some blatant iniquity that must be redressed, can start right at the beginning--where life ends before it has a chance to even see the light of the sun. Not every Christian will feel a particular burden to fight actively against abortion, and I would never expect that. If you wish to further arm yourself to speak about it, however, even in day-to-day conversation, I have so far found abort73.com to be a valuable resource, although much of it is designed to inform the skeptic (but some of the information, and particularly the images, which I warn you are gruesome, may be new to you as they were to me).

We would fight to protect Riley Sawyers. Let us fight, whether in involved campaigning or simply wearing a T-shirt and being willing to argue, for those even younger and more vulnerable than she.

Hmm...I must be doing something right

2007-12-21T08:03:00.000-08:00

Get a Cash Advance

Expelled

2007-12-20T08:53:00.000-08:00

This looks like a delightful, honest, well-crafted documentary on Intelligent Design! Watch the super trailer here. It looks fascinating.

2007-12-02T14:59:00.000-08:00

Psalm 145

I will extol thee, my God, O king; and I will bless thy name for ever and ever.
Every day will I bless thee; and I will praise thy name for ever and ever.
Great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised; and his greatness is unsearchable.
One generation shall praise thy works to another, and shall declare thy mighty acts.
I will speak of the glorious honour of thy majesty, and of thy wondrous works.
And men shall speak of the might of thy terrible acts: and I will declare thy greatness.
They shall abundantly utter the memory of thy great goodness, and shall sing of thy

righteousness.
The LORD is gracious, and full of compassion; slow to anger, and of great mercy.
The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.
All thy works shall praise thee, O LORD; and thy saints shall bless thee.
They shall speak of the glory of thy kingdom, and talk of thy power;
To make known to the sons of men his mighty acts, and the glorious majesty of his kingdom.
Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and thy dominion endureth throughout all generations.
The LORD upholdeth all that fall, and raiseth up all those that be bowed down.
The eyes of all wait upon thee; and thou givest them their meat in due season.
Thou openest thine hand, and satisfiest the desire of every living thing.
The LORD is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works.
The LORD is nigh unto all them that call upon him, to all that call upon him in truth.
He will fulfil the desire of them that fear him: he also will hear their cry, and will save them.
The LORD preserveth all them that love him: but all the wicked will he destroy.
My mouth shall speak the praise of the LORD: and let all flesh bless his holy name for ever and

ever.

The first thirteen verses of this psalm were the Scripture reading in today's sermon. Praise God this Advent season, and not just in private. The world loves to demean Christmas to a period of mere "joy," "neighborly spirit," and a sort of intimate, friendly coziness brought on by the cold snow outside and the warm fires and cheery candles inside. All wonderful things, but why are they wonderful? Why have we set this season aside as one of celebration? Maybe someone you know needs to learn the real meaning of Christmas. Let's all strive to make sure the world sees and hears that our joy this holiday season does not rest on material things or good feelings, but on the actuality of Christ's birth and the reality of redemption.

That Religion of Peace, Conciliating Again

2007-11-30T08:32:00.000-08:00

http://breakingnews.nypost.com/dynamic/stories/S/SUDAN_BRITISH_TEACHER?SITE=NYNYP&SECTION=HOME

So, I wonder how many people would be jailed for fifteen days for naming a teddy bear John the Baptist, or Isaiah? And who would be calling for their execution?

Bella

2007-11-23T19:17:00.001-08:00

Bella is a fantastic movie about the importance of human life (most particularly the life of the as yet unborn)--and therefore a movie that Hollywood has refused to touch. I urge you to go out and see this movie and support the people who made it. It's not a perfect film, but the heart of its message is sound and uplifting. It is beautifully filmed and has very good actors. An e-mail I received said that watching this movie is one of the simple ways possible to support the pro-life movement. I certainly agree.

You can also take most of your children along to see it--it's rated PG-13, and contains some violence and a few scenes of intense emotion, but there is no objectionable content for someone mature enough to handle the thematic material.

Please, go out and see Bella! The makers should be rewarded for bringing a message like this to the screen.

Things to be Thankful For

2007-11-22T09:12:00.000-08:00

Happy Thanksgiving! May God bless your celebrations, your thoughts as they pass over what we have to be thankful for, and your minds and tongues as they give expressions of praise.

Here are a few things for which I'm thankful, not in alphabetical order or in exact order of importance:

Salvation
My family, particulary my family all in one place for the first time since August
Cold, clear, sunny days
Piano music
Writing
Wonderful friends
My education
Internet access
Life in one of the safest nations on earth
The words of Jesus, both the compassionate and the scathing
Good health
Excellent books

Always thank the Lord for His marvelous provisions!

Islamo-Fascism

2007-11-17T21:04:00.000-08:00

I guess I always thought of Saudi Arabia as a more lenient sort of Islamic nation; I suppose that was naive of me. We consider our modern age to be civilized, but this smacks of the medieval era. Read this article. It's about a gang-rape, but there is no graphic description. I am glad to hear that the Saudi government is trying to take steps to improve the situation, but the punishment of the victims themselves is alarming.

Ew.

2007-10-20T12:53:00.000-07:00

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/books/10/20/harry.potter.ap/index.html

The World's Ways Don't Work in the Real World

2007-09-11T18:05:00.000-07:00

What happens when the pleasures of married life are separated from their effects? Things like Conception Day, a bid by a Russian province to produce some semblance of a next generation. It's the old irony: the secular couples, who often roll their eyes at the size of Christian families, watch their numbers dwindle while the Christians are fruitful and multiply.

God is Sovereign

2007-09-10T16:15:00.000-07:00

And Hannah prayed, and said, "My heart rejoiceth in the Lord, mine horn is exalted in the Lord: my mouth is enlarged over mine enemies; because I rejoice in Thy salvation. There is none holy as the Lord: for there is none beside Thee: neither is there any rock like our God.

Talk no more so exceeding proudly; let not arrogancy come out of your mouth: for the Lord is a God of knowledge, and by Him actions are weighed. The bows of the mighty men are broken, and they that stumbled are girded with strength. They that were full have hired out themselves for bread, and they that were hungry ceased: so that the barren hath born seven; and she that hath many children is waxed feeble. The Lord killeth, and maketh alive; He bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up. The Lord maketh poor, and maketh rich: He bringeth low, and lifteth up. He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and He hath set the world upon them.

He will keep the feet of His saints, and the wicked shall be silent in darkness, for by strength shall no man prevail. The adversaries of the Lord shall be broken to pieces; out of heaven shall he thunder upon them: the Lord shall judge the ends of the earth; and He shall give strength unto His king, and exalt the horn of His anointed."

I've always loved those verses. How can we read them and not be confident in God's power?

~1 Samuel 2:1-10.

Yes, I do realize that I was two weeks in posting this, and not one as I said. I was gone last Monday and have either been busy or procrastinated since then. :-)

My next post may be something about John Locke and his views on government, but that is not fixed in stone.

~Connor

Making a Monster: The Trouble with Adolescents

2007-08-27T23:42:00.000-07:00

The teenage years are an artificial creation. The word teenage was coined in the 20th century to denote a somewhat undefined period in a person’s life between childhood and adulthood (typically heralded by the onset of puberty). No one in the western world would now be unfamiliar with the concept of “teenager.” Likely enough they would consider the teenage years and all its connotations something as common and natural as the bodily changes that go along with adolescence. But the concept of the teenage years did not exist in the minds of the ancients—nor even among the somewhat liberated generation of the 1920s.

Let us first consider what the connotations of the teenage years are today. The typical teen is expected, first and foremost, to be in a class unto himself. Too old to associate with younger children, and too independent and unsettled to associate with adults, he (or she, just as often) is expected to co-exist with his peers in all of his scholastic and most of his free-time pursuits. He is expected to follow their manners, their morals, and their styles of dress and speech. Parents expect their teenage children to be neutral toward them at best, and more likely hostile. Behavior that fathers and mothers would have called rebellious fifty years ago is now considered simply teenage. “Oh, well, she’s a teenager,” parents will say as they roll their eyes. “Can’t wait to push her off to college.”

This combination of cultural pressures, low expectations, and consequently abysmal parenting has produced a teenage culture that is unique from either young children or adults. Childhood is the innocent phase, when the child is trusting and copies his parents’ behavior, and tags along behind older children to be “with the big boys.” Adulthood is the steady phase, when the person has “settled down” and has acquired the judgment, circumspection, and wisdom that mark maturity. Adolescence is the rebellious phase, the questioning phase, a time for a young person to “spread her wings” and try out new things and new behaviors. Sexual promiscuity is expected. One also notices an extreme sameness in the teenage culture, a product of the overwhelming pressure to conform that exists there. For all of its talk about uniqueness, the teenage culture is internally as regular as a uniformed army. Hence the surprise of adults at home schooled children in ordinary clothes. Whether the fad be ripped jeans, studded belts, pocket chains, backwards hats, two shirts (women only), baggy pants (men only), pant-skirts, nose rings, colored hair, or what have you, chances are that 95% of the teenage culture will adopt it. The uniformity is not confined to clothing alone. Speech patterns, musical taste, and even expressions and styles of walking seem to be heavily influenced by the actions of one’s teenage peers.

The point is that, on a whole, with many notable exceptions, the vast majority of western teenagers live in a world whose structure and ethics are guided almost wholly by other teenagers. They are a class, a subculture, a world unto themselves, generally without reference and in opposition to mature and adult culture.

This state of affairs is obviously not, over all, a healthy one. But beyond the mere fact that it generally creates teenagers who are selfish, materialistic, insensitive, egotistical, foolish, and imprudent, it has other problems too. All talk of an “adult culture” will become comparatively meaningless if the vast majority of these socially inept teenagers grow up into adults themselves. And they will. I have noticed far less alarm in most circles than is due this problem. When our high school students come of age, we cannot expect them to automatically drop the habits they have formed and the style of life they have grown up leading. Denied or rejecting the guidance of previous adults, the new generation will simply pass on their adolescent values to their descendants and perpetuate a new kind of immature maturity.

Having considered the connotations of the teenage years and the effect this mindset may have on the next adult generation as these teenagers grow up, I’ll turn to what adolescents used to be. The terms “young man” and “young woman”—still used by some today—are not accidents. The period of adolescence was considered the training ground for adulthood. Young men learned a trade early, usually apprenticing themselves to a craftsman or working in the home and learning from their fathers. Sparta, though no role-model for how to treat children, certainly understood that to make a formidable warrior class they needed to train their citizens for combat and toughness from the time they were young boys. In the medieval era, boys of noble descent became pages to adult noblemen, and then—in their adolescent years—became squires, apprentice knights who learned the arts of war and chivalry so that they could mature easily into actual knighthood. Thomas Jefferson entered William and Mary college at 16, graduating with highest honors a mere two years later—the age most people begin college. Girls learned from their mothers, and older sisters if they had them, how to become a wife and mother, in some cultures at an age one would almost consider child abuse in this day. The point is that the sooner maturity was reached, the sooner a young man became a man and a young woman became a woman, the better. These formative years of life were a transitional period, like a butterfly pupa developing its wings, not a semi-permanent age group with its own market and an attitude generally antagonistic to the adult world. If butterfly pupae all got together, exerting influence on each other and refusing to associate with mature butterflies (the simile can only be extended so far, I confess), they would probably stunt their growth if they were able to. This might make them happy pupae, but once their cocoons broke open, they might not have any wings to keep them aloft.

The ancients understood that one must exercise his wings to fly well. That is why one of the key concepts of adolescence in earlier years was the child learning from his or her parents. It was the parents’ role to impart knowledge and wisdom to the young men and women they were raising, and they taught those children to listen. They taught their children to restrain their impulses, to work hard, to make sacrifices, to spend money wisely, to make judgments, to understand the world and culture—whatever they needed to become responsible adults. The immigrants who came to America and made tremendous sacrifices to allow their children to realize a dream they, the parents, might never live to see could not have made America what it is if they had been raised on the rotten fabrication of adolescence. Now their legacy is in danger of vanishing as a new generation, coasting on the affluent tide of their forefathers’ labor, forms new habits and attitudes that could never produce the kind of shrewdness, self-sacrifice, and unshakable work ethic that produced the rich, sprawling, free society they love to take advantage of.

Teenagers today need to realize that the awful and noble responsibility of carrying values and habits to the next generation rests on their shoulders. The students in high school and college today will tomorrow enter the myriad professions and vocations that form human culture. They will build our buildings, heal our sick, make our laws, write our books, shoot our guns, and teach our students. You and I, all we who are students and adolescents now, will make this country into something monstrous or something beautiful, a city of darkness or a city of light. And whatever legacy we forge with our own generation is what we will pass on to the next. We cannot hope that what so many parents lost through negligence we can gain through negligence again. Weak parenting can never produce an accidentally brilliant generation. Left to their own devices, adolescents will at best flounder, and at worst will cease to care about living mature lives. Many have already done so.

There is nothing wrong with associating with one’s own age group. Making friends around one’s age has been going on for millennia. But we must not think that we can learn everything from our friends. We learn most things with them. That is an exciting prospect: sharing what our parents have imparted, studying men older and wiser than we, following examples and learning from our mistakes. Our peers can be good influences on us—indeed, they should be—but only when they themselves manifest mature characteristics. Fear the advice of a friend who has no ambitions for maturity, and no concept of trans-generational teaching. Men are like those whose company they seek.

Scripture makes no room for the teenage years as many people understand them today. God says to train up a child in the way he should go, and commands parents to teach their children God’s truth at all times and in all situations. He also commands children to obey and honor their parents. Parents have the responsibility of passing on faithfulness and maturity to the next generation, and we who are the next generation must be diligent and eager to learn all that we can. The shape of the future is our hands’ responsibility to form. What shape will you help it take?

~Connor

A New Feature

2007-08-27T11:52:00.000-07:00

I don't much like the long silences between posts on this site, and it is also always a good thing to read and ponder Scripture, so I have decided on something that may lessen the silences while helping to fulfill the latter requirement. I intend, God willing, to post here every week something from the Bible that caught my attention while reading, or that my pastor preached on, or that for whatever reason comes to my mind to share. Sometimes I may also write some of my thoughts on the passage, if I have anything interesting to say. Here is a passage that struck me in my reading today (all postings will be in the KJV unless otherwise noted):

Although the fig tree shall not blossom, neither shall fruit be in the vines; the labor of the olive shall fail, and the fields shall yield no meat; the flock shall be cut off from the field, and there shall be no herd in the stalls: Yet I will rejoice in the Lord, I will joy in the God of my salvation. The Lord God is my strength, and He will make my feet like hinds' feet, and He will make me to walk upon mine high places.

~Habakkuk 3:17-19a

For those who have not encountered it, hind means "a female red deer" according to thefreedictionary.com.

Coming soon: The Trouble with Adolescence.

~Connor

Never Be Ashamed

2007-07-07T10:44:00.000-07:00

"Well, it really all comes down to changing men's hearts."

I find myself saying that, either out loud or to myself, very often. Our family loves to discuss politics, social issues, the history and present results of ideas and events, and many other things. We often try to hammer out some kind of Biblical solution to these problems, and that is often extremely difficult, because both sides (or each side, since there are usually more than two) seem to suffer from insurmountable difficulties or to both be laden with moral problems. Take, for example, the relative insipidity of both the Republican and Democratic parties. Over all, I agree with more views held by the Republican party, but its often lukewarm platform hardly appeals to me on all levels. A typical solution might be to vote for a different party more in line with one's views, but the problem is that all such parties are comparatively tiny, and at present have little hope of ever winning a major election. Voters, therefore, seem to be in a no-win situation, where increasingly centrist politicians try to appeal to the most people with the most all-inclusive campaign platform. The platform of one of the smaller parties may be more in line with the voter's beliefs, but, he reasons, "they'll just take away votes from the 'lesser of two evils' candidate."

I am always consoled by the thought that, although this situation seems insoluble at the moment, through the changing of men's hearts by the power of the Gospel, it will one day no longer be a problem. I was nevertheless tempted a few days ago to think of this as a somewhat unrealistic solution. Let us take AIDS, for example. In Africa and elsewhere, millions of people are being infected with a very serious disease, either because of promiscuity or because others infect needles and other things that come in close contact with them. To some, the notion of changing men's hearts might seem like a half-hearted and merely theoretical solution to the problem, whereas finding a cure for AIDS is the apparently concrete and decisive course.

Now, it is true that merely sighing, "ah, some day this will all change" and then sitting back and doing nothing is ineffective at best, and quite possibly much worse. It seems a sensible course to search for a cure for AIDS, both for the hapless people infected without bringing it upon themselves, and for those engaged in promiscuity as well. Although they deserve to die for what they are doing, so did we, before our salvation, and we can certainly never tell which of them will repent and which will not.

However, it should be fairly obvious that a "cure" for AIDS would be a temporary solution. Drug-resistant strains of the virus have already formed in response to various treatments, and if a cure were found that no virus could resist, the amount of promiscuity would likely rise to alarming heights, since those engaging in it would view the new cure as a license for their sin. Ignoring the saving power of the gospel in the lives of men and paying sole attention to merely temporal solutions is like treating the emergency shut-off switch as the end of the matter, instead of actually working to fix the problem that forced him to take emergency measures. A man would be a fool not to use the switch, but he would be a worse fool if he did not try to avert the danger to a point that the switch was no longer needed.

Christians must not be ashamed of the power of the Gospel, or the promises of Christ, or of their own calling in the world, which is among other things to preach the Gospel. Men may point and laugh, and claim that we have our heads in the clouds, but while we may work on temporal solutions to try to contain evil in the here and now, we should never lose sight of the ultimate goal and the ultimate solution. It really does all come down, in the end, to changing men's hearts.

Buy It, Just Don't Ask Why

2007-05-27T14:54:00.000-07:00

In the old days, people advertised their business based on what it could do for the customer. A blacksmith advertised his shop based on the fact that he could do a blacksmith's work for people. This "marketing campaign" was usually limited to a sign above his door with an anvil on it, and the word-of-mouth testimonies of his customers.

There was dishonest advertising back then, of course; there always has been. A man in the marketplace might shout out that he had the best fish in the world, when in fact they were a three day-old catch that was getting a bit spoiled. Typically, though, the majority of advertising was limited, not very gaudy, and focused on the benefits of the product itself.

Modern advertising is wholly different. Like the picture at above left, which is a very mild example, our marketers make very little connection between the product at hand and the words and images that try to make people buy it. After all, what does "Coke adds life" mean? We can be sure it doesn't add a half-second to the life of anyone who drinks it, and whether it makes your life more interesting is entirely up to you.

There are two reasons, I think, for why advertising has come to this state. The first reason is the general demise of logic over the past few decades. The roots of this demise are deep, but most notably since the 1960s a great many people have come to value emotional and physical "highs" and mental bedazzlement over any deep, intrinsic meaning or logical cohesion. That's why big-budget movies with multiple explosions do better at the theatres than films that focus more on ideas and characters than high-speed chases. That is also one of the greatest reasons why advertisements can get away with having nothing at all to do with the product at hand. Let's take a beer commercial for another example. One of the slogans for Busch Beer is "Busch Beer. Head for the mountains." If anyone can find the intrinsic logical connection between the statement Busch Beer and the command "head for the mountains," I challenge him to show it to me. In all honesty, drinking beer has nothing to do with hitting the trail, and I highly doubt that many people who drink that brand ever do go to the mountains, or even take that injunction seriously. It just doesn't relate to Busch Beer in any sense. The chain of logic is broken at the most fundamental level, and few people seem to care, or even really notice.

The second reason is somewhat related. A host of the products produced today are not really that useful, and certainly not very necessary. Our blacksmithing friend was an essential member of his community, since he could make horseshoes, crowbars, knives, axes, and all kinds of other useful tools. Beer as a general commodity is not really necessary at all, and the world could easily say farewell to the Busch company without quivering to its foundations. Not that there's anything wrong with beer (taken in moderation). The problem arises when marketers feel that they must not allow the public to just choose for itself--in the which case Busch might just get shoved aside. The public has products waved in its face in a variety of clever ways, but because many of these products are just amenities, there is no real concrete logical principle to which their makers can appeal to attract public attention. What they have to do is select something they think will capture many people's attention, and then toss it in with the same pot as the product in the hopes that, while ogling at the Interesting Thing, the public catch sight of the product and, when browsing through the store, remember the product's picture and buy it instead of a competitor. And because of the logical disconnect problem in today's society, that isn't a big deal.

Neil Postman, a social commentator of great perception, compared advertisements in his book Amusing Ourselves to Death to myths. Advertisers don't create reasons for buying products; they create myths around them that make them look like answers to life's problems. This observation seems to be quite true. Here are a couple of the "myths" of advertising that I have observed. I'm sure there are many more, since I have watched no TV in my home for many years.

Look at that babe!--Popular with shower products, men's cologne, beer, automobiles, and most everything else, this is the advertising ploy that using sensuality to catch the public eye. The camera will give us plenty of barely-restrained shots of a woman washing her hair in the shower, or a lady in a bikini on the beach, without really saying whether Dove soap actually keeps your hair cleaner or whether Coors Light has really been confirmed by popular opinion to have the best taste, or some freak health benefit, or what have you.
A movie star's doing it, so I should too--Also popular with just about anything, this will have, say, Adrian Brody walking cheerfully down a road and infecting everyone with his energy...all due, we are supposed to believe, to Pepsi. Apparently the fact that he steps in front of a camera and speaks pre-written lines while dodging a gigantic ape (or pretending to stab Joaquin Phoenix) makes him a leading authority on soft drinks.
Vicarious coolness--Popular with cars, beer, camping gear, and much more, this is usually marketed to male teenagers and young men, and usually features, say, Mazda cars being driven in a flashy and noisy manner through desert landscapes or some urban bridge, or a muscular man in a nightclub with some adoring girlfriend holding one hand, and a Budweiser in the other. In this way the young men get a vicarious thrill from fast car-races or a successful date without having to take the trouble to seek one or the other, and associate the same "coolness" with the product at hand. That way, even though one may never have the skill to spin out his Mazda in the Alpine snows and come out not only unscratched, but with no snow on the tires, he still associates owning a Mazda with being respected.
Haha! That was funny, I guess I'll go buy something--Perhaps advertising's biggest trump card along with pretty women, this acts on the assumption that eliciting a laugh from the customer will make the featured product memorable, and so encourage him to buy it. That is why Budweiser had a commercial during (I think) the Olympic games. It ran something like this. A man sits on a couch with a blond-haired girl kissing him (and, I think, with a beer on the table by him). The girl excuses herself, probably to go to the restroom or something, and the man calls his friend. Asked what the girl is like, he says something to the effect of, "she's pretty weird, but I'm desperate." The girl returns, and her pet parrot suddenly starts squawking, "she's pretty weird, but I'm desperate," over and over again. The last shot is the man getting kicked out of her house, and then the camera shows a bottle of beer with the Budweiser name. This doesn't even try to say, "getting this product will put you in the way of pretty women" or "buying this will make you cool." All it does is set up a situation of domestic strife that some people, I suppose, find amusing. I am actually not certain whether the marketers care that the customer even remembers the gag--only that the image of the beer stays in his mind so Budweiser makes more money.

It would be quite possible to go on with these examples, but the point has, I think, been made. Advertisements are a multi-billion dollar industry of logical disconnects, feel-good stories that build of a false mythos around products that, in the main, don't mean much at all. They are strong-arm tactics to try to make gullible people buy things they do not need and, unless prodded, would probably never even think to buy. Only a society like those of our modern age that are so full of extra cash, unprecedented leisure time, and populations filled with softies out for a good time at any price (except strenuous exertion) could produce such an industry.

As long as it continues to turn a profit, this industry won't go away. But we can contribute to its demise by not giving in to its ploys. After buying necessities, choose your amenities wisely and with any eye to God's glory and your pocket book. Drink the beer you like the taste of most, not the one Lindsay Lohan drinks on TV. Buy the car that gets you where you want to go, not the one that couple drove at 115 through the Arizona wilderness.

Let us try to infuse a little logic into our consumerist society.

~Connor

Abortion: The Ugly Face of Solipsism

2007-05-11T15:12:00.000-07:00

For years, "pro-life" and "pro-choice" advocates have been accusing each other of being in the wrong on the abortion issue. Pro-lifers say abortion advocates are legalizing murder. Pro-choicers say abortion detractors are attempting to restrict a woman's fundamental "right to choose," a.k.a. her "reproductive rights," or "right to prevent the birth of her child by violent means." For those of you who like plain English, her license to kill. It is probably quite clear from those words that I firmly believe the assessment of the pro-lifers is correct, and the presence of abortion one of the most devilish monstrosities ever to slip into American society wearing a "society-accepted" stamp.

However, I do not intend to retrace here the arguments made that abortion is simply one form--and a particularly heinous form since it cuts off little humans almost at the very starting-place of their lives--of murder. Anyone can at least agree that abortion prevents the birth of a very live human being, a being that according to pro-abortion advocates somehow miraculously comes alive the moment it passes completely out of the birth canal (and is apparently not sufficiently alive to qualify as human until it's all the way out--sticking a needle through its skull and injecting it with poison as it is still coming out is apparently fine and dandy according to those who advocate partial-birth abortion).

What I do intend to do is talk a little about what kind of attitude one needs to have to support such a practice. One needs an attitude that is so crushingly selfish as to almost qualify as solipsism. These advocates of abortion, primarily feminist activists (see my previous post), but also a good deal of others, are so obsessed with the idea of sex without consequences that nothing, in their view, can or should stand in its way. But, of course, the issues runs deeper than sex--it really centers on self-determination, pleasure, and the Cult of Me.

The central tenet of selfishness is this: I am more important than everyone else simply because I happen to be me. That is, I want to enjoy everything there is to enjoy in life, and since I cannot vicariously enjoy it through the enjoyment of others, I want it for myself. Selfishness of the Cult of Me, where the particular individual matters most. Selfishness is a religion where the individual is God. Sinful man is always striving toward this goal in some way, and even Christians still have to contend, perhaps more than with any other particular sin, with selfishness and its Siamese twin, pride. After all, a person who wants everything for himself must think he is the most important person on the planet, consciously or unconsciously, and that, if you ask me, is rather prideful.

In short, and to put things in plainer light, selfishness is the core of rebellion against God. We are created to serve God, and the human rebellion is to serve ourselves, to be our own masters.

To bring things back to the topic at hand, selfishness is a powerful force in modern American society. Teenage culture is rank with it. Consumerism in many cases depends on it. And it has wreaked havoc with our marriages and our birth-rates. Pro-abortion logic states that sex is pleasurable. They use this as license for promiscuity, their first turn from the teaching of the Bible, and a big cave in to selfishness. (After all, if it pleases the individual, why wait until marriage? Maybe you the individual don't want to be tied down to one person your whole life.) With this kind of promiscuity comes the inevitable consequences one gets when violating the laws of God: disease, though not the subject under consideration, is one; more to the point is frequent and often teenage pregnancy. Teenagers, at least the kind we have around today, are too young to care for children, and most welfare mothers and posh yuppie women are "too busy" for more than, say, two kids. Either Uncle Sam hasn't given them enough money, or they just want to "live their own life" and not be "bothered" by children.

For the most part, in the majority of societies, mothers either put up with these unwanted children or, in an age where an illicit pregnancy actually brought social ostracization, simply abandoned, which is bad enough. In the 19th, and increasingly in the 20th century, our obliging scientific minds came up with relatively reliable methods of birth control. This, at least, just prevents conception; it doesn't kill anything. Whether it is acceptable for the Christian or not I am not absolutely sure, and not having studied the issue much, and being unmarried, it is probably not a province in which I can speak with much confidence.

But, birth control doesn't always work. That's a problem for our solipsists. Here they've been having so much fun, and then a child comes along. A child means responsibility, sacrificial love, time, patience, perhaps a few amenities given up to feed the extra mouth: all things many (though, in all fairness, fortunately by no means all) of our solipsists recoil from like death. In fact, they recoil from it in such horror that they are willing to kill to keep their precious status quo. And they are willing to scream, browbeat, lobby, protest, and cover all their actions under such dubious and opaque terms as "reproductive rights," "the right to choose," "the right of a woman over her body," and such like--all to keep the butcher's bill rising higher and higher.

I don't know about you, but I find it pretty darn interesting that activists in America spit in rage at George W. Bush for "killing" 3,387 soldiers in Iraq since 2003, when they and those like them have been responsible for the murder of about 1,287,000 babies in 2003 alone.

I think that was the first time I really made myself angry over the process of writing a post. I may have even lost track of my ultimate point. And I am angry, full of wrath that so many smiling, adorable little babies like the one in the picture above have been snuffed out, not only before they had a chance to live out their lives, but before they even had a chance to see the light of day. America is guilty of more murders than Hitler ever committed. May God have mercy on her.

~Connor

Feminists: Some Real Problems, a Fecundity of Unrealistic Solutions

2007-05-10T18:04:00.000-07:00

I was reading in one of my textbooks today, Western Civilization by Jackson J. Spielvogel, about the rise of the women's movement in the 1970s-1990s, and an interesting thought struck me. It was occasioned, I think, mainly by this passage: "Women got together to share their personal experiences and become aware of the many ways that male dominance affected their lives. This consciousness-raising helped many women become activists" (853).

One question that can be immediately raised, of course, is how pervasive and marked a problem this can be if groups had to be started in order to convince women just how repressed they were, or are. Nevertheless, that was not the subject of my thought.

What I did think was how curious the goals of the feminist movement are. They identified some real abuses, past and present, of the Biblical notion of male headship (which they would also vehemently deny, but they will have to argue that point with God if they get the chance). Yet their reaction, in the midst of this discovery, seems odd. To me, it appears evident that the best solution to any problems in the familial and societal structures would be an attempt to achieve some level of cooperation between male and female. The feminist is not going to look to the real answer to this, the Bible, but even so, any sensible person should notice that men and women are built, physically, mentally, and emotionally, to match and augment one another. This holds true in spite of all tantrums, arguments, break-ups, and the like.

And yet, what the feminists seem to be doing, in this passage and today, is fighting for a complete separation and autonomy between the sexes. Take another passage, for instance. "Women sought and gained a measure of control over their own bodies by insisting that they had a right to both contraception and abortion" (Spielvogel, 853). Although it is undoubtedly the woman who carries the child, this hardly seems to take into consideration the flip-side of the matter. A man's body is also necessary for children, and the children are as much his own as the mother's. It is probably true that in olden times (and in many cultures today, most notably Islamic and African ones) that men could demand to sleep with their wives whenever they wanted, and simultaneously refuse any kind of contraception, thus, in a sense, forcing the woman to bear more children than the family could realistically care for. There are multiple problems with such an attitude, and the blame in that case would be entirely on the man.

Yet here again feminism has jumped over to quite the opposite side of the issue, in which the woman is the sole arbiter of her sex life, number of children, etc. The man is a kind of unwanted guest, tolerated because he is necessary, and perhaps the more disliked because he is. If anything, this seems to be denying the man any control over his body (quite aside from the issue of the baby's body, which I may raise in another post later) as much as any previous state of affairs denied the woman that control. Again, there are many other issues that could be raised here, and which I probably will raise when I think them through, including the selfishness that seems to be inherent in thinking first of "controlling one's own body" in a marital relationship, as if one of the deepest things about that relationship is not giving oneself selflessly to one's spouse. But my main point here is that, in most respects, feminism seems to emphasize, not any kind of mutual solution to the problems they perceive, nor even, really, any association with men on any level but the most necessary. They do not seem to want to be respected by men, honored by men, or even loved by men: they want to be men. And that kind of autonomous, separate, independent attitude can only be dangerous for human beings no more designed to be men than men are to be women.

~Connor

Lingua Latina II: Participles and Dactylic Hexameter

2007-04-25T20:37:00.000-07:00

The first part of this post may be attributed to the Latin language itself. The second is in large part due to the genius of Vergil and his genius with verse You may make of both of them what you will. :-)

The Latin participle is, in general, more compact than its English equivalent. There are four kinds of participles in Latin: the present active, future active, perfect passive, and future passive. Latin is somewhat unique in possessing no perfect active participle (except for deponent verbs--if you don't know what those are, don't panic). The perfect passive participle generally filled the breach on this point, and the student is usually expected to supply an active translation while implicitly understanding that, technically, the grammatical sense is passive.

Generally, except for the ability to place it far and away from the noun it modifies as discussed in my first post, the present active participle does not differ much from English (except that it is declined like an adjective). In English we use a verb ending in -ing, for example, running; in Latin one would stick an -ns suffix to the verb currere, to run, to obtain the present active participle currens.

Moving into the future active participle, the compactness begins to reveal itself. The closest English approximation we have to the future active participle is something like about to (verb). Latin takes care of it by simply attaching urus, -a, -um to the 4th principle part of a verb. So when we would say, "Aeneas, about to run to Italy, was very happy," the Romans would say "Aeneas, ad Italiam cursurus, erat laetior." Latin can shave three words off English and, I daresay, sound rather more polished than the former. But that is for the second part.

The perfect passive participle is probably the participial form one will encounter the most often, at least in the Aeneid. As far as I have encountered, the most literal English translation of this participle (I'll use a different verb for convenience, say, to kill) would be having been killed--rather clunky in some circumstances. In English we might say "the man, having been killed, fell to the ground." In Latin one would say "vir, necatus, ad solum occidit." Nine versus five!

As to the future passive participle, more commonly known as the gerundive, I confess that that is one grammatical area in which scraping off a little rust would do me good. I shall have to consult my faithful Alan and Greenough's on the subject. My main haziness, I think, is on the distinction between the gerundive and gerund (the former an adjective and the latter a verbal noun) and on the situations in which one or the other is used. The general sense of the gerundive is something like about to be killed (sorry, that's just a common word in Latin!). So, "the bull, about to be killed at the altar, bellowed" is roughly equivalent to, "taurus, necaturus ad altam, fremit."

Before we leave the subject of participles, which I hope was not boring (it may indeed be informative to any students trying to master participles, I suppose, and I hope it is), I ought to consider a few of the other applications of participles. One of the funnest is known as the ablative absolute, which can (but does not always) use a participle. This nifty little construction consists of two words, either a noun and a verb, or a noun and another noun or adjective, with an implied to-be verb in the mix. Both of the words are in the ablative case, which is a little hard to explain to those who have never learned Latin. It's kind of a grab-bag noun case that many prepositions take and which often expresses other concepts of direction, characteristics, means, and so on. A good example of the ablative absolute would be urbe capto. This versatile phrase can mean several things, depending on the context. It could mean "since the city was captured," "when the city was captured," "the city being captured," and other things as well.

Vergil's verse is considered by many scholars to be one of the most masterful examples of dactylic hexameter in Latin. Dactylic hexameter is a verse form consisting of six feet, or sections of syllables. These may comprise either dactyls or spondees. Dactyls are one long syllable followed by two short ones, and spondees are two long syllables. Since I do not have the know-how to create any fancy symbols, I will represent long syllables by putting them in all capital letters. Note first that these do not necessarily represent the stress on a particular syllable, i.e., how loud one pronounces it, but just how long the vowel-sound is held.

The rules of scanning dactylic hexameter appear complex on the surface, but, once mastered, are not very difficult to remember or employ. Essentially, as a starting-point, one would cram all the lines of a hexameter line together (as, one might add, the Aeneid was originally written, as were all works of ancient times). Let's take the first line:

arma virumque cano, Troiae qui primus ab oris

Now let's scrunch it together:

armavirumquecanotroiaequiprimusaboris

Now. The first rule of scanning hexameter is to divide the line by syllables. One always breaks off after the vowel and before the consonant, unless there are two consonants together, in the which case one retains one consonant and starts with the next. Like so:

ar ma vi rum que ca no troi ae qui pri mu sa bo ris

Now what? Well, we know there have to be six feet in this line; that's what "hexameter" means. We know that each of these feet can be either a dactyl or a spondee. There's a nifty thing we can use, too, to get us started: the last two feet of every line, called the Adonic Section, always takes a specific form--one dactyl plus two feet that are either a spondee, or one long and one short syllable (kind of a truncated dactyl). As for the rest of the line, any vowel that has a consonant at the end is long "by position." Some other vowels are long "by nature," and one just has to feel those. Unless proven otherwise, vowels with no consonant after them are short.

Yes, you may be staring around bewildered now. I was too when I first learned this. I'll give you an example of the first line, scanned:

AR ma vi RUM que ca NO TROI AE QUI PRI mu sa BO RIS

See how that works? For starters, "ar," "rum," "troi," "ae," "qui," and "ris" are all long by position (diphthongs count too). Remember, they all have consonants at the end or are diphthongs. The reason I knew that "no" and "pri" were long by nature is because of how the line was going. One can have no more than two long or two short syllables in a row. Once "que ca" had been proven short, "no" couldn't be anything other than long.

There are a few other rules, but I think I have said quite enough now. I hope anyone who reads these posts can take something from them. It is good to be able to write out some of what I've learned here, and communicate the excellent qualities of the Latin language. My next post, and probably my last on this subject for now, will be on the beauty of Vergil's Latin, and how he positions words and uses multiple figures of speech to achieve some pretty amazing effects.

Virginia Tech and the New Isolationism

2007-04-22T17:18:00.000-07:00

In the wake of the killing-spree at the Virginia Tech campus (which I must say, though a horrible tragedy just as any murder of innocent people is, is not particularly unusual), we must ask ourselves what kind of culture could produce the kind of reaction many people in this country have had.

We are living in what, if it is not the most violent century our world has known, is certainly no less bloody than the preceding eras. Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, suicide bombings, Israeli and Palestinian tensions, student riots in Paris, Mexican immigrants, Sudanese starvation, Kim-Jong Ill's regime in North Korea (notice how no one hears about that unless he does something to make interesting news?)...the list could go on. Although we are generally more comfortable and generally more protected from diseases and unsanitary conditions on most levels (though only in some parts of the world), the world is still a dangerous place, and fixes to remain so for a long while, barring a miracle.

Throughout history, that the world is a dangerous place has been recognized, whether explicitly or implicitly, by nearly every nation and culture that I can think of. The Romans carved out their empire by force of arms. Men in medieval times kept armed retainers in their castles, and peasants no doubt knew how to use their tools for more than just farming when the neighboring lord took a fancy to their land. Young boys began learning the arts of war and knighthood at about seven, if I recall aright. One of the central ideas of being a man meant being prepared to fight. Even women in medieval times could often take over the command of a castle if the menfolk were away.

In the nineteenth century, although pacifism was on the rise in some groups, it seems at least from my research that murderous criminals and other domestic dangers were endured as the unfortunate trappings of any society in this fallen world, not some surprise boulder out of the sky that shatters our carefully constructed, but very thin, ice. Perhaps I am wrong, and the roots of this problem were plainly evident further back than I imagine. Be that as it may, however, I think it is safe to guess that the reaction we have seen from many of the most vocal and influential people in this country, not to mention, I am sure, a great number of the equally important but less noticed people who are the 'ordinary citizens,' is a fairly unique phenomenon in the history of the world.

A man walks into a college campus and shoots 32 people dead. What is our reaction? Rome would have beheaded him. Ancient Israel would have stoned him (and in modern Israel he would have been shot dead almost before he aimed at his first victim). Communist Russia, depending on which side he was on, might arguably have condoned him. But America is probably the first nation to pretend that others like him can be stopped by simply ignoring the things that drive them to do what they do, and the means to stop them from doing it when they take that deadly step.

Others have belabored the issue of gun control, but I shall a little nonetheless. It is certainly obvious to me, and should be to everyone else, that even five or six students with semi-automatic pistols or revolvers with even a rudimentary knowledge of their use could have downed Cho Seung-Hui in seconds. He might have shot a few people first, but perhaps only eight or ten students would have died rather than 32. Arguably Seung-Hui could have gone on killing had he not committed suicide, at least until the police arrived. That is a sickening thought--the police are not omnipotent, and to think that so many of our citizens not only depend solely on them for armed protection (which usually means they die waiting for it), but they also frequently complain that the police are over reactive or, when they do shoot, shoot excessively, is fairly frightening. There is a book out called More Guns, Less Crime: the title speaks for itself. I have not personally read the book (I should soon), but my mother has and would definitely recommend it. The book provides, I believe, some hard statistics about how concealed carry reduces crime.

Now, moving on from gun control, I come to the main point of my post, which was mainly inspired by an April 22 post by Mark Steyn called Let's be Realistic About Reality (linked here). Steyn's basic point is that Americans have isolated themselves from reality. I will quote him: "To promote vulnerability as a moral virtue is not merely foolish. Like the new Yale props department policy, it signals to everyone that you're not in the real world." This, I think, is a very compelling case for what is wrong with the general liberal worldview. It is well-meaning and often, no doubt, arises from principles with which I would not disagree (for instance, that violence against the innocent is wrong, that we should strive for peace, that the earth is precious, etc.) The problem is that many of them believe we live in a world where these things are possible by just talking it out. That is why we have bumper stickers like "give peace a chance." I seriously doubt that those who use those bumper stickers realize what it means to give peace a chance. "Giving something a chance" means cultivating conditions in which something can take place or exist. To give dodos a chance we would have had to not hunt them or take steps to protect their habitat.

But giving peace a chance is a rather different matter, because dodos, as well as I can guess, probably did not actively fight against being saved from extinction. Peace, however, is a very different thing from the existence of dodos, because the maintenance of peace depends on both parties in whatever interaction may be taking place. It demands the mutual consent of both people or groups of people. Here's the problem: people like the Palestinian government and the Iraqi and Afghani suicide bombers--and Cho Seung-Hui--don't want to make peace. Their ideologies, or their mental problems, demand total war and destruction. It's like trying to add two negatives and always getting a positive number. One part peace plus one part aggression equals two parts war. The only difference is that one side doesn't fight back. Do you know what happens then? Of course you do. The aggressive guy wins because he has the guns, the guts, the reason for fighting, and the knowledge that the other chap won't shoot back.

There is only one way to make peace in this situation (unless God should intervene in a special way): defend yourself. It is a sad but basically irrefutable truth that the best way to peace with a determined, fanatical enemy is to make war with him.

Now, I will admit that that way of handling things isn't fun, and we Americans are pretty fond of fun things. What is the end result? Well, many people have noted how childhood seems to be encroaching more and more on our culture as the attitudes and learning-levels associated with adolescence never seem to disappear. In this case many of us have acted just like the child who hears the scary noises outside and buries his head under the covers. In the child's case, we know his fears are unfounded, and tell him so: they are just monsters in his head. His fear is genuine but needless. He does not need to bury his head under the covers, but neither does he need to sleep with a gun under his covers. In our case, the scary noises outside are not crickets or tree branches rubbing against the window. They are real monsters, and we still have our heads under the covers. Of course we know why: it's dark and comfortable in there, and it sure seems like nothing can get past that blanket. One can simply imagine the monster was part of his imagination, or will grow bored and leave. But if one knew the first thing about monsters, he'll know they aren't fooled by blankets.

Americans need to take the covers off their heads and starting thinking realistically. Our problems will not go away by ignoring them, and recognizing their existence is the first step. We need to stop pretending that violent crime or suicidal attacks are so "shocking," which is the media's favorite term for events like the shootings at Virginia Tech. Terrible, yes; sinful, yes; heartrending, yes. But shocking? Apparently we have forgotten 9/11, Columbine, and the murder of the Amish girls last year. Not only that, but people had plenty of advanced notice that Seung-Hui was mentally disturbed and had a dangerous attraction for brutal and grotesque violence. Why was Virginia Tech "shocked"? Because they preferred to hide under the blankets and pretend that such a thing could never happen. Imagine what a child would feel like if a green, clawed hand actually poked a hole in his blanket! No doubt he would be shocked. But if he were tagging along behind his father, hunting the monsters outside, the interposition of a clawed and green hand might be frightening and might not be pretty, but it would never be unexpected.

Every creature, whether animal or man, naturally seeks the weakest things as prey. Lions, hyenas, carjackers, and disturbed college students alike know that the old, the sickly, and the unprepared are prime targets. I doubt that lions hesitate for a second to hunt gazelle, because gazelle have absolutely no natural defenses except speed that can arm them against a creature as strong and well-built for attack as a lion. But it would be a singular occurrence, possibly a non-existence occurrence, when you would see a lion taking on an adult bull elephant, except perhaps in times of literal starvation. Why? Bull elephants are big, tough, and armed with long tusks, and they charge when threatened. Maybe if we took our cue from the elephants, the lions at home and abroad might change their tune. And even if one of those times or starvation come around and the criminals and terrorists get desperate, remember: the elephant usually wins.

Lingua Latina, Part I: the Versatility of Inflection and Tense

2007-04-19T20:52:00.000-07:00

Due primarily to the posts of David, I have decided to expand the scope of this blog a little to some other interests of mine, including writing and classical languages, specifically Latin. I will still post, of course, on theological, philosophical, and historical subjects (though David will probably be able to supply the history part much more ably) but I think that this is also the best public forum under my control for a more serious treatment of these subjects that greatly interest me.

I have been, as many of you know, in a class this school year called AP Latin IV: Vergil. This class is designed to prepare one to take the Advanced Placement exam on Vergil's Aeneid, and we are now almost through the approximately 1850 lines that the AP exam tests on. My understanding of the Latin language has grown enormously since studying this amazing poet, and I wanted to share some of the peculiarities and attributes of his language, which has many resources of power and description that English can only look at longingly (and, I confess, some areas in which English is probably superior).

The first and probably most obvious attribute of Latin, the one that most textbooks will hammer into students' brains from day one, is that it is an inflected language. The listener or reader can tell the purpose of a word in a sentence based on its ending letters, not necessarily by its position, as in English. A language based on this system, besides forcing students of it to learn multiple declensions and conjugations, has the ability to juggle words within a phrase or clause almost at will, depending on the purposes of the author. This provides the Latin author with the enviable ability to emphasize nearly any word he wants at any point in the sentence, a feat impossible, at least on such a scale, in English. I will take as a case a point a section early on in the epic where Juno, queen of the gods, is lamenting the fact that she, with all her power, has been unable to destroy the Trojan fleet, while Minerva, technically a lesser goddess, has been able to exact revenge on an enemy of hers, namely Ajax son of Oileus. Narrating what Minerva did to the unfortunate man, Juno says the following:

illum exspirantem transfixo pectore flammas/ turbine corripuit scopuloque infixit acuto...

A typical English translation of this passage might be "she seized with a whirlpool the man, breathing flames from his transfixed chest, and stuck him on a sharp rock." If one followed the actual word order of the Latin, however, it would read something like "the man breathing from his transfixed chest flames with a whirlpool she snatched and on a rock stuck sharp." The reaction of an English reader to such a hash of words would be to scratch his head. In Latin poetry, however, this is par for the course. With the position of his words, Vergil can, for instance, emphasize the man's "transfixed chest" by positioning it between exspirantem and flammas. Latin is capable of producing very physical effects with the positioning of words. Another example, perhaps even more startling, comes from book 4. Dido, queen of Carthage, has fallen in love with Aeneas, but after spending a whole winter with her he is abruptly commanded by the gods to leave. After wildly denouncing him as a traitor and calling down curses on his head, Dido runs inside. Vergil recounts her frenzied flight with these words:

His medium dictis sermonem abrumpit et auras/ aegra fugit...

"She breaks off (in) the middle of her conversation with these words and, wretched, flees the air."

But notice how Vergil has interposed the word "medium," middle, in the very middle of his dictis, these words. This kind of graphic interposition doesn't really work in English. We can't get away with "these in the middle of words her conversation she breaks off." Of course, good English poets can work around these limitations, but it is still a definite advantage of Latin.

Another advantage of Latin is a much more powerful use of tenses, in my experience particularly the perfect and pluperfect, although there may be many others I am not aware of. Two examples of that. The first, of the powerful use of the pluperfect, is not from the Aeneid, and comes (I think) from Cicero talking about the execution of the famous Roman traitor Catiline, or some of his followers. Cicero said to the Senate one word: vixerat. In English that would literally translate "they had lived," but the basic sense is they are dead, i.e., they did live up to a certain time in the past, but do no longer.

The other one, from the Aeneid itself, shows out the juxtaposition of the present and perfect tenses can make an interesting effect. I do not remember the precise section, but Vergil is describing Mercury flying to Carthage with a message for Aeneas. The present tense, I believe, is used to the describe Mercury's flight, and the perfect tense to describe his landing in Carthage--the implication being that the god is outside time, since he landed at the place, at least grammatically, before he even started flying!

Time constrains me from going on, so I shall leave this discussion for now, and hope that I have made this subject at least somewhat interesting to others, and would not be better off addressing the empty air. :-)

Technology: We Still Have to be Stewards

2007-03-23T20:49:00.000-07:00

When I was a little younger, I was a devoted fan of the movie Jurassic Park. I still like it, although I do not petition my family to watch it nearly so often as I once did. Although neither the movie nor the book on which it was based are exceptionally good art, the story's creator, Michael Crichton, spoke and still speaks on subjects like global warming, genetic research, and other aspects of technology with sanity and intelligence. In the movie version of Jurassic Park, the character Ian Malcolm says a line something like (I paraphrase): "Your scientists were so taken with pursuing what they could do that never stopped to wonder if they should." He is speaking to the creator of a biological park that has learned how to genetically create dinosaurs from DNA left over in the blood of prehistoric mosquitos. The result, as many who read this may know, is disaster: human corruption and ignorance of the real magnitude of the undertaking (not to mention of the behavioral patterns of the dinosaurs themselves) take several lives and lead to the destruction of the park.

I have found Ian Malcolm's statement a peculiarly succinct expression of my concerns over modern technology and economics, concerns that I know many share. Those who invent and use modern technology have the ability, divine Providence allowing, to push the levels of innovation, production, and consumption to the limit. In the foreseeable future, our economies will simply continue to grow. The question is, do we want this?

I am the first to admit that technology has done many wonders for the world. I was born just on the cusp of the cellular phone technology, and have been able to access the internet since I was probably 6 or 7. Doubtless it was around earlier than that, since Al Gore is sufficiently older than I am to have invented it before my birth. ;-) And, although I often envision and write about societies in which none of these technologies exist, I am sure that it would be a strange, inconvenient, sometimes difficult adjustment to be suddenly deprived of them. They have enabled earth's largest populations to enjoy the largest over-all wealth and prosperity, and given us unprecedented means to save time and exploit the world's resources.

Despite this, however, many men and women seem to have failed to realize an important truth: every coin has two sides. Every human advancement is laden with consequences, usually unintended, that can mitigate some (or all) of its benefits. Although I am no extremist when it comes to global warming, it is certainly true that technological advancements like cars, airplanes, and trains have the consequence of consuming fossil fuels and emitting carbon monoxide. I don't think that this will lead to Armageddon in the next four minutes, or kill all the polar bears, but I am sure that it has some kind of harmful impact. It's certainly made us tied to the apron-strings (or AK-47 barrels) of the Middle East.

It isn't only cars and trucks and things that go, either: the use of chemicals on crops have prevented some harmful diseases and the ravages of insects, but I think (I have no solid proof on hand to back this up, so correct me if I am wrong) that there are mitigating circumstances attendant on this practice as well. We have also poured billions of dollars into satellites searching for extra-terrestrial signals, manned missions to the moon, and probes sent to photograph stars and planets. Although these are interesting exhibitions of economic and technological power, and perhaps fascinate some people, I at least find them ultimately useless, particularly when 1) I doubt we will find little green men or cures of cancer one some distant planet--the Bible tells us to consider the heavens, but not that God has peopled (martianed?) them--and 2) there are so many more important things on our own planet that NASA's prodigious talent and budget could probably better serve.

How do we reconcile these two sides of the coin? In the same way, I think, that we ought to reconcile anything else: by following God's will and changing the hearts of men. We are still supposed to be good stewards of the earth, whether we are using plows or combines, chariots or Mercedes, and the very fact that our capacity for destruction has increased many times ought to increase our caution and our respect for what we are tinkering with even more. Dangerous tools require careful handling. We can fly probes to Mars, invent birth control pills, build 4,000 Wal-Marts, and probe and poke about the limits of human capacity in a myriad of different ways.

But should we?

Why I Do Not Believe in Free Will

2007-03-14T20:08:00.000-07:00

Romans 9

I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, that I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son. And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God. Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved: For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth. And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.

What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Still Racist

2007-02-24T22:12:00.000-08:00

The Hamilton family of two generations back is quite bigoted. I have a great-uncle who is unconcerned to say that he "hates d---ned Mexicans" to the face of a man whose Mexican wife is sitting right next to him. In their anecdotes, my grandparents and most of their siblings are quick to point out if someone is Asian or 'colored.' The truth is, racism isn't dead: anywhere. White supremacists still exist, men who predate the civil rights movement and lived in a day when buses were still segregated, and I doubt that many of them even condescend to think about the "white man's burden."

The problem, however, is not limited to Caucasians. Taking advantage of the mind-boggling contortions that politically-conscious whites perform to ensure that no prejudice is ever even hinted at, other races (proving that they are, in fact, human beings just the same), have begun to turn they tables. They prey on the new white man's burden: the burden of guilt that has grown beyond all due proportion.

What is racism, after all? It is the assumption that a class of people with common ancestry are fundamentally inferior to another. The truth is, however, that no race can be lumped under one umbrella of definition. Even in my short life, I have had ample proof that there are incalculable gulfs between William Jefferson Clinton and Mark Steyn, between Mel Gibson and King Arthur, between Jacques Chirac and Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Just so there are wide differences between Thomas Sowell and the common street rapper, between Michael Jackson (does he count as black anymore?) and Jesse Jackson, between Morgan Freeman and Harriet Tubman. Or between Pancho Villa and Vincente Fox, or between Mao Tse-Tung and the Emperor Meiji.

All this is to say that racism is not a new phenomenon. Nor should Caucasians take the burden of all its evils upon themselves, as though the slave trade and 18th century imperialism were the only manifestations of racism since the days of the Spartans and the Helots. Certainly the antebellum South never had tests of manhood where a Southern boy hunted down and killed a slave. This is not to excuse American slavery or any form of white racism. It is to say, however, that treating Western civilization as the grandfather of bigotry is a gross misconception. Have we forgotten that even from the dawn of Greek civilization until now is less than half the world's history? Have we forgotten the Egyptians, the Persians, the Amorites, or the Indian Untouchables?

The problem that needs to be addressed is not so shallow as the American slave trade and Depression-era segregation and prejudice. Ours is but one chapter in a long history of human depravity. For racism really centers around pride and the desire to have someone to look down on, and contrast yourself favorably with, and this has been with us since Eve bit the forbidden fruit. We did it once, and now African-Americans are beginning to do much the same thing. Perhaps we ought to be widening our perspective just a little, and stop acting as though it all began with those few slaves sold in Jamestown back in the seventeenth century. But then, to attain such an historical perspective would entail a radical change in the way history is taught...and that might take a few more posts of its own.

~Connor

The Wisdom of Dorothy Sayers

2007-02-10T13:02:00.000-08:00

From The Mind of the Maker:

"Has the fact that enthusiastic crowds cheer and scream around professional footballers, while offering no enthusiastic greetings to longshoremen, anything to do with the wages offered to footballers and longshoremen respectively?" (204).

-----------------------

"Consider how, in the last twenty years, we have endeavored to deal with the 'problem of peace and security,' and whether we do not still secretly hug the delusion that it is possible to deal with it as a 'problem.' We really persuaded ourselves that peace was something that could be achieved by a device, by a set of regulations, by a League of Nations or some other form of constitution, that would 'solve' the whole matter once and for all. We continue to delude ourselves that 'when the war is over' we shall 'this time' discover the trick, the magic formula, that will stop the sun in heaven, arrest the course of events, make further exertion unnecessary. Last time we failed to achieve this end--and why? Chiefly because we supposed it to be achievable. Because we looked at peace and security as a problem to be solved and not as a work to be made"(206).

Why Americans Hate War

2007-02-02T19:04:00.000-08:00

More accurately, I shall try to sort through my thoughts and elucidate what I think is one reason why so many people protest the Iraqi War, and perhaps why so many people protested the Vietnam War.

We in America live extremely cushioned lives. This point has been driven home time and again, but it needs to be reiterated. The previous century left a bloody wake of genocide, starvation, political corruption, and moral degradation, the first two of which America missed almost entirely. Not for us were the mass executions in Communist Russia. Not for us were the racial exterminations in Hitlerian Germany or Milosevichian Bosnia. Moral degradation we received in plenty, but it was the soft kind of moral degradation, the kind that leads not to totalitarian regimes and brutal murders but to sexual promiscuity, materialism, and escapism. In short, rather than emphasizing what is violent and rapacious in man, America has chosen to do two things: either to channel violence and rapaciousness into neutralizing channels (e.g., organized sports, violent video games, movies depicting senseless violence and illicit or even aberrant sexuality, etc.) or done away with violence and rapaciousness altogether (e.g., New Age philosophy, environmentalism, pacifism, etc.). These are over-generalizations, but my purpose is not to explore all the exceptions to these rules, but rather to posit them as a key part of American culture today.

I ought not leave political corruption alone either. We have our share of that. The two primary political parties have, in most cases, set themselves in such furious opposition to each other that cooperation between them is difficult. This situation forces someone aligning himself with a particular party to subscribe to a whole host of issues in order to be truly considered "one of them." This is not so great an influence as (and is probably in great part a result of) America's moral state, but it does serve to exacerbate contention over the issue of the war, since we are so divided as to consider it a Republican enterprise, it being the Democrats' duty to oppose it without question.

Here is the point of all this. For good or ill, America is no longer used to war, and no longer wants it. America (in general) would rather continue with what Dorothy Sayers calls the "whirligig" of production, the materialistic, escapist, easy lifestyle to which most of us are used. Warfare does not fit into this scheme because war is proximate and frightening. War means taking a stand. War means being brave. War means doing your part and giving something up. Americans (again, in general) do not like to give things up. After all, how could we survive without cell phones, ipods, blackberries, soda pop and SUVs?

I find it a curious fact that this is the first war I have experienced as a cognizant person (I was about 1 during the Gulf War), and yet I have lived through it with astonishingly little recognition that any war is going on at all. There is no "home front." It is a war pursued solely by the military and the government. I am sure that the wives, parents, siblings and children of the soldiers at war are keenly conscious of what this nation is going through, but the rest of the nation, at least here in northwestern Oregon, seem to need a wake-up call to realize that we are AT WAR, and not only at war but simultaneously pursuing two wars in foreign countries for the purpose of eliminating terrorist insurgents and establishing a democratic government in the wake of a conquered regime. Maybe it's because I've never been involved in a war before, but I like to think that people back in World War I or II were more aware of what was going on.

Again, I think all this may simply stem from the fact that Americans don't want war. They don't like it. The logical consequence of fighting a war is privation. Fortunately, our country's economy is massive enough to absorb the cost of keeping tens of thousands of troops (not to mention aircraft carriers, helicopters, fighter jets, etc.) deployed in Middle Eastern countries. But I have often wondered what things in general would be like if we stopped spending so many billions on Halloween decorations and $99 inflatable lawn snowmen, $50,000 vehicles of questionable practicality, 4,000 square foot homes on 4,020 square foot lots, and so on, and started to wield our formidable collective purchasing-power on things that mattered. There are almost countless causes to which so enormous a cash flow could be directed, but perhaps the war effort could be one of them.

I know that many people say the war in Iraq was wrong. Is it maybe because some of them can't face a war? I doubt that many people who read this post will misinterpret me and assume that I want a war. I don't. The reality of the ugliness and aberrant, curse-inflicted misery of war has been brought home increasingly to me as my knowledge of human depravity, loss, deprivation, and even the nitty-gritty of combat has expanded. But maybe that is why I am also somewhat shocked (though not entirely surprised) at our reaction to our country's wars. The Federal army alone lost 110,100 men during the Civil War--in action. Factoring in disease, murder, suicide, accidents, drowning, death as prisoner's of war, etc., we arrive at 389,753 deaths for the Union army alone--and let us not forget the 289,000 deaths the Confederacy endured. Although the death of even one man is a tragedy, this staggering total of well over 700,000 deaths makes our losses in Afghanistan and Iraq look like a bloody nose.

I ask your forgiveness for a somewhat disjointed post, but do you see at least a glimmer of my point? 30% of Americans can't place the year of the September 11th attacks (Harper's Index, November 2006 issue). At least I remember it was 2001. How did we forget so fast? Iraq had a hideous government, one that tortured prisoners and slaughtered ethnic groups. Enormous numbers of Americans consider our war there not just a possible mistake, but a downright moral evil. Why? Am I missing something?

Do Americans just not want to face war?

Femininity and Warfare

2007-01-16T15:39:00.000-08:00

I have a question for you all.

One of the characters in my fantasy trilogy is a woman highly skilled in the arts of combat (in the European tradition; no "Trinity"s here). Her particular expertise is the longbow, but she can fight with sword and knife as well as most of the men of her race (who are themselves much stronger than ordinary men). She is no Eowyn or Brunhilde, however, but a very feminine character without any death wishes or bloodthirstiness. Nevertheless--because I am a man--I face some inevitable limitations exploring the ramifications of femininity in a physically powerful woman who is one of the few strong and skilled enough to defend a land torn by widespread war and harried by numerous enemies.

I have posted on this subject in a forum specific to the books themselves, but I would like to ask here about the general principle (though I seek advice mainly for this particular character). The Bible clearly defends self-defense and even tactical involvement in war on the part of women: Jael lures Sisera into her tent (promising him that he need fear not) and drives a tent spike through his head, a bloody affair that must have taken considerable nerve to execute; and Rahab lies through her teeth to keep the Israelite spies safe, an ancient version of modern techniques like radar-jamming, fake radio messages and dummy minefields. C.S. Lewis seems to find a rear-line supportive role acceptable (Lucy and Susan both ply their bows at various points in the Chronicles of Narnia, Lucy at least on the field of battle itself in The Horse and His Boy). Now, none of these sources support front-line combat for women, and neither do I. My character is not a soldier, professional or volunteer, and she does not accompany the men in the front lines. She does defend her city (actively) from attack, and when an important character is placed in serious danger she does not hesitate to join the small band of friends that sets out to rescue that character (and fight unrelentingly to defend herself and others in the process).

Still, I would appreciate the input of others on this issue. I want this character to reflect true femininity, since one of the major purposes of my trilogy is to have my chief characters represent, at least in the long run, characteristics that I believe to be ideal. I want my "ideal characteristics" to conform to the Bible, of course, whence all ideals arise. So, any of you, but especially ladies: how can one be feminine in a war? If a woman possesses the strength to fight, to what extent and in what circumstances ought she to engage in combat? What is the proper ratio between leaving the fighting to the men and doing one's share? Is making a woman so strong and well-trained in combat a negation of femininity of itself in the first place? Go for it. I shan't get rid of the character (I enjoy writing about her too much for that, and she's quite integral to the story), but as I go through the editing process I would value your advice.

Paolini's Empricism

2007-01-13T21:10:00.000-08:00

The publication of Eldest, the second book in Christopher Paolini's Inheritance Trilogy, is (at least as far as the popular fantasy genre goes) somewhat of a thing of the past, but I felt moved to post about a particularly odious two and-a-half pages of parroted mantra couched within this massive, middle-man epic. These books are fairly influential among teenagers, and Paolini emerges as a debtor to (and self-confessed reader of) the insidious Phillip Pullman--leading children astray with a hash of skeptical and empiricist dogma. If logic were a more common subject, his arguments would be irrelevant, but it is unfortunately more than likely that some teens will consider (or have considered) this passage to be a powerful argument against the existence of God.

A little background, for those who have not read the book. Eragon, the protagonist, began as a farm boy in an out-of-the-way village in the midst of a large, pseudo-medieval kingdom. After a series of events hurl him unwillingly into the political and martial imbroglio for the rescue of his land from its evil overlord, he proceeds to discover that he is first in a next generation of Dragon-Riders, the warrior chaps who protect mankind and rule in justice and so on. In the second book he is now undergoing training by an elf named Oromis, a sort of fantasy Dahli Lama who preaches peace and attunement to nature. The part about which I intend to speak arises after Eragon questions Oromis concerning the religion of the Elves. Oromis replies,

"'We do not worship at all.'"

Now hold it right there. Before we continue, let us examine whether this statement is possible. A little logic will swiftly reveal that it is self-contradictory. It is an often humorous fact that human beings cannot avoid worshipping something, and often it is those who repudiate worship with the most vitriol who are found to be slavishly devoted to a particular mantra. This is, in fact, exactly what the elves do. They worship reason. They worship 'logic' and empiricism. Of this more further on.

After a sneering paragraph clearly intended to lump Christians together with believers in naive superstition, Oromis goes on to say,

"'...I cannot prove that gods do not exist....But I can tell you that in the millennia we elves have studied nature, we have never witnessed an instance where the rules that govern the world have been broken. That is, we have never seen a miracle."

There is more manifest naivete in this argument. Of course, this world is of Paolini's own invention and he can certainly create one in which the rules of nature are never broken, as they have been on earth from time to time (e.g., the stopping of the sun, the collapse of the walls of Jericho, the Plagues of Egypt, the resurrection of Christ, etc.). Nevertheless, to say that the simple observance of the unbroken laws of nature is a powerful argument against the existence of divine power (or at least reason enough to produce untouchable skepticism on the issue) is a logical nightmare. Oromis--and through him, Paolini--seem to think that nature and a divine power are both immortal and co-existent things. This of itself contradicts all Biblical teaching, at which Paolini is obviously jabbing. It never seems to enter his mind that God may have created a world with an actual beginning, with rules that He generally enforces. He seems to think that God (or a god or gods) must meddle with nature in order to produce any kind of result. I cannot think of any conceivable reason as to why a truly rational being would embrace this argument as a triumphant blow to the existence of God. It's like a man finding an internal combustion engine and presuming that, because it always burned petroleum to power a drive shaft by means of cylinders, no matter how often he observed it, it must have existed there for all time and had no maker.

But we aren't nearly done yet. Paolini thinks he has yerked Christianity another thrust beneath the ribs with the Problem of Evil:

"'If gods exist, have they been good custodians of Alagaesia? Death, sickness, poverty, tyranny, and countless other miseries stalk the land. If this is the handiwork of divine beings, then they are to be rebelled against and overthrown, not given obeisance, obedience, and reverence.'"

Before anything else, this statement reveals monstrous pride and rebellion. It should hardly be very surprising, and this is in fact a fairly cogent expression of the thoughts and words rebellious men have flung at the Almighty since the Curse. Oromis also seems to feel confident in his ability to overthrow a divine being. But really, if this bleak outlook on divinity were true, would it not rather be cause for despair? If God is actually a sadistic monster, why then, sit and await your doom. If God does not exist, then you are on your own in a Darwinian wasteland, and what comfort is that?

Paolini also fails to take into account all the philosophers who have trounced the objections of the Problem of Evil. This is old news, and need not trouble the Christian at all. It never seems to enter Paolini's mind that God (or a god, in his world) might allow evil and suffering to demonstrate His glory.

One last quote. Eragon voices his last, faltering, straw-man objection to Oromis' laughably serious precis of his religion--er, belief-system--I mean, set of objective realities! I guess he'd take offense if I called it what it is.

"' It seems a cold world without something...more'" (ellipsis marks Paolini's).

"'On the contrary. It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our own actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment. I won't tell you what to believe, Eragon. It is far better to be taught to think critically than to have someone else's notions thrust upon you.'"

This, again, is as smug and self-assured a paragraph as I have said, and comes across as coolly dismissive. It is also perhaps the easiest to refute. First of all, to say that a man (or elf) is responsible for his own actions is clearly holding him to a standard--but what standard? Reason? That will not suffice. Reason does not tell us that we are responsible for our actions. In fact, in a materialistic world, the first thought that would enter the mind of a thinking man is that he is answerable to himself alone. He need respond to no one and give an account of what he did and why. After all, he and his fellow humans are all that there is.

Then take this statement--"Where we can be kind to each other because he want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment." But this is silly. Men do not want to be kind to each other; they want others to be kind to them. Anger is easy. Patience and kindness are difficult, and we humans love the easy road. Also, the sentence is contradictory. It sets up human will as the arbiter (and read The Abolition of Man to see where that leads), and then promptly follows it with another standard-setter, "the right thing to do." The right thing according to whom, or to what? The right thing because we want it? But we do not all want the same thing, nor can we say with any confidence that something is intrinsically right because we desire it. In fact, all that we can say about such things is that we desire them, if we have no other references on which to base our judgments.

There, I am done. It is actually quite sad to read this and see how Paolini skips around on the edge of the brink and tries to convince himself that his view makes sense. It is so easy to lapse into despair, since despair is really all that there is after all the chimeras are dispersed from this kind of view. The fact is, man has a designer, and because of this he wants one--longs for one. And when he tries to pretend one doesn't exist, all he gets is madness and chaos. I hope all the young, impressionable, confused teenagers who read these books for their exciting plots realize the same thing. Because these words will imprint themselves on their minds, and stay with them when they grow up.

~Connor

Plantinga on Dawkins

2007-01-12T23:04:00.000-08:00

Here is another page from the same site (The Pearcey Report): an excellent review of Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion by Alvin Plantinga.

I am currently writing a post of my own, but I encourage to read these articles in the mean time. They're good.

Stossel on Minimum Wage

2007-01-12T20:15:00.000-08:00

Conservative columnist John Stossel has written a very good article on the fundamental problems with minimum wage laws here.

2006-12-24T17:11:00.000-08:00

Merry Christmas!

"For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes lying in a manger.' And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, 'Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men."

~Luke 2: 12-14

Gloria in excelsis Deo.

The Jaguar-Skeptics

2006-11-24T18:29:00.000-08:00

Let us face the obvious fact that most Christians don't like to be noticed for what they really are. In private and among friends we love to expound upon those things that we (very sincerely) believe to be true, but when it comes to those people you work with, or that friend you don't want to offend, or such-and-such group, which may very well be composed of Christians like you, that is generally engaging in talking behind someone's back, or laughing at a joke that is not quite right, our resolve often thins a little. I have laughed along too from time to time.

But this view is downright madness. Its source is common human cowardice, nothing less: the old fear of man. This may be made plainer when we understand what a Christian witness is really like.

Suppose a big group of people was trying to convince itself that jaguars (or lions or tigers or bears or what have you) do not exist. They went to the length or writing books and making vociferous speeches on the subject. Not only this, but they took it upon themselves to fume and take great offense at those stone-age nicompoops who had the cheek to embrace the delirious fancy that wild beasts actually exist. Men may strike lecterns and swear by the existence of Phoenixes, unicorns, gryphons, dragons, and every other invention of the human imagination, but wild-beast-ites are nothing but fundamentalist prudes (since they also embrace those insufferable notions of making preparations against attack and not letting their children run around in the jungle at night), who are actually dragging down society, because they are trying to convince people not to do such liberating things as pull down their walls and use their arrows for firewood.

Now, if you stumbled upon an outlandish group like this, your first reaction would probably be laughter. Your second, after realizing that they were truly serious, would be (since you are but a man) probably disdain. Then one would hope you would feel pity and a sense of urgency for these poor, illusionary souls, cheating themselves with chimerae while danger loomed in the form of those very beasts the belief in which they scoffed at. Certainly you would never feel in the least ashamed at affirming the reality of jaguars in their presence. You would, in fact, cite that fact repeatedly, perhaps thumbing through a biological textbook or the photographs of a naturalist for extra proof. Better yet, you would show them the practical evidence of jaguars: spoor, tracks, recent kills, legends among other peoples, scratch marks on trees, dens, and the like.

I challenge anyone to tell me how our manner in spreading the Christian faith should be significantly different. The main differentiation is that Christianity is so much more important that the threat of death or pain, which might shut us up about jaguars--at least until they started to attack--ought never to stop us from affirming the divinity of Christ or the reality of substitutionary atonement. Certainly public ridicule should not stop us. The souls of men are at stake, not our self-image. The jaguar-believers might have mud slung at them in the street, even be exiled like gypsies, but they would certainly maintain a staunch attitude about their belief and never have the least thought of conformity. If they did, the jaguar-skeptics would crow over their victory, for no one looks more ridiculous than a man who proposes something so stupendously dramatic and life-changing as Christianity by his hearth, and then actually doesn't let it show by the hearth of someone else. Our families already know. It's the other people who had better be able to tell the difference.

~The Musing Protestant

National Symbols

2006-10-28T22:22:00.000-07:00

And here I am, back again. Greetings.

It is my intention to muse here, as I ought to do, given my blog's title. I do not intend to take a particular side in this issue at the present moment. I cannot even guarantee the integrity of my postal infrastructure--I may ramble. Bear with me.

The topic of this post was incited by something brought up in the Tabletalk family devotional booklet my family uses in the evenings. Having had several theological or philosophical ideas float through my head that I never quite ended up posting here, I decided that enough is enough and that I should post this here. I want this blog to be much more active.

I said I might ramble. On to what the writer of Tabletalk actually said. He was discussing the phrase "give us day by day our daily bread" from Luke 11: 3. He mentioned that bread, as the staple of the Judean diet in a time when food had to be freshly prepared every day (on account of a paucity of preservation methods), was a nationally-recognized symbol of Life.

This got me thinking about America. We have not only advanced food-preservation techniques but also a ubiquity of food. From tofu to trout, from burgers to bagels, and from chicken to chai tea, we are exposed to a variety of food never shared by another culture until the present day. It is fashionable for any major city to feature restaurants of at least Mexican, Italian, and Asian food. German, French, Arabic, Texan, and so on are also available if one looks in the right places. What this means is that America does not really have a particular staple that symbolizes anything. Followers of the Atkins diet may not find much meaning in "I am the bread of life," and objectors to dairy or sugar products may be little moved by "a land flowing with milk and honey."

Extrapolating this principle a little, I seem to find that America's two most defining traits are these: liberty, and its cousin diversity. Neither of these (I speak of liberty as commonly and I believe wrongly interpreted as the right to do whatever you want) are condusive wires for national symbols. In their cultivation of the common conception of freedom, Americans seem to have lost national symbols, perhaps even national identity, as the bitterly factional elections of the last decade or so have suggested. As I think this through I believe that I am coming down more on one side than another, for it seems to me that America, in its frenetic stranglehold on the concept of diversity, has actually produced division. By constructing artifical barriers between government and religion, between race and race, between crippled and whole, and so on, America has created a nation that is beginning to lose a national identity.

Is this a bad thing? Maybe. I don't know for sure. I do know that what is a powerful symbol for me may not mean much to an African-American slum dweller in Los Angeles or a deconstructionist literary professor in Massachusetts. I'm not saying that we should all be forced to some lowest common denominator of shared standards. But maybe if America started to have more of a sense of itself, we wouldn't have a problem in this department. It took the minds of geniuses to unite us for revolution in 1776, but they did it by appealing to common values. I wonder if even Ben Franklin could do that now.

Thoughts?

Keeping Things in Perspective

2006-06-25T16:08:00.000-07:00

Imagine that you live in a broad valley. It is fertile and rich, full of rivers and crops and fruit-trees. There is every imaginable type of land and every imaginable type of person, such that there would be no need to move outside this valley (remember, it is very broad) in order to find a new adventure or a different type of landscape. Above all, this valley is ruled by a perfect King.

This valley has no walls, and there are paths leading out of it. Along the way are warnings, posted at regular intervals. They are varied, and there are hundreds of them, reading like this: "Warning! Pitfalls ahead." "Danger--man-traps." "Wild beasts ahead; turn back." "You are entering inhospitable lands." These become louder and more urgent the more one progresses.

If a man reaches the plateau above, he will find just what these signs predict. If he continues walking he will be harried, bruised, and cut. More warnings signs will appear. If he walks far enough, then of course he has proven he was never a citizen of the valley at all, but this post does not discuss those sort of people.

It probably does not take much mental gymnastics to see that I am making an extended metaphor of temporary wandering in the Christian walk. My point is more than simply illustrative, however, because every Christians knows that he, along with his brothers and sisters in Christ, all wander at times.

There was a guest pastor at our church today, filling in for our regular pastor, who is on vacation/business elsewhere, and this guest pastor's sermon gave me some food for thought. He talked about the parable of the Prodigal Son, but about half his sermon was on the "good son" who never left his father. He made the interesting point that this son is just as estranged from his father as the prodigal son, and--most interesting of all--that the good son obeyed his father in order to keep his father "out of his life." That is, he obeyed his father not out of love for him, but out of a desire to keep his father at a distance.

In the same way, this guest pastor argued, we sometimes obey God in order to keep Him (so we think) out of our affairs. That is, if we are faithful husbands or faithful wives, raise good children, work at successful jobs and never murder, cheat, or steal, God might not really feel the need to impose all those other rules on us like loving our neighbor (as long as help the old lady with her garbage), and so on.

Some of the points he made in this sermon occasioned in me the thought that in this area we have entirely the wrong perspective. Apparently one of the largest effects of our latent sin nature is keeping the wrong mental perspective on information that we know to be true. I know it is wrong to be proud; I know it is wrong to think uncharitable things about an undeserving acquaintance. Yet I have committed both these sins, and sometimes, at least on the surface, I somehow think my life might not be as "fun" if I completely repudiated them. I know, intellectually, better than that. But my perspective is off.

It is alluring to climb to the top of a valley and see what is there, but there are some places we were not meant to go. When sin draws us, it can mask itself under the pretense of a man with keys, releasing us from some kind of internment, as though the Christian life is a series of bars. But the Christian life places no different kind of restraint on a man than my mother put on me in my youth when I tried to cross the road in front of a car I did not notice. It is time that we move from the intellectual knowledge that the Christian life, life in the valley, is superior, into the practical application. Next time sin comes knocking, think about this. There are two kinds of restraint in the spiritual world: Satan's gaol and God's mansion. There is no such thing as completely independent freedom, as though we move through this world without the guiding hand of any external force. Humans are created to worship and serve. It is time we stop thinking of God's laws as some kind of Divine grounding, keeping us at home when we could be having fun with our friends. They are the bonds of love.

~Connor, the Musing Protestant

Training Through Prayer

2006-05-21T17:46:00.000-07:00

I may complete the post below some time, but for now, the sermon today inspired me to write about another subject.

Let me begin with an analogy. What is it that makes a warrior successful and feared? Strength, dexterity, reflexes, and wisdom are all necessary components. But these will not be honed to perfection without the one constant necessicity of every pursuit: training. A warrior will submit to discipline. He will discuss with his trainers and with himself, receiving their instruction and exchanging information and ideas. But above all, he will practice motions, strength-building exercises, and practical scenarios again, and again, and again. He will devote himself to his labor, however tedious. And then his enemies will run (and he will catch them, for he has run more diligently than they) and his friends will doff their caps or bow in respect, because he has been steadfast in the application of his discipline.

We are not all physical warriors, nor is it necessary to be so. But we Christians are all spiritual warriors. It is not an army to which one simply volunteers. And the battles will be fought. Nonetheless, though everyone is a soldier, not everyone is really ready to fight. God will protect His elect from falling away (to continue the physical analogy, that would be like either dying or being captured), but many can hardly strike one successful blow offensively.

Physical warfare requires physical training. It so follows that spiritual warfare requires spiritual training. One aspect--very important and also very neglected--of this training is prayer. Prayer is the discussion, or rather the communion, with our Commander, God. It is where we bring before him our needs--areas in our spiritual warfare where our skill is woefully lacking, or combat zones beyond our control to deal with. God will reward this kind of communion with training and discipline, via the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit.

The Scriptures and the Holy Spirit are the tools by which we are strengthened, but prayer has a strengthening aspect too, and it is also the means by which we derive the most benefit from those tools. Searching the Scriptures without prayer is like walking into a training field with an instructor, and thinking one knows how to use the equipment. The result will probably be wrongful application that may take considerable un-learning to rectify.

Pray without ceasing, and God will mold you into a fearsome warrior from whom the servants of Satan flee.

~Connor

God's Sovereignty in Election: The Logical Argument

2006-02-12T20:06:00.000-08:00

You all thought I would never update this, did you not? To be sure, I have been sadly tardy. I have thought of writing posts on here often, but schoolwork and novel-writing always conspired to intervene. Let us hope this post makes up for lost time, at least in some small way.

As I said, I am going to post about the question of God's sovereignty. Far be it from me to claim that I have sounded this topic to its depths (no one can), or even to the depths so far reached by human endeavors. But I shall do my best. If I say anything spurious, please correct me.

So far as I can see, there are two primary camps on this subject. The first is the Total Sovereignty view, i.e., that God elected some (not all) to salvation, based on no merit or potential of their own, entirely in His own foreknowledge. The rest He condemns to Hell for their transgressions.

The second camp or position says that the above view actually portrays an unloving God--and since an absence of love is contrary to God's character, this state of affairs cannot be the case. The most common argument for this position is that God--pardon me for using an old and tired phrase--'looked through the corridors of time' to see who would choose Him, and, based on that choice, then saved them.

My allegiance is with the first camp, and the purpose of this post is to answer, as best as God may enable me, the objections of the second camp.

This can further be divided into two categories, however: an argument from logic and an argument from Scripture. I'll tackle the logical argument in this post, and the Scriptural one in the next, though of course there will be overlap between both.

So first, I think it is safe to assume that those in the Corridors of Time camp believe all things came from God. Those who do not need more than a post from me on God's sovereignty. Assuming that, then, an inevitable problem of causality arises. They say that God looked and saw who would choose him. But for moral choices to be made, they need a causer. The immediate causer of that moral choice is the soul. But the creator of our souls is God. Souls are things; all things come from God; therefore God created the soul. And so the ability to choose God must have from from Him.

Some may object to this as mere hair-splitting, but it is not. Simply trumpeting effects without establishing a cause is no argument at all. I believe that, at rock bottom, a so-called "circular" argument is necessary--i.e., God exists because He says he does--but then I also believe that God is above logic and that circularity is no longer a problem at that point. But more on that, perhaps, in another post.

On this level, as I said, trumpeting effects without establishing a cause is no argument at all. It would be like this. Suppose you have a son with blue eyes. You and your wife both have brown eyes. A neighbor notices this and says, "Oh, John has blue eyes, and neither of you do--it must be a recessive gene, huh?"

"No," you reply. "There is no history of blue eyes in our family. He chose them at birth."

That would be, of course, absurd. Infants--or anyone, for that matter--cannot choose their eye color. To say that young John could do as much would be ascribing to him a power he does not possess.

And, if the implications are faced squarely, that is the same thing the Corridor of Time campers are, no doubt mostly unconsciously, doing. To say that God saw who would choose Him, i.e., independently, is ascribing some power to mankind which the Bible (see, told you these would overlap) gives no room for. We have no more power to choose salvation than we have to choose our own eye color.

Again, their purpose is not usually to undermine the notion of God's power. There are many sincere Christians in that camp; in fact they are trying to "protect" God from what they see as an attack on His loving character. But they can only do that by ignoring the cause and concentrating only on the effects. And, as I hope I can show in some way in Part II, this "protection" is not needed at all.

~Connor, the Musing Protestant :-)

In Progress

2005-11-25T10:24:00.000-08:00

I got a good start last evening. It should be done soon. Thanks for waiting! :-)

Pending Post...

2005-10-29T13:56:00.000-07:00

I'm going to post about God's sovereignty vs. human freewill, and all the fun things that topic entails, in a few days (probably after my midterms are over!). Be ready to comment! :-)

Which Liberty?

2005-09-26T16:47:00.000-07:00

There is an interesting discussion going on in my history class; I would like to share a discussion post I wrote and see what you think. It is about the dilemma of liberty that Protestant societies faced during the early part of the Puritan colonization--a dilemma which still applies today, I think.

"The dilemma at the heart of every pefect Protestant society is the balance between liberty and justice.

"This is a really tough subject to tackle, and the fact that so many Puritan thinkers spent a lot of time on the very same thing proves that they thought so too. The line between restricted liberty and unrestricted liberty is a very fine one, and both have their pros and cons.

"Restricted liberty: Restricted liberty means that societal peace is more easily attained. The rules are clearly laid out and there are certain things that one cannot do. This is what Plymouth was like. However, the question arises: is this liberty at all? Whose restrictions are right? I firmly believe, of course, that God's "restrictions" are what makes true liberty, but non-Christians don't believe that. Is it right to force them to live under a Christian society, even against their will? Granted, it would be a great improvement to our society, but is it ethical? I'm not sure. Part of me--much of me--would like to say that it is, but it would take a great deal of study and prayer before I made a firm decision in that regard.

"Unrestricted liberty--The United States of today is at least a close approximation of this...anything not actually criminal is allowed (interesting that those "restrictions" still apply, though, isn't it? Even in a society that is supposedly completely free--free in the 'I can do whatever I want' way--much of the Biblical laws are still in effect). Any religious belief can be held. Anne Hutchinson could walk around a free lady in modern America. But the cons of this policy are obvious...it has created the morally degraded society we live in today.

"Of course, the above difficulty presents itself, but certainly one cannot sit passively and watch America destroy itself without doing something.

"But I don't think John Winthrop's solution is necessarily the right one. Simply changing the outer framework of the way our laws and goverment work is not enough; it could never be maintained by sheer force against an unwilling population.

"The key, I believe, is in men's hearts. Change them by God's power and the exercise of liberty simply means having the freedom to search God's truth and, if you come to a slightly different conclusion than the main body of the church, you do not have to run for your life. Of course, this would inevitably result in heresy eventually, and that is the price of a sinful world. Of course, whether or not those heretics could be forcibly expelled is another matter entirely. (Dilemma indeed! This is tough! ) But that, of course, is a problem that will continue to present itself--and which must be continually fought against--until God begins the redeeming process that leads to the Second Coming. At that point, we won't have to worry about heretics anymore. "

Your thoughts? :-)

P.S. Unrestricted liberty has not created the degraded society we live in today; I misworded that. It has allowed it to take place. (Not that a monarchy or dictatorship or anarchy wouldn't also lead to degradation...like I said, it's a difficult dilemma.)

~Connor

New Look

2005-09-25T16:55:00.000-07:00

So, I finally changed the look around. This one is very sunny and cheery...quite a contrast from my Xanga. :-) A good contrast never hurt.

I really should do a new post here sometime...maybe next weekend or something, eh? Farwell, friends!

~Connor

The Meaning and Purpose of Life

2005-08-06T23:04:00.000-07:00

Finally...sorry, I didn't get to this until tonight. I remind myself to work on it, get caught up in my novel writing, and then have to go to bed. Forgive me. I hope the content makes up for my tardiness.

So--it is difficult to deal with a topic that has absorbed philosophers from Heraclitus to Derrida in one blog post. But I shall try my best.

First, in order to provide a solid foundation on which to build all my other arguments or statements, I will quote to sources--the Bible and the Westminster Shorter Catechism.

From Genesis 1:26, KJV--"And God said, 'Let Us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

From the Westminster Shorter Catechism--"What is the chief end of man? To glorify God and enjoy Him forever."

These two quotations represent the pith and marrow of this post's topic.

Man is made in the image of God. That means he thinks, he loves, he makes decision and moral judgments. He invents and plans ahead and develops technology. Man is without doubt the intellectual pinnacle of creation. He is a creature of unsurpassed development, and though one searched to the depths of the sea or the peak of the highest mountain, no other living thing could be found to match him. Indeed, man rules over all other living things. If there are other intelligences in the universe (which I doubt, but that is for another post...), they would immediately see in mankind the dominant species of the world.

But there must be some purpose to all this. Man is made in the image of God, he has a soul--but why? It cannot simply be to dominate animals. The husbandry of nature is a worthy--and oft abused--goal, but it does not satisfy on all levels.

The answer is simple. "Man's chief end is to glorify God, and enjoy Him forever." That is why we were created. In His infinite wisdom God gave His image to man so that man would glorify Him and recognize His power and the glory and wisdom, which are beyond full recognition. In everything we do, we are to glorify God.

But what meaning does that have? What does it mean to glorify God? It means a multitude of things, but there is one very amazing application that I particularly like. I am deeply touched by incidents where someone risks or lays down his life to save someone else. Jesus, of course, gave the ultimate example of this, but there are many others. However, in our modern, self-centered culture, the notion of "looking out for Number 1" is prevalent. Often men and women are more inclined to save themselves than someone else. Of course it is not universally the case--there are thousands upon thousands whose incredible sacrifices would send chills down anyone's spine--but still, these values are being questioned. And why? Because we have forgotten what to live for. The reason the thought of a man saving a drowning child, even though it means he himself will drown as a cause of it, is inspiring to us--is something we would wish to imitate in the same situation--is simply because it is right. And it is right because God commands it. And doing what God commands brings glory to Him.

That is the center of all things. Man was created to glorify God and obey God's commands. Thus, whether one is called to witness to the tribes in Borneo, to write novels with a Christian worldview, or to own and operate a cannery in the local village, the call is the same: glorify God. A missionary is no more holy than a sales representative.

I could go on, but it is late and I should be getting to bed before long. Bushman, I hope this post has been helpful to you! If you have questions, comments, or criticisms to make, the Musing Protestant is ready. Who knows, maybe you will inspire me to write another post, thereby breaking a record for the shortest length of time between posts. ;-)

God bless you all,

~Connor

Sorry!

2005-08-05T18:20:00.000-07:00

Bushman, I'm sorry, I've been tardy...I really will work on that post tonight! Don't give up on me. :-) Please forgive me for taking so long. It has entered my mind several times, but I never got around to beginning. Tonight I will for certain.

~Connor

The Modern Advertising System

2005-06-12T19:55:00.000-07:00

The ever-musing Protestant is back, after his all too long absence. And he's ready for action. :-)

I'm sure you have, while innocently watching your TV, come across an advertisement whose scenario (not exact words) and intended viewer response go something like this:

This is Joey. He has a hot girlfriend. (Boy! She is nice...wish I could have a girlfriend like that.) Joey drinks an awesome, cool, refreshing brand of beer. (So?) This is the reason he has such a hot girlfriend. (Oh!) You can drink this same awesome, cool, refreshing brand of beer too, and for an affordable price! Then you can be just like Joey. Try it, you'll never regret it...and think about that girlfriend... (I say...not a bad idea! There's a 7-11 a couple blocks down, isn't there? I'm sure they sell that kind of beer there...)

And so on. The system has an almost infinite amount of variations, and sometimes appeals to different appetites (humor, toughness, freedom from "the rules," etc.), but as a general rule this is the basic pattern which modern advertising follows, right? I'm happy to accept disagreement here, you know...:-)

But, supposing for the moment that everyone agrees with me, let us consider: what is this system, exactly? What is it appealing to, and why does it work?

This system appeals almost invariably to the passions, emotions, and desires. Whether that be having a hot girlfriend or building up your biceps or going to the mall and looking good in front of your friends depends mainly on the type of product being sold and the audience at which it is directed. These advertisements dangle before their viewers some particular end, usually to an excess, which they know that most viewers want to some degree, and then tout their product, whether explicitly or implicitly, as a means to that end. The advertisers are really making the incredible claim of being able to satisfy man's greatest temporal desires--a happy marriage; an easy, untroubled life; and so on--with their product.

The strange thing is, these "hooks," so to speak, with which customers are fished for, more often than not have absolutely nothing at all to do with the product being sold. A large percentage of men in this country drink beer, but not all of them have hot girlfriends. Thousands of people own Volkswagen Touaregs and BMW Z-4s, and yet don't zoom down beautiful country roads with a trophy wife at their elbow. So why use this advertising system? Why offer people things which the product can't provide?

The simplest answer to that question is the kind of people our modern culture has produced. We (and I use this as an only semi-inclusive term which doesn't signify everyone in the world; I mainly mean the modern culture of the unsaved, though Christians aren't automatically immune from it themselves) have largely let our desires run amok. Having rejected Christ, our culture searches in an endless, unsatisfactory quest for something foundational, and something touting the ability to provide that--a sort of God-substitute, if you will--must have a powerful pull on people stabbing about in the darkness of the void for something to hold on to. I want happiness in my life. To me that means being muscular, looking good to me friends, having a beautiful wife. The Audi A4 can give me that. I'll buy the Audi A4 and see what happens. Something like that.

So modern advertising only works because of the sort of society we live in. Throw at Thomas Jefferson and he would give two or three hours of blazing rhetoric for every two minutes of commercial time. But throw it at someone nowadays and you get...the world of modern advertising, and modern sales.

What is the solution? Advertisers need to get real and provide us with some deliciously refreshing logical arguments as to why something is useful and should be bought. I'm not against humor in an advertisement. Certainly I wouldn't be one to be against humor! :-) But please, throw in a little how and why with the advertisement. For example: "You should buy X car because it gets superior gas mileage, is fast, reliable, handles well, looks nice, and can be bought at a reasonable price." Throw out the trophy wife; that is using a rubber worm to catch the fish. It won't satisfy. Only the truth will satisfy anyone--anything more is heresy or a vicious cycle of disappointment.

Thoughts, my friends? ;-)

~Connor, the musing Protestant

Side Note: I should mention that I myself almost never watch TV at all. Only on vacation, during elections or other important events, and at the homes of some people whom I know or to whom I am related do I normally watch TV.

I am Alive

2005-04-29T07:53:00.000-07:00

Aaaaaaahhhhh! I'm terrible. Jeremy, thank you for your reminder! I can't post a full entry just now, but this is a reminder to let everyone know that I do still plan to update this site, and will make sure I actually do so in the next couple of days. It's going to be about Modern Advertising, I think, so that should be interesting, even if most of you agree with me. :-) So, until then...

God bless you,

~Connor

The Passion of the Christ: Jesus on the Silver Screen

2005-03-02T18:35:00.000-08:00

Well, it has been a while, hasn't it? I apologize for my tremendous hiatus; school has been going full blast, and in my spare time other things have taken precedence over blogs. This post may not be especially long, but I hope it provides enough food for thought to make up for the recent ness of this site.

I was pondering today on what to post, and Mel Gibson's recent blockbuster film concerning the final hours of Jesus' earthly life came to mind. I have not seen this movie, and I don't think I intend to, either: I believe it was considered at one point to rate it NC-17 (formerly known as X) for violence. It managed an R. However, I think that I know enough about the events it describes to be in a position to make comments on it, at least from the angle of this post.
Now, I don't think that it would be in any way a sin to watch this , o long as one is mature enough to handle the incredibly intense nature of the material. (Don't take your eight year-old daughter to this one.) My older brother has seen it; I know of other friends who have watched or plan to watch it. That's fine. I wonder, however, about the merits of Mr. Gibson actually producing such a film.

I actually consider it rather presumptious of a man who thinks that he can truly depict the agony of Christ's suffering, or who thinks that it is even necessary to do so. Mr. Gibson is a Catholic, and from the Catholic perspective the crucifixion is somehow relived, day after day, in the mass. Thus, a graphic representation of the Passion, with only a scant touching on the Resurrection afterward, is actually in keeping with his faith. That is why Catholic churches have crucifixes--crosses with the image of Christ still on them--rather than Protestant crosses, which are empty. The Catholic perspective is that the crucifixion is still going on somehow--the Christ if being re-punished every time the mass is said. Protestants believe that the crucifixion was final. Our sins were taken away at a particular point in time around 33 A.D. After that, Jesus arose from the grave! He sits at the right hand of God enthroned in glory, interceding on the behalf of the elect. We don't need to dwell on the Passion. We ought to be thinking more about the glory that came--and is still coming, just as strongly--after it.

But it isn't merely the intent of the movie that bothers me. The most suspect part about it to me is the fact that an actor (James Caviezel--age 33, initials JC) was portraying our Lord and Savior on screen. Is this right? I'm not sure. It is one thing to repeat the words of Jesus in, say, a dramatic reading, but acting in a play or on screen seems different. Actors never pretend to really be the parts they are playing, so Mr. Caviezel was not committing outright blasphemy, but the role of Christ in film seems rather sacrosanct to me. It would sound rather weird to me if someone was taking parts in a play, and said, "Ok, so who wants to play God?" This seems like the same thing.

Does that sound odd to everyone else?

Bye for now! I'll try to make my hiatus a little less--er--extended next time.

~Connor

Innocence or Inconvenience?

2005-02-17T17:31:00.000-08:00

Hello all! Thanks to everyone who posted a comment; I hadn't expected quite so big a readership in so little time!

***Warning: contains spoilers of The Village and The Last Samurai***

There are two films which I very much enjoy, along with a host of others--The Village, and The Last Samurai. Now, neither one of these films has much in common with the other. The Last Samurai is about Nathan Algren, an American cavalry captain who comes to Japan in the later half of the 19th Century to fight against the Samurai, who believe that a swiftly-modernizing Japan is changing too quickly, and forgetting its heritage. Nathan is captured by the Samurai in a disastrous battle. During his captivity there, he comes to love the culture, ideals, and honor of the very people he has come to fight, and in the end he joins their side.

The Village is a wonderful, poignant, brilliantly-made movie about pure, chaste love, set in the context of a lonely village in the middle of the Pennsylvania countryside. The inhabitants of the village do not depart from the borders they have set for themselves, because they fear that if they go through the woods which surround them they will meet certain fearsome creatures, "Those we don't speak of," as they call them, whom their village elders have told them about. Ivy Walker then travels through these very woods, driven by her love of Lucius Hunt to find medicine to heal his injuries.

Not much in common, right? Well, no, not as far as plots go. But there is one thing that these two films share. Both of them focus on--and praise--societies which are simple, moral (one is Buddhist, but they do hold to a strict code of honor and religious devotion) and primitive in comparison to our society today. The people of the Village are living (or think they are living) in the 19th Century, but their culture is somewhat more timeless than that; their dress code and manner of speaking harkens back to the 18th Century, and the innocence they hold dear is timeless. The culture of the Samurai has hardly changed (in the film) since about a thousand years previously (read 876 A.D.).

The culture we live in today is drastically different from these. Astonishing technological advancements have made life easier to lead. With e-mail we can communicate from Oregon to Mozambique in a matter of seconds. With cars and airplanes, the world has become "smaller" as journeys have become shorter and less arduous. Weapons have become so complex and lethal that we are terrified by war on a large scale. The introduction of television has brought its own unique problems. We have transformed ourselves into an instant, momentary culture, inhabited by pleasure-seeking, "me first" individuals.

But these technological advancements have pros as well as cons. Even the so-called "poor" in Western nations have access to more goods and better hygiene than the richest emperors of one or two thousand years ago, and their levels of comfort and security are infinitely greater. Natural disasters can now be met with billions upon billions of dollars in government aid. Interconnected governments and transportation facilities allow food and water to be transported to needy people.

Which society, then, is better? Do you prefer a fast-paced, metropolized society of freeways and traintracks and nuclear weapons where all food must past the FDA and water is strained through purification systems before entering any household? Or do you prefer a society like those in The Village or The Last Samurai, where honor, innocence, and morality are preserved, at the expense of technology? I'm not saying that such a society is producible in its entirety in the real world; but with all of our advancements, have we made it harder for the Christian witness to be heard, or for God-glorifying innocence to be preserved?

I'm not really sure on all this, I'm just asking all of you. Was our modern age inevitable; should we press on to greater heights of technology? Or should we prize that innocence and morality? I'm not advocating that we destroy all of our computers and refrigerators and live in the Dark Ages. It isn't our modern trappings that we should be worried about (worried about as much, anyway), but our culture and our mindset. We need to bring back the love of things pure and beautiful. We need to pause in our swirl of gears and pistons and remind ourselves that God made the world wonderful. He gave us emotions and wonder and fascination. He gave us friendship and love, and laughter, and the ability to be noble.

What thinkest thou?

~Connor

Welcome to the Musings of Your Friendly Neighborhood Protestant

2005-02-16T21:55:00.000-08:00

Hello! My name is Connor Hamilton, but since most of you who will be reading this already know that, I suppose there is no need to go much further into who I am. If you do not know me, and wish to find out more, then ask, and I'll be happy to tell you. :-)

I'm no stranger to blogs; I have a Xanga site, which will be (for the most part) devoted to posting of a less serious nature, although humor shall, I hope, be an integral part of this site. What would the world be without humor, anyway?

Here, however, I shall post theological and philosophical thoughts, and any other stuff that I feel like posting here! That is the fun of blogs, you know.

So, I hope to attract many friends here, and have many lively and interesting discussions with you all.

But I must devote time to school, as well as theology and philosophy and all the other cool things in life. Which means that I must get up early, which means that I must consequently go to bed early. Which means I must get off. So long, everyone!

~Connor