Every so often I see a personal message (on a birthday card, for example) that ends with Genesis 31:49: “May the LORD keep watch between you and me when we are away from each other.” The message writer presumably is trying to convey the hope that God keeps her and the reader safe during their time apart. The sentiment is nice. Unfortunately, that’s not what the verse means.
In Genesis 31, Jacob has taken his wives, children, servants, and flocks (and unbeknownst to him, Laban’s household idols) and left Laban’s estate to go back to his father’s land. Laban believes that Jacob has been cheating him: “Jacob heard that Laban’s sons were saying, ‘Jacob has taken everything our father owned and has gained all this wealth from what belonged to our father.’” (v.2) According to Jacob, he’s endured living under the deceitfulness of Laban for many years: “…your father has cheated me by changing my wages ten times…” (v.6) Laban, having learned what has happened, goes after them. After some verbal wrangling they make a covenant and mark the boundary between Laban’s territory and Jacob’s.
Then Laban says, “May the LORD keep watch between you and me when we are away from each other.” Given what has happened so far in the narrative, the meaning is obvious. He is basically saying, “Jacob, you’re a dirty, rotten, lying, thieving scoundrel. Since I don’t have eyes in the back of my head, I’ll have to rely on God to keep me safe from you.” Verse 50 ought to tell us that verse 49 is not the nice sentiment that people think it is: “If you mistreat my daughters or if you take any wives besides my daughters, even though no one is with us, remember that God is a witness between you and me.” Laban mistrusts Jacob and Jacob mistrusts Laban.
So when you’re writing a birthday card to your, say, grandmother, and you quote Genesis 31:49, you’re effectively saying, “Grandma, you’re a dirty, rotten, lying, thieving, scoundrel. xoxoxox Happy Birthday!” Now, you could just quote the verse and leave out the scripture reference, thereby making the sentence just a general statement of your wish that God keeps watch over the both of you. But, since many Christians know the verse, this would make little difference. They would know that you’re quoting Gen. 31:49.
Another verse I find less problematic though just as curious is Jeremiah 29:11: “For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.” This verse and the entire passage it is in is written to the Jewish exiles returning from Babylon. Now, since God certainly does have a plan for our lives, I guess one could quote the verse and draw the general principle of God’s having a plan for our lives from it without too much of a problem (though I wouldn’t do it myself). The curious thing to me is why people only quote this verse. Why does no one ever quote verses 17 & 18? “yes, this is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will send the sword, famine and plague against them and I will make them like poor figs that are so bad they cannot be eaten. I will pursue them with the sword, famine and plague and will make them abhorrent to all the kingdoms of the earth and an object of cursing and horror, or scorn and reproach, among all the nations where I drive them.” These verses are in the same passage as verse 11.
One answer that comes to mind is that we live in a therapeutic culture and Christians have the tendency to carry that mindset into their religious life. People are so fixated on their feelings and the desire to avoid adversity at all cost (as I do). But Christianity is not a feel good religion. It is a truth seeking religion. Neil Postman has pointed out that Christianity is a serious and demanding religion. And C.S. Lewis, in Mere Christianity, writes: “In religion, as in war and everything else, comfort is the one thing you cannot get by looking for it. If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end: If you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth – only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin with and, in the end, despair. Most of us have got over the prewar wishful thinking about international politics. It is time we did the same about religion.” (Book I, Ch. 5).
Greg Koukl at Stand to Reason has some simple advice: “Never read a bible verse”. Always read it in the context of at least a paragraph, preferably a chapter or two or three. This doesn’t mean that you can’t quote a bible verse. Just make sure you know what it means first.
Monday, October 31, 2005
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Are Computers Bad for Students?
According to this Orion Online article, computers may be bad for students. This would be in contrast to the conventional wisdom that says that the introduction and implementation of new technology in the classroom is what is needed to give children the best education possible.
The article quotes Stanford professor Larry Cuban who, citing recent research, says that, “there have been no advances over the past decade that can be confidently attributed to broader access to computers…the link between test-score improvements and computer availability and use is even more contested." Even more surprising is the indication that “students who frequently use computers perform worse academically than those who use them rarely or not at all.”
The writer of the article goes on to say:
“I think we will see that educational computing is neither a revolution nor a passing fad, but a Faustian bargain. Children gain unprecedented power to control their external world, but at the cost of internal growth. During the two decades that I taught young people with and about digital technology, I came to realize that the power of computers can lead children into deadened, alienated, and manipulative relationships with the world, that children's increasingly pervasive use of computers jeopardizes their ability to belong fully to human and biological communities—ultimately jeopardizing the communities themselves.”
and
“unlike reading, virtual adventures leave almost nothing to, and therefore require almost nothing of, the imagination. In experiencing the virtual world, the student cannot, as philosopher Steve Talbott has put it, "connect to [her] inner essence…On the contrary, she is exposed to a simulated world that tends to deaden her encounters with the real one.”
“I repeatedly found that after engaging in Internet projects, students came back down to the Earth of their immediate surroundings with boredom and disinterest—and a desire to get back online. This phenomenon was so pronounced that I started kidding my students about being BEJs: Big Event Junkies. Sadly, many readily admitted that, in general, their classes had to be conducted with the multimedia sensationalism of MTV just to keep them engaged. Having watched Discovery Channel and worked with computer simulations that severely compress both time and space, children are typically disappointed when they first approach a pond or stream: the fish aren't jumping, the frogs aren't croaking, the deer aren't drinking, the otters aren't playing, and the raccoons (not to mention bears) aren't fishing. Their electronic experiences have led them to expect to see these things happening—all at once and with no effort on their part. This distortion can also result from a diet of television and movies, but the computer's powerful interactive capabilities greatly accelerate it. And the phenomenon affects more than just experiences with the natural world. It leaves students apathetic and impatient in any number of settings—from class discussions to science experiments. The result is that the child becomes less animated and less capable of appreciating what it means to be alive, what it means to belong in the world as a biological, social being.”
And this telling statement:
“As the computer has amplified our youths' ability to virtually 'go anywhere, at any time,' it has eroded their sense of belonging anywhere, at any time, to anybody, or for any reason. How does a child growing up in Kansas gain a sense of belonging when her school encourages virtual learning about Afghanistan more than firsthand learning about her hometown? How does she relate to the world while spending most of her time engaging with computer-mediated text, images, and sounds that are oddly devoid of place, texture, depth, weight, odor, or taste—empty of life? Can she still cultivate the qualities of responsibility and reverence that are the foundation of belonging to real human or biological communities?”
Perhaps the crucial thing for school aged students is learning how to learn. Once they acquire this ability the use of technology acts simply as an accelerator to the attainment of specific information useful for the student’s current needs. Apparently, computers impede this ability to learn by making it seem that they’ve learned something when they really haven’t. The usefulness of knowing how to learn can be seen in career moves. I’ve heard it said that most people will change careers six or seven times during their working lives (this seems a rather high figure, but I’ll assume it’s true). If a pastry chef wanted to become a computer programmer, he would have to learn a whole new set of technical knowledge; but if he is accustomed to good methods of learning, the technical stuff will fall into place. The same goes for people advancing up through a company. I think I read that promotions are based as much on one’s emotional quotient as one’s technical knowledge. A good learner will pick up on the technical knowledge quickly enough.
Of course, there are those who probably would disagree with this bleak assessment of computer use in the classroom. In any case, the article brings up some good points for educators to ponder.
The article quotes Stanford professor Larry Cuban who, citing recent research, says that, “there have been no advances over the past decade that can be confidently attributed to broader access to computers…the link between test-score improvements and computer availability and use is even more contested." Even more surprising is the indication that “students who frequently use computers perform worse academically than those who use them rarely or not at all.”
The writer of the article goes on to say:
“I think we will see that educational computing is neither a revolution nor a passing fad, but a Faustian bargain. Children gain unprecedented power to control their external world, but at the cost of internal growth. During the two decades that I taught young people with and about digital technology, I came to realize that the power of computers can lead children into deadened, alienated, and manipulative relationships with the world, that children's increasingly pervasive use of computers jeopardizes their ability to belong fully to human and biological communities—ultimately jeopardizing the communities themselves.”
and
“unlike reading, virtual adventures leave almost nothing to, and therefore require almost nothing of, the imagination. In experiencing the virtual world, the student cannot, as philosopher Steve Talbott has put it, "connect to [her] inner essence…On the contrary, she is exposed to a simulated world that tends to deaden her encounters with the real one.”
“I repeatedly found that after engaging in Internet projects, students came back down to the Earth of their immediate surroundings with boredom and disinterest—and a desire to get back online. This phenomenon was so pronounced that I started kidding my students about being BEJs: Big Event Junkies. Sadly, many readily admitted that, in general, their classes had to be conducted with the multimedia sensationalism of MTV just to keep them engaged. Having watched Discovery Channel and worked with computer simulations that severely compress both time and space, children are typically disappointed when they first approach a pond or stream: the fish aren't jumping, the frogs aren't croaking, the deer aren't drinking, the otters aren't playing, and the raccoons (not to mention bears) aren't fishing. Their electronic experiences have led them to expect to see these things happening—all at once and with no effort on their part. This distortion can also result from a diet of television and movies, but the computer's powerful interactive capabilities greatly accelerate it. And the phenomenon affects more than just experiences with the natural world. It leaves students apathetic and impatient in any number of settings—from class discussions to science experiments. The result is that the child becomes less animated and less capable of appreciating what it means to be alive, what it means to belong in the world as a biological, social being.”
And this telling statement:
“As the computer has amplified our youths' ability to virtually 'go anywhere, at any time,' it has eroded their sense of belonging anywhere, at any time, to anybody, or for any reason. How does a child growing up in Kansas gain a sense of belonging when her school encourages virtual learning about Afghanistan more than firsthand learning about her hometown? How does she relate to the world while spending most of her time engaging with computer-mediated text, images, and sounds that are oddly devoid of place, texture, depth, weight, odor, or taste—empty of life? Can she still cultivate the qualities of responsibility and reverence that are the foundation of belonging to real human or biological communities?”
Perhaps the crucial thing for school aged students is learning how to learn. Once they acquire this ability the use of technology acts simply as an accelerator to the attainment of specific information useful for the student’s current needs. Apparently, computers impede this ability to learn by making it seem that they’ve learned something when they really haven’t. The usefulness of knowing how to learn can be seen in career moves. I’ve heard it said that most people will change careers six or seven times during their working lives (this seems a rather high figure, but I’ll assume it’s true). If a pastry chef wanted to become a computer programmer, he would have to learn a whole new set of technical knowledge; but if he is accustomed to good methods of learning, the technical stuff will fall into place. The same goes for people advancing up through a company. I think I read that promotions are based as much on one’s emotional quotient as one’s technical knowledge. A good learner will pick up on the technical knowledge quickly enough.
Of course, there are those who probably would disagree with this bleak assessment of computer use in the classroom. In any case, the article brings up some good points for educators to ponder.
Friday, October 21, 2005
Finding Neverland
I’m an amateur when it comes to film criticism. Actually I’m an amateur in most things (except for being an amateur. This is where I excel). There’s a guy I know in the movie industry. Whenever I bring up what I think is a cool shot or moment in a film, he just says, “Oh, yeah, that’s fairly standard stuff. We do those types of things all the time.” Alrighty then.
Disclaimer:
In addition, I’m usually anywhere from six months to three years behind everyone else when it comes to watching movies because I don’t watch them in theaters. I either wait for the DVD or when they play on television. With that in mind, anything I say here will probably have been said already (and said much better, undoubtedly).
J.M. Barrie’s life as portrayed in Finding Neverland seems to have been one typical of writers. He gets up, goes to the park to sit, reads, and writes notes in a journal. Every so often he produces a play, an occurrence that fills him with nervousness and perhaps self-doubt. As good a life as he appears to have he’s limited. Limited by his wife’s lack of interest, not in his work, but in the process of his work. Limited by his social class. Limited by his producer’s concern over his financial health. Limited in many and sundry ways as we all are whether by illness, divorce, and ultimately death.
But whether you’re a professional writer or a kid dreaming of the future, imagination can lift you up out of your limitations and allows you to soar above the mundane and land in a realm of treasures. In one line, when Barrie brings the play to the Davies’ home, he states that some compromises had to be made to fit the production in the small space and that “much of it will have to be imagined.” At this, Peter quips, “As it should be.”
There are a number of interesting shots and enhancements of scenes. Barrie’s maid clips out a bad review from the newspaper. When he opens up the paper, the review is missing but through the empty space he sees the Davies family, the inspiration for his next, and greatest, work. The Barrie home is elegant but dark. Everything is in formal browns and blacks, a cheerless setting housing a moribund marriage. In contrast, Barrie plays with the kids in the Davies’ backyard garden, in the park, and at his wife’s cottage. When they first approach the cottage, the scenery is bright and cheery, the colours vibrant. When they leave under an emotional cloud, the scenery is dull and dismal, tinted blue and grey. And my favourite shot is where, in the play, Wendy is carried off by the tail of a kite and the camera swirls around the theater for a few seconds before landing on Peter Davies’ face, lit with a knowing expression. (Another interesting fact I discovered from the credits is that Wendy is played by Kate Maberly, the girl from The Secret Garden)
At the end of the film, after Peter asks Barrie why his mother had to die, Barrie responds, “She went to Neverland and you can visit her anytime you like, if you just go there yourself.” “How?”, Peter asks. “By believing, Peter”, Barrie replies. “Just believe.” The final shot shows both Barrie and Peter fading from the scene, presumably entering Neverland, since both Barrie’s hat and umbrella are still on the bench.
And here one can start to comment on the significance of Neverland. There are two possible ways of looking at it. First, is Neverland a metaphor for heaven? In this case this would be a positive metaphor. Or is Neverland just a delusion, with the desire to go there being the desire to go to a place that doesn’t exist? This would be a negative metaphor. Whichever metaphor one would like to use will depend on one’s view of reality and the afterlife.
Atheists will probably choose the negative metaphor. Neverland (or heaven) may be nice
to think about but let’s not fool ourselves. It’s probably best to just gird up our loins and face the real world: there’s just this life so make the best of it.
Theists will choose the positive metaphor. Heaven is a real place and there are clues all around us, giving us glimpses of eternity. C.S. Lewis’ argument from desire gives us one. We have many desires for which their fulfillment is available on earth. Are we hungry? There is food. Are we thirsty? There’s water. Do we have sexual desire? There is sex. If, however, “I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world.” (Mere Christianty, Book III, Ch.10) And those who have eyes to see can catch those glimpses of heaven here on earth. Barrie and Sylvia’s children, except for Peter, see it through most of the movie. Even the rigid grandmother sees it eventually. And Peter as well sees it in the end.
So, assuming heaven is real, the second issue to address is this: is belief the only thing required to enter Neverland? That is, will anyone who sincerely believes get into heaven? Here the film’s message (assuming any such message was intended – I may be reading too much into the film here) doesn’t satisfy. The traditional Christian belief is that only faith in Jesus Christ allows a person into heaven. Some may think this unfair. However, why think that God is obligated to give us any good thing at all, never mind heaven? Now, one can be sincere in his belief that he’s going to heaven, but sincerity is not enough. One must also have a true belief about heaven. Is sincerity enough for other areas in life such as science or finance? If you go to your bank and ask to withdraw $10,000 dollars from your account, how far will you get if the account only contains $12.53? Try and answer, “But I sincerely believe there’s $10,000 dollars in my account” and see what happens. Sincerity is necessary of course, but sincerity alone is not sufficient. Do you want your mechanic or accountant to merely be sincere? Don’t you want them to actually know the truth of what the situation is? If religious belief has anything at all to do with objective truth about reality, then sincerity is not enough. As philosopher Peter Kreeft points out, you need more than sincerity; you need a Saviour.
Different people (and faith traditions) have different beliefs about different non-religious things in life. And yet everyone thinks he or she is going to heaven (or their particular conception of the afterlife, whatever that may be). Why should all these differences in non-religious areas of life suddenly be put aside when it comes to the question of heaven?
In the play, Peter Pan cries, “To die will be an awfully big adventure.” He’s right. Our life in heaven is the greatest adventure we’ll ever embark on. We’ll be going, in Lewis’ words, further up and further in. Heaven will truly make earth seem like the “shadowlands”.
That final scene in the film is pretty lip-tremblingly sentimental. The kid playing Peter is probably one of the best criers since Henry Thomas in E.T. This is one movie I’ll be watching again. I won’t put Finding Neverland on my favourite movies list. But it’s pretty close.
Disclaimer:
In addition, I’m usually anywhere from six months to three years behind everyone else when it comes to watching movies because I don’t watch them in theaters. I either wait for the DVD or when they play on television. With that in mind, anything I say here will probably have been said already (and said much better, undoubtedly).
J.M. Barrie’s life as portrayed in Finding Neverland seems to have been one typical of writers. He gets up, goes to the park to sit, reads, and writes notes in a journal. Every so often he produces a play, an occurrence that fills him with nervousness and perhaps self-doubt. As good a life as he appears to have he’s limited. Limited by his wife’s lack of interest, not in his work, but in the process of his work. Limited by his social class. Limited by his producer’s concern over his financial health. Limited in many and sundry ways as we all are whether by illness, divorce, and ultimately death.
But whether you’re a professional writer or a kid dreaming of the future, imagination can lift you up out of your limitations and allows you to soar above the mundane and land in a realm of treasures. In one line, when Barrie brings the play to the Davies’ home, he states that some compromises had to be made to fit the production in the small space and that “much of it will have to be imagined.” At this, Peter quips, “As it should be.”
There are a number of interesting shots and enhancements of scenes. Barrie’s maid clips out a bad review from the newspaper. When he opens up the paper, the review is missing but through the empty space he sees the Davies family, the inspiration for his next, and greatest, work. The Barrie home is elegant but dark. Everything is in formal browns and blacks, a cheerless setting housing a moribund marriage. In contrast, Barrie plays with the kids in the Davies’ backyard garden, in the park, and at his wife’s cottage. When they first approach the cottage, the scenery is bright and cheery, the colours vibrant. When they leave under an emotional cloud, the scenery is dull and dismal, tinted blue and grey. And my favourite shot is where, in the play, Wendy is carried off by the tail of a kite and the camera swirls around the theater for a few seconds before landing on Peter Davies’ face, lit with a knowing expression. (Another interesting fact I discovered from the credits is that Wendy is played by Kate Maberly, the girl from The Secret Garden)
At the end of the film, after Peter asks Barrie why his mother had to die, Barrie responds, “She went to Neverland and you can visit her anytime you like, if you just go there yourself.” “How?”, Peter asks. “By believing, Peter”, Barrie replies. “Just believe.” The final shot shows both Barrie and Peter fading from the scene, presumably entering Neverland, since both Barrie’s hat and umbrella are still on the bench.
And here one can start to comment on the significance of Neverland. There are two possible ways of looking at it. First, is Neverland a metaphor for heaven? In this case this would be a positive metaphor. Or is Neverland just a delusion, with the desire to go there being the desire to go to a place that doesn’t exist? This would be a negative metaphor. Whichever metaphor one would like to use will depend on one’s view of reality and the afterlife.
Atheists will probably choose the negative metaphor. Neverland (or heaven) may be nice
to think about but let’s not fool ourselves. It’s probably best to just gird up our loins and face the real world: there’s just this life so make the best of it.
Theists will choose the positive metaphor. Heaven is a real place and there are clues all around us, giving us glimpses of eternity. C.S. Lewis’ argument from desire gives us one. We have many desires for which their fulfillment is available on earth. Are we hungry? There is food. Are we thirsty? There’s water. Do we have sexual desire? There is sex. If, however, “I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world.” (Mere Christianty, Book III, Ch.10) And those who have eyes to see can catch those glimpses of heaven here on earth. Barrie and Sylvia’s children, except for Peter, see it through most of the movie. Even the rigid grandmother sees it eventually. And Peter as well sees it in the end.
So, assuming heaven is real, the second issue to address is this: is belief the only thing required to enter Neverland? That is, will anyone who sincerely believes get into heaven? Here the film’s message (assuming any such message was intended – I may be reading too much into the film here) doesn’t satisfy. The traditional Christian belief is that only faith in Jesus Christ allows a person into heaven. Some may think this unfair. However, why think that God is obligated to give us any good thing at all, never mind heaven? Now, one can be sincere in his belief that he’s going to heaven, but sincerity is not enough. One must also have a true belief about heaven. Is sincerity enough for other areas in life such as science or finance? If you go to your bank and ask to withdraw $10,000 dollars from your account, how far will you get if the account only contains $12.53? Try and answer, “But I sincerely believe there’s $10,000 dollars in my account” and see what happens. Sincerity is necessary of course, but sincerity alone is not sufficient. Do you want your mechanic or accountant to merely be sincere? Don’t you want them to actually know the truth of what the situation is? If religious belief has anything at all to do with objective truth about reality, then sincerity is not enough. As philosopher Peter Kreeft points out, you need more than sincerity; you need a Saviour.
Different people (and faith traditions) have different beliefs about different non-religious things in life. And yet everyone thinks he or she is going to heaven (or their particular conception of the afterlife, whatever that may be). Why should all these differences in non-religious areas of life suddenly be put aside when it comes to the question of heaven?
In the play, Peter Pan cries, “To die will be an awfully big adventure.” He’s right. Our life in heaven is the greatest adventure we’ll ever embark on. We’ll be going, in Lewis’ words, further up and further in. Heaven will truly make earth seem like the “shadowlands”.
That final scene in the film is pretty lip-tremblingly sentimental. The kid playing Peter is probably one of the best criers since Henry Thomas in E.T. This is one movie I’ll be watching again. I won’t put Finding Neverland on my favourite movies list. But it’s pretty close.
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Drive-by Pedantry
Pedantry can be a popular activity. A recent case is found in this news story about a physicist in England who chastised Katie Melua over the lyrics in one of her songs. Her crime? Saying the edge of the universe was 12 billion light years away when the correct number is apparently 13.7 billion. In addition, the physicist took grave offense at her claim that this number is just a guess.
This display of pedantry seems a bit too ostentatious for me. I prefer to keep my pedantry local and somewhat covert. For example, say you’re in a grocery story and hear someone say, “I’m chomping at the bit…”, you could just silently sidle up next to him and utter, “That’s champing, not chomping” and then quickly walk away. Or if someone says, “I have less dollars…”, you can, as you walk by, let out, “that’s fewer dollars, not less”. And you could do this for any subject matter at all. If someone, for example, refers to the recent NHL work stoppage as a strike, you can, as you glide by effortlessly, whisper, “It was a lockout, not a strike”. They’ll never know what hit them.
Mind you, I’m more likely to be a victim of an act of drive-by pedantry (or, my inner pedant inquires, "is that pedanticism?") than a perpetrator. I’m not smart enough to be a pedant (though I’d sure like to be).
This display of pedantry seems a bit too ostentatious for me. I prefer to keep my pedantry local and somewhat covert. For example, say you’re in a grocery story and hear someone say, “I’m chomping at the bit…”, you could just silently sidle up next to him and utter, “That’s champing, not chomping” and then quickly walk away. Or if someone says, “I have less dollars…”, you can, as you walk by, let out, “that’s fewer dollars, not less”. And you could do this for any subject matter at all. If someone, for example, refers to the recent NHL work stoppage as a strike, you can, as you glide by effortlessly, whisper, “It was a lockout, not a strike”. They’ll never know what hit them.
Mind you, I’m more likely to be a victim of an act of drive-by pedantry (or, my inner pedant inquires, "is that pedanticism?") than a perpetrator. I’m not smart enough to be a pedant (though I’d sure like to be).
Saturday, October 15, 2005
Thankful for everything?
During this past Sunday’s service the congregation was encouraged to write what they were thankful for on a paper leaf and then hang it on a tree at the front of the sanctuary. Nice idea. As I was hanging my leaf, I caught what was written on one of the leaves: “For Everything”. It’s a nice sentiment, but is it true? Or does “for everything” really mean “for all the good things only?” I’m sure this person is thankful for the good things whether good health, good job, good home, good family, etc. Is this person thankful also for the bad things such as illness, job loss, financial problems, family problems? Has this person never experienced these bad things so that he/she could say “For everything”? Or has s/he gone through difficult times and still believes “for everything” sums up his/her gratefulness? Obviously, it is not wrong to be thankful for the good things in your life. Quite the opposite. Any Christian who wasn’t thankful for the good things would be rather amazingly obtuse regarding from where all the good things actually come.
Are people really thankful for being cut off in traffic, injuries, being bad-mouthed behind one’s back, etc.? We are, however, in no position to know the consequences or final outcomes of such occurrences. We would, in fact, need to be close to omniscient to know how all the bad things in life play out. It is perfectly reasonable to think that God has a purpose in all of these sorts of things, just as in the case of Joseph’s experience in Egypt: “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive.” Perhaps these are tests to help one become more patient and self-controlled. In that case these would be things to be thankful for. Most people will admit that personal growth occurs more readily in the midst of trials than when life is easy.
I guess I need to keep in tension the fact that “every good and perfect gift is from above, coming from the Father of the heavenly lights” and that “the LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; may the name of the LORD be praised.”
This raises an important question for myself: Am I a thankful person? I’ve got my share of problems. Have these problems made me a better person? Well, I hope God grades on a curve. In any case, I guess I agree with that particular leaf scribbler. Thank God for everything (even the stuff I think I could do without).
Are people really thankful for being cut off in traffic, injuries, being bad-mouthed behind one’s back, etc.? We are, however, in no position to know the consequences or final outcomes of such occurrences. We would, in fact, need to be close to omniscient to know how all the bad things in life play out. It is perfectly reasonable to think that God has a purpose in all of these sorts of things, just as in the case of Joseph’s experience in Egypt: “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive.” Perhaps these are tests to help one become more patient and self-controlled. In that case these would be things to be thankful for. Most people will admit that personal growth occurs more readily in the midst of trials than when life is easy.
I guess I need to keep in tension the fact that “every good and perfect gift is from above, coming from the Father of the heavenly lights” and that “the LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; may the name of the LORD be praised.”
This raises an important question for myself: Am I a thankful person? I’ve got my share of problems. Have these problems made me a better person? Well, I hope God grades on a curve. In any case, I guess I agree with that particular leaf scribbler. Thank God for everything (even the stuff I think I could do without).
Friday, October 14, 2005
Early Narnia review
Screenwriter Barbara Nicolosi has given an early review of The Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe here. She writes: “the tone of LW&W is as close to the book as probably could have been achieved. All the lines the Christians are worrying about are in there. All the scenes you want to see are here and lovingly rendered.” I think she likes it.
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Briefly on marriage
I keep hearing from or about people I know or have known who are getting married or have recently gotten married. Chances are I won’t be getting married (have you seen pictures of Marshwiggles? Not a pretty sight), because while I could probably give a list of women I might like to marry, I wouldn’t be able to provide a list of women who would want to marry me (there’s the rub). But let’s say if the planets all align aright, if the infinitesimal probabilities can be overcome and I meet her, then there are three essential qualities that she would have to possess. First, an intelligent mind. Second, a kind and forgiving heart. Third, good moral character. These three are essential because, well, I figure one of us ought to have those qualities. If neither of us had these qualities there could be trouble, especially for me. And it’s all about me. Which is the biggest reason why I probably won’t get married.
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Are Christians Intolerant? (continued)
…This feeble attempt of a letter.
The paper actually printed it but edited out a good portion of it. So, if anyone happens to see it in print, avert your eyes. Read this version instead (though, even that may not be a good idea. I may have overreached a bit on a few statements. But he who has short arms must reach further…farther…whatever).
“It is commonly said that humans are feeling beings who happen to think rather than thinking beings who happen to feel. But think we must. When Christians stop thinking, dire consequences can result. The Presbyterian theologian and Princeton Seminary professor J. Gresham Machen wrote back in 1913(!) that 'one of the greatest problems that have agitated the Church is the problem of the relation between knowledge and piety, between culture and Christianity….The problem is made for us the more difficult of solution because we are unprepared for it. Our whole system of school and college education is so constituted as to keep religion and culture as far apart as possible and ignore the question of the relationship between them.' The sad truth, according to Machen, is that 'the chief obstacle to the Christian religion today lies in the sphere of the intellect….The Church is perishing today through the lack of thinking, not through an excess of it.' (Christianity and Culture, published in the Princeton Theological Review, Vol.11, 1913).
The fact that young Christians today are virtually indistinguishable from their non-Christian peers when it comes to embracing relativism is a sad commentary on the state of the Church. Yes, people are having their spiritual needs met, and yes, people are finding peace and contentment in a community of like-minded brothers and sisters. But where is the cultural and intellectual engagement that characterized much of the history of the Church? Today most of that engagement by Christians is happening either in academia or in parachurch organizations. In contrast the local church, by and large, has abdicated the life of the mind to secular culture. As a result, evangelical Christians are struggling to make any progress influencing the culture for Christ. One thinks of the same-sex marriage debate where many Christians, when asked why they opposed gay marriage, could only answer with “It’s against my religious beliefs”. In addition, many Christians are unable to “make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is within you” (1 Peter 3:15). If anyone thinks this is an overstatement, read Frank Stirk’s cover story again and then ask some Christians in your church some questions of basic biblical and theological knowledge (make sure you include your pastor and elders).
It’s rather remarkable that otherwise intelligent people, people who have spent years of study and lots of money achieving success in their profession, have no more than a Sunday School knowledge of their faith. It should be no surprise then that the children of these Christians also lack knowledge of their own faith. Surely though, if a relationship with the living Lord of the universe is the most important thing in their lives they should spend some time reading serious Christian books (of which there are plenty. Check out the Regent College Bookstore for confirmation of this fact.) If they object that it’s too hard, then it could be pointed out that it’s also hard to study to become a doctor, nurse, engineer, architect, economist, auto technician, skilled tradesperson, etc. Worthwhile things take some effort..
The Church needs Christians who are characterized by both spiritual devotion to our Lord and intellectual prowess. We ought to emulate Jesus who was the most loving and kind person to ever live and also, as Dallas Willard has put it, the smartest man who ever lived. (It’s tempting to exempt myself from my own admonition since I’m neither kind nor intelligent; however, with God’s help…)
The Fundamentalist withdrawal from culture during the early twentieth century basically removed many of God’s people from the center of the battle for minds, allowing secular forms of thought to become dominant in the universities and bastions of cultural influence such as newspapers and television. Unless evangelicals choose to enter the fray of the intellectual battles all around us, it will make evangelism and discipleship even more difficult in the twenty-first century than it was in the twentieth.”
I think I’ll be more forgiving of letters to the editor whose ideas appear somewhat disjointed and the prose a bit jarring, because I’ll know that the writer was the victim (er, recipient) of the big editorial red pen. (What my excuse is, though, I’m not sure.)
The paper actually printed it but edited out a good portion of it. So, if anyone happens to see it in print, avert your eyes. Read this version instead (though, even that may not be a good idea. I may have overreached a bit on a few statements. But he who has short arms must reach further…farther…whatever).
“It is commonly said that humans are feeling beings who happen to think rather than thinking beings who happen to feel. But think we must. When Christians stop thinking, dire consequences can result. The Presbyterian theologian and Princeton Seminary professor J. Gresham Machen wrote back in 1913(!) that 'one of the greatest problems that have agitated the Church is the problem of the relation between knowledge and piety, between culture and Christianity….The problem is made for us the more difficult of solution because we are unprepared for it. Our whole system of school and college education is so constituted as to keep religion and culture as far apart as possible and ignore the question of the relationship between them.' The sad truth, according to Machen, is that 'the chief obstacle to the Christian religion today lies in the sphere of the intellect….The Church is perishing today through the lack of thinking, not through an excess of it.' (Christianity and Culture, published in the Princeton Theological Review, Vol.11, 1913).
The fact that young Christians today are virtually indistinguishable from their non-Christian peers when it comes to embracing relativism is a sad commentary on the state of the Church. Yes, people are having their spiritual needs met, and yes, people are finding peace and contentment in a community of like-minded brothers and sisters. But where is the cultural and intellectual engagement that characterized much of the history of the Church? Today most of that engagement by Christians is happening either in academia or in parachurch organizations. In contrast the local church, by and large, has abdicated the life of the mind to secular culture. As a result, evangelical Christians are struggling to make any progress influencing the culture for Christ. One thinks of the same-sex marriage debate where many Christians, when asked why they opposed gay marriage, could only answer with “It’s against my religious beliefs”. In addition, many Christians are unable to “make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is within you” (1 Peter 3:15). If anyone thinks this is an overstatement, read Frank Stirk’s cover story again and then ask some Christians in your church some questions of basic biblical and theological knowledge (make sure you include your pastor and elders).
It’s rather remarkable that otherwise intelligent people, people who have spent years of study and lots of money achieving success in their profession, have no more than a Sunday School knowledge of their faith. It should be no surprise then that the children of these Christians also lack knowledge of their own faith. Surely though, if a relationship with the living Lord of the universe is the most important thing in their lives they should spend some time reading serious Christian books (of which there are plenty. Check out the Regent College Bookstore for confirmation of this fact.) If they object that it’s too hard, then it could be pointed out that it’s also hard to study to become a doctor, nurse, engineer, architect, economist, auto technician, skilled tradesperson, etc. Worthwhile things take some effort..
The Church needs Christians who are characterized by both spiritual devotion to our Lord and intellectual prowess. We ought to emulate Jesus who was the most loving and kind person to ever live and also, as Dallas Willard has put it, the smartest man who ever lived. (It’s tempting to exempt myself from my own admonition since I’m neither kind nor intelligent; however, with God’s help…)
The Fundamentalist withdrawal from culture during the early twentieth century basically removed many of God’s people from the center of the battle for minds, allowing secular forms of thought to become dominant in the universities and bastions of cultural influence such as newspapers and television. Unless evangelicals choose to enter the fray of the intellectual battles all around us, it will make evangelism and discipleship even more difficult in the twenty-first century than it was in the twentieth.”
I think I’ll be more forgiving of letters to the editor whose ideas appear somewhat disjointed and the prose a bit jarring, because I’ll know that the writer was the victim (er, recipient) of the big editorial red pen. (What my excuse is, though, I’m not sure.)
Sunday, October 09, 2005
Meet the Jolly Blogger
The Jolly Blogger is one of the more well known Christian bloggers. This post The Moral of the Plops is probably the funniest one I’ve read all week. And be sure to follow the link to “How to have a Christlike argument”.
Saturday, October 08, 2005
Are Christians Intolerant?
One of our Christian newspapers recently ran this story. According to one university professor, Christian students are “not convinced that there is such a thing as objective moral truth….they’re not convinced that Jesus is the only way. They’re not convinced, really, that other religions aren’t also ways to God.” He goes on to say, “It just seems somehow to many young people wrong and abrasive to simply look across at someone else’s way of looking at the world, and way of coming to God – and call it wrong.”
The concern of some (perhaps many?) Christian students of being ‘intolerant’ seems to be overriding another more important concern, that is, asking ‘what is the truth?’ The reluctance to think other religious people wrong overlooks one little point; namely, that those who hold those non-Christian religious beliefs also think that Christians are wrong!
Ask any non-Christian whether he or she believes that Jesus is the only way to God. The answer is usually either ‘no’, or Jesus is ‘one of many ways’. This is in disagreement with the Christian belief that Jesus is the only way.
In addition, those who call themselves religious pluralists (that is, those who believe that all religions are legitimate paths to knowing God or the ultimate reality) also think that Christians are wrong (for being intolerant of other religious beliefs). But the charge of intolerance, if one can be made at all, goes both ways. If Christians are intolerant because they reject certain beliefs of other religions, then adherents of those other religions are just as intolerant for thinking that Christians are wrong when they assert the truth of certain doctrinal beliefs. And religious pluralists who like to make the claim of being inclusive, are not so inclusive. They obviously reject the notion that only one religion can be true (and the usual suspect is Christianity). They are actually just as exclusive as Christians are since religious pluralists claim that their belief (i.e. pluralism) is exclusively true while the Christian who thinks her beliefs are exclusively true is wrong.
Addressing the objection that Christians are arrogant for believing Christianity is the only way to God, philosopher Timothy O’ Connor, in chapter 7 of Reason for the Hope Within writes the following:
“[A]s Peter van Inwagen has remarked, the pluralist who presses this kind of objection to traditional Christian belief is likely to ‘find himself surrounded by a lot of broken domestic glass.’ Why? Because the central idea behind the arrogance objection is one the pluralist is obliged to apply to nonreligious beliefs as well. Perhaps the following best captures this central idea:
For any belief of yours, once you become aware (a) that others disagree with it and (b) that you have no argument on its behalf that is likely to convince all or most of the reasonable, good-intentioned people who disagree with you, then it would be arrogant of you to continue holding that belief.
Now let’s think about this principle in light of the pluralist’s own views. He embraces this principle while surely aware that many others think it is false….But then, to be consistent, the pluralist should abandon this very principle. Believing the principle in the face of informed disagreement, as the pluralist does, violates the principle. The moral here is that pluralism is no way of escape from the charge of arrogance….[T]he fact that one cannot…defend this claim without falling prey to one’s own principle should lead us to reject this pluralist argument.” (pp. 171-172)
Religious pluralists, it seems, are hoist by their own petard.
In response to the story I wrote….
The concern of some (perhaps many?) Christian students of being ‘intolerant’ seems to be overriding another more important concern, that is, asking ‘what is the truth?’ The reluctance to think other religious people wrong overlooks one little point; namely, that those who hold those non-Christian religious beliefs also think that Christians are wrong!
Ask any non-Christian whether he or she believes that Jesus is the only way to God. The answer is usually either ‘no’, or Jesus is ‘one of many ways’. This is in disagreement with the Christian belief that Jesus is the only way.
In addition, those who call themselves religious pluralists (that is, those who believe that all religions are legitimate paths to knowing God or the ultimate reality) also think that Christians are wrong (for being intolerant of other religious beliefs). But the charge of intolerance, if one can be made at all, goes both ways. If Christians are intolerant because they reject certain beliefs of other religions, then adherents of those other religions are just as intolerant for thinking that Christians are wrong when they assert the truth of certain doctrinal beliefs. And religious pluralists who like to make the claim of being inclusive, are not so inclusive. They obviously reject the notion that only one religion can be true (and the usual suspect is Christianity). They are actually just as exclusive as Christians are since religious pluralists claim that their belief (i.e. pluralism) is exclusively true while the Christian who thinks her beliefs are exclusively true is wrong.
Addressing the objection that Christians are arrogant for believing Christianity is the only way to God, philosopher Timothy O’ Connor, in chapter 7 of Reason for the Hope Within writes the following:
“[A]s Peter van Inwagen has remarked, the pluralist who presses this kind of objection to traditional Christian belief is likely to ‘find himself surrounded by a lot of broken domestic glass.’ Why? Because the central idea behind the arrogance objection is one the pluralist is obliged to apply to nonreligious beliefs as well. Perhaps the following best captures this central idea:
For any belief of yours, once you become aware (a) that others disagree with it and (b) that you have no argument on its behalf that is likely to convince all or most of the reasonable, good-intentioned people who disagree with you, then it would be arrogant of you to continue holding that belief.
Now let’s think about this principle in light of the pluralist’s own views. He embraces this principle while surely aware that many others think it is false….But then, to be consistent, the pluralist should abandon this very principle. Believing the principle in the face of informed disagreement, as the pluralist does, violates the principle. The moral here is that pluralism is no way of escape from the charge of arrogance….[T]he fact that one cannot…defend this claim without falling prey to one’s own principle should lead us to reject this pluralist argument.” (pp. 171-172)
Religious pluralists, it seems, are hoist by their own petard.
In response to the story I wrote….
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Is Religion Bad for Society?
I saw this (London) Times story linked on the CTMag Weblog.
It states that:
“Religious belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today.”
“According to the study, belief and worship of God are not only unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to social problems”
My first reaction was to ask the following questions:
1) Who’s actually committing the crimes? I’m assuming the study takes a macro look at societies without looking at the finer details. It’s not as if everyone in even the most religious society is a religious believer .
2) Even if the people committing the crimes were to say they were Christians, their actions in fact belie their profession of faith. Belief in the Christian God is of little help to societies if you don’t follow his commands. This showcases the problem of the nominal nature of religious belief. Many people say they’re Christians (because they were baptized in a particular church, for example) when they really are not. In other words, these folks don’t accept the historic and orthodox beliefs that all Christians have held for the past two thousand years (e.g. the authority of the Bible, the incarnation, the atonement, the resurrection). They are free to not believe these things, of course, but the honest thing on their part would be to stop calling themselves Christians.
3) Are these problems specifically a result of greater religious belief or something else? Could not one come to a different conclusion, namely, that a decline in religious (specifically Christian) belief over the past fifty years or so has been a greater factor in influencing these results? Notwithstanding all the media attention towards American evangelicalism, are there in fact more bible believing Christians in the U.S. than before? In addition, what impact does relativistic thinking within the church (and the consequent vitiation of her ability to make an impact on the surrounding culture) have on these results?
4) Could it be that a strong and vocal non-religious minority within the religious society is having an inordinately large influence on the citizens resulting in those less grounded in good (general) morals to gravitate towards crime and other deleterious behaviours?
Those were my initial thoughts. It’s well known that journalists haven’t much idea of how to report statistics found in various studies. We’re all familiar with how the media over simplifies, for example, health studies. They’re quick to say that a certain food or supplement or pharmaceutical drug is bad or good for you when the study they’re citing is far more nuanced and circumspect about it. So I recommend reading the analysis of this statistician. He takes a look at the evidence in the original study and finds it wanting.And in a follow-up he finds more problems.
It states that:
“Religious belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today.”
“According to the study, belief and worship of God are not only unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to social problems”
My first reaction was to ask the following questions:
1) Who’s actually committing the crimes? I’m assuming the study takes a macro look at societies without looking at the finer details. It’s not as if everyone in even the most religious society is a religious believer .
2) Even if the people committing the crimes were to say they were Christians, their actions in fact belie their profession of faith. Belief in the Christian God is of little help to societies if you don’t follow his commands. This showcases the problem of the nominal nature of religious belief. Many people say they’re Christians (because they were baptized in a particular church, for example) when they really are not. In other words, these folks don’t accept the historic and orthodox beliefs that all Christians have held for the past two thousand years (e.g. the authority of the Bible, the incarnation, the atonement, the resurrection). They are free to not believe these things, of course, but the honest thing on their part would be to stop calling themselves Christians.
3) Are these problems specifically a result of greater religious belief or something else? Could not one come to a different conclusion, namely, that a decline in religious (specifically Christian) belief over the past fifty years or so has been a greater factor in influencing these results? Notwithstanding all the media attention towards American evangelicalism, are there in fact more bible believing Christians in the U.S. than before? In addition, what impact does relativistic thinking within the church (and the consequent vitiation of her ability to make an impact on the surrounding culture) have on these results?
4) Could it be that a strong and vocal non-religious minority within the religious society is having an inordinately large influence on the citizens resulting in those less grounded in good (general) morals to gravitate towards crime and other deleterious behaviours?
Those were my initial thoughts. It’s well known that journalists haven’t much idea of how to report statistics found in various studies. We’re all familiar with how the media over simplifies, for example, health studies. They’re quick to say that a certain food or supplement or pharmaceutical drug is bad or good for you when the study they’re citing is far more nuanced and circumspect about it. So I recommend reading the analysis of this statistician. He takes a look at the evidence in the original study and finds it wanting.And in a follow-up he finds more problems.
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Narnia Interview
As most people probably know, the film adaptation of The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe will be opening this December. Here’s an interview with Michael Flaherty, president of Walden Media, the production company putting Lewis’ classic on the big screen.
Sunday, October 02, 2005
Lewis on Reading
After reading The Canterbury Tales a while back, I also read C.S. Lewis’ essay “On the Reading of Old Books”. Chaucer’s stories capture human emotions and the human predicament very well, all the highs and lows of human experience. Greed, lust, love, benevolence, hatred all get the chance to show their wares in the lives of the characters. It would benefit everyone, I think, to read as many old books as possible, if for no other reason than to understand that the problems people face and the desires that they have haven’t changed a bit over the course of human history (I suppose you could also get the same understanding by listening to operas but I don’t really enjoy operatic singing.)
Lewis wrote: “Naturally, since I myself am a writer, I do not wish the ordinary reader to read no modern books. But if he must read only the new or only the old, I would advise him to read the old. And I would give him this advice precisely because he is an amateur and therefore much less protected than the expert against the dangers of an exclusive contemporary diet. A new book is still on its trial and the amateur is not in a good position to judge it. It has to be tested against the great body of Christian thought down the ages, and all its hidden implications (often unsuspected by the author himself) have to be brought to light. Often it cannot be fully understood without the knowledge of other modern books. If you join at eleven o’clock a conversation which began at eight you will often not see the real bearing of what is said. Remarks which seem to you very ordinary will produce laughter or irritation and you will not see why – the reason, of course, being that the earlier stages of the conversation have given them a special point. In the same way sentences in a modern book which look quite ordinary may be directed ‘at’ some other book; in this way you may be led to accept what you would have indignantly rejected if you knew its real significance. The only safety is to have a standard of plain, central Christianity (‘mere Christianity’ as Baxter called it) which puts the controversies of the moment in their proper perspective. Such a standard can be acquired only from the old books. It is a good rule, after reading a new book, never to allow yourself another new one till you have read an old one in between. If that is too much for you, you should at least read one old one to every three new ones. Every age has its own outlook. It is specially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period. And that means the old books.” (from On the Reading of Old Books in God in the Dock).
It’s a bit tough trying to keep that advice, but in keeping with Lewis’ suggestion I’m attempting to read Plato’s Republic, one of the foundational documents of western civilization. There’s much to take in and digest from the discussions about the ideal state and the nature of reality; but a curious statement about a just man in Book II grabbed my attention:
“They will say that the just man, as we have pictured him, will be scourged, tortured, and imprisoned, his eyes will be put out, and after enduring every humiliation he will be crucified, and learn at last that one should want not to be, but to seem just.”
Now, does that sound familiar? It’s probably not wise to read too much into this passage. I just found it curious that this is exactly what happened to the one Just Man who ever lived (except for the eyes being put out).
I’m also reading the complete works of Shakespeare, using the Norton Shakespeare. I feel smarter just holding it. It might be because of the increased oxygen requirement for keeping it aloft. This sucker is heavy. Hardback with 3420 pages of sheer reading pleasure.
It has some of the best helps of any Shakespeare edition I’ve seen (which is good because I’m not a serious student of Shakespeare, just a very interested fan. I simply enjoy the aesthetic quality of that Elizabethan prose and poetry). The general introduction (by Stephen Greenblatt) and the individual introductions for each play are comprehensive and informative without assuming the reader already has a certain amount of background knowledge (in contrast to some Arden Shakespeares that I found more difficult). They are extremely helpful in guiding the reader to a better understanding of Shakespeare’s place in history and the plays and sonnets themselves.
The glosses are in the margin on the same line as the text instead of at the bottom of the page, making the eye-travel less jolting.
And the footnotes that are there provide a lot of helpful information.
For example, from Two Gentlemen of Verona:
What’s here?
‘Silvia, this night I will enfranchise thee’?
‘Tis so, and here’s the ladder for the purpose.
Why, Phaeton (7), for thou art Merops’ son
Wilt thou aspire to guide the heavenly car,
And with thy daring folly burn the world?
(3.1.150-155)
The note for Phaeton reads: “Famous in Greek myth for his reckless ambition, Phaeton set the world on fire when he tried to drive the chariot of his father, Helios, the sun god. Phaeton’s mother, Clymene, was married to Merops, not Helios, making Phaeton illegitimate. The rest of the line, naming Merops as Phaeton’s father, may question Phaeton’s status as the son of Helios (and so his ability to drive the sun god’s chariot) or may be an ironic means of calling attention to his illegitimacy.”
How many people know who Phaeton is? Now, I could have looked in my copy of Robert Graves’ The Greek Myths to see who Phaeton was but the footnote gives me the relevant information to grasp this passage (plus I’d have to get up and walk all five feet to my bookshelf.)
Another example from Antony and Cleopatra:
Nay, but this dotage of our General’s
O’erflows the measure (1). Those his goodly eyes,
That o’er the files and musters of the war
Have glowed like plated Mars, now bend, now turn
The office and devotion of their view
Upon a tawny front (2). His captain’s heart,
Which in the scuffles of great fights hath burst
The buckles on his breast, reneges all temper (3),
And is become the bellows and the fan
To cool a gipsy’s lust.
Look where they come.
Take but good note, and you shall see in him
The triple pillar of the world (4) transformed
Into a strumpet’s fool. Behold and see.
(1.1.1-13)
Footnote (1): Goes beyond the suitable limit.
Footnote (2): A face or forehead of dark complexion (referring to Cleopatra…); military “front,” or battle line.
Footnote (3): Abandons all temperance (“temper” is also the hardness of tempered steel).
Footnote (4): Antony, Octavius Caesar, and Lepidus were the three triumvirs ruling the Roman Empire (most of the known world, for Romans)
Footnotes rule!
Though not an old book, Greenblatt’s book Will in the World is also one I’ve briefly and partly skimmed through. It’s written with a light touch and obviously intended for a general audience. His concern seems to be more for accessibility than for a show of unabashed erudition (erudite though his scholarship is). Some might be concerned that he manages to weave whole episodes of Shakespeare’s life out of the scantiest of evidence (the first chapter begins with “Let us imagine…”), such as the annotations in some unknown person’s notebook. But in the intro, he points out that nothing of Shakespeare’s life can be known with absolute certainty.
Based on what I saw his intent seems to be a fusing of commentary with biography, finding points of contact with Shakespeare’s life and his plays (or certain parts of his plays). One example is where Greenblatt attributes Will’s familiarity with leather, gloves and glove making (and the many references of such in the plays) to his exposure and probable work experience in his father’s glove making business. Another is where he makes comments on both Will’s apparently loveless and lifeless marriage to Anne Hathaway and some of Will’s different dramatic portrayals of married couples.
And in a bibliographical note, Greenblatt, in this book about my second favourite British writer, makes reference to my favourite British writer. He writes:
“On the whole scope of literary production in this period, C.S. Lewis’s brilliant and opinionated English Literature in the Sixteenth Century, Excluding Drama (Oxford: Clarendon, 1954) remains indispensable.”
So, it looks like an interesting book. (I might find it even more interesting if I ever get around to reading the whole thing).
In addition, I’m certain the Bible counts as one of the old books. According to this L.A. Times story educators in the U.S. are going to (or at least try to) introduce the Bible into public schools by emphasizing its role in influencing much of Western literature. One quote:
“An overwhelming majority of the nation's students are biblically illiterate, educators say. Yet, they add, knowledge of the Bible, its characters and references is essential in understanding Western literature, art, music and history even for students who come from other religious traditions, are agnostics or are atheists.”
So as Krusty says, Give a hoot. Read a book.
Lewis wrote: “Naturally, since I myself am a writer, I do not wish the ordinary reader to read no modern books. But if he must read only the new or only the old, I would advise him to read the old. And I would give him this advice precisely because he is an amateur and therefore much less protected than the expert against the dangers of an exclusive contemporary diet. A new book is still on its trial and the amateur is not in a good position to judge it. It has to be tested against the great body of Christian thought down the ages, and all its hidden implications (often unsuspected by the author himself) have to be brought to light. Often it cannot be fully understood without the knowledge of other modern books. If you join at eleven o’clock a conversation which began at eight you will often not see the real bearing of what is said. Remarks which seem to you very ordinary will produce laughter or irritation and you will not see why – the reason, of course, being that the earlier stages of the conversation have given them a special point. In the same way sentences in a modern book which look quite ordinary may be directed ‘at’ some other book; in this way you may be led to accept what you would have indignantly rejected if you knew its real significance. The only safety is to have a standard of plain, central Christianity (‘mere Christianity’ as Baxter called it) which puts the controversies of the moment in their proper perspective. Such a standard can be acquired only from the old books. It is a good rule, after reading a new book, never to allow yourself another new one till you have read an old one in between. If that is too much for you, you should at least read one old one to every three new ones. Every age has its own outlook. It is specially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period. And that means the old books.” (from On the Reading of Old Books in God in the Dock).
It’s a bit tough trying to keep that advice, but in keeping with Lewis’ suggestion I’m attempting to read Plato’s Republic, one of the foundational documents of western civilization. There’s much to take in and digest from the discussions about the ideal state and the nature of reality; but a curious statement about a just man in Book II grabbed my attention:
“They will say that the just man, as we have pictured him, will be scourged, tortured, and imprisoned, his eyes will be put out, and after enduring every humiliation he will be crucified, and learn at last that one should want not to be, but to seem just.”
Now, does that sound familiar? It’s probably not wise to read too much into this passage. I just found it curious that this is exactly what happened to the one Just Man who ever lived (except for the eyes being put out).
I’m also reading the complete works of Shakespeare, using the Norton Shakespeare. I feel smarter just holding it. It might be because of the increased oxygen requirement for keeping it aloft. This sucker is heavy. Hardback with 3420 pages of sheer reading pleasure.
It has some of the best helps of any Shakespeare edition I’ve seen (which is good because I’m not a serious student of Shakespeare, just a very interested fan. I simply enjoy the aesthetic quality of that Elizabethan prose and poetry). The general introduction (by Stephen Greenblatt) and the individual introductions for each play are comprehensive and informative without assuming the reader already has a certain amount of background knowledge (in contrast to some Arden Shakespeares that I found more difficult). They are extremely helpful in guiding the reader to a better understanding of Shakespeare’s place in history and the plays and sonnets themselves.
The glosses are in the margin on the same line as the text instead of at the bottom of the page, making the eye-travel less jolting.
And the footnotes that are there provide a lot of helpful information.
For example, from Two Gentlemen of Verona:
What’s here?
‘Silvia, this night I will enfranchise thee’?
‘Tis so, and here’s the ladder for the purpose.
Why, Phaeton (7), for thou art Merops’ son
Wilt thou aspire to guide the heavenly car,
And with thy daring folly burn the world?
(3.1.150-155)
The note for Phaeton reads: “Famous in Greek myth for his reckless ambition, Phaeton set the world on fire when he tried to drive the chariot of his father, Helios, the sun god. Phaeton’s mother, Clymene, was married to Merops, not Helios, making Phaeton illegitimate. The rest of the line, naming Merops as Phaeton’s father, may question Phaeton’s status as the son of Helios (and so his ability to drive the sun god’s chariot) or may be an ironic means of calling attention to his illegitimacy.”
How many people know who Phaeton is? Now, I could have looked in my copy of Robert Graves’ The Greek Myths to see who Phaeton was but the footnote gives me the relevant information to grasp this passage (plus I’d have to get up and walk all five feet to my bookshelf.)
Another example from Antony and Cleopatra:
Nay, but this dotage of our General’s
O’erflows the measure (1). Those his goodly eyes,
That o’er the files and musters of the war
Have glowed like plated Mars, now bend, now turn
The office and devotion of their view
Upon a tawny front (2). His captain’s heart,
Which in the scuffles of great fights hath burst
The buckles on his breast, reneges all temper (3),
And is become the bellows and the fan
To cool a gipsy’s lust.
Look where they come.
Take but good note, and you shall see in him
The triple pillar of the world (4) transformed
Into a strumpet’s fool. Behold and see.
(1.1.1-13)
Footnote (1): Goes beyond the suitable limit.
Footnote (2): A face or forehead of dark complexion (referring to Cleopatra…); military “front,” or battle line.
Footnote (3): Abandons all temperance (“temper” is also the hardness of tempered steel).
Footnote (4): Antony, Octavius Caesar, and Lepidus were the three triumvirs ruling the Roman Empire (most of the known world, for Romans)
Footnotes rule!
Though not an old book, Greenblatt’s book Will in the World is also one I’ve briefly and partly skimmed through. It’s written with a light touch and obviously intended for a general audience. His concern seems to be more for accessibility than for a show of unabashed erudition (erudite though his scholarship is). Some might be concerned that he manages to weave whole episodes of Shakespeare’s life out of the scantiest of evidence (the first chapter begins with “Let us imagine…”), such as the annotations in some unknown person’s notebook. But in the intro, he points out that nothing of Shakespeare’s life can be known with absolute certainty.
Based on what I saw his intent seems to be a fusing of commentary with biography, finding points of contact with Shakespeare’s life and his plays (or certain parts of his plays). One example is where Greenblatt attributes Will’s familiarity with leather, gloves and glove making (and the many references of such in the plays) to his exposure and probable work experience in his father’s glove making business. Another is where he makes comments on both Will’s apparently loveless and lifeless marriage to Anne Hathaway and some of Will’s different dramatic portrayals of married couples.
And in a bibliographical note, Greenblatt, in this book about my second favourite British writer, makes reference to my favourite British writer. He writes:
“On the whole scope of literary production in this period, C.S. Lewis’s brilliant and opinionated English Literature in the Sixteenth Century, Excluding Drama (Oxford: Clarendon, 1954) remains indispensable.”
So, it looks like an interesting book. (I might find it even more interesting if I ever get around to reading the whole thing).
In addition, I’m certain the Bible counts as one of the old books. According to this L.A. Times story educators in the U.S. are going to (or at least try to) introduce the Bible into public schools by emphasizing its role in influencing much of Western literature. One quote:
“An overwhelming majority of the nation's students are biblically illiterate, educators say. Yet, they add, knowledge of the Bible, its characters and references is essential in understanding Western literature, art, music and history even for students who come from other religious traditions, are agnostics or are atheists.”
So as Krusty says, Give a hoot. Read a book.
Saturday, October 01, 2005
Some thoughts about Church
Are there any social structures or communities where children (and young folk in general) can get together and interact with seniors who are not also their relatives (or possibly teachers)? Not that many I’m afraid (I’m sure as soon as I post this someone will write in to tell me of a few). This separation of the generations, while comfortable for those who don’t want to spend much time around people who aren’t their age, may not be beneficial if we value societal stability. I’m not suggesting that society will collapse or anything like that, but when certain people don’t understand other people, when one generation cannot learn something from another generation, I think our lives become impoverished and our experiences less than what they could be.
I bring this up upon reflecting on my life (that clicking noise you hear is the back button). I can honestly count the number of close friends I’ve had on the fingers of one hand. This paucity of friends is likely the symptom of my being a socially inept loner (hey, what do you expect when you voluntarily hole up at home all day). My two closest friends now (and the two closest I’ve ever had) are a married couple both in their mid-80s, both former schoolteachers, and both hospitality personified. And where did I meet them? In church. I’m hard pressed to think of any other venue where I could have met them and then become friends. The funny thing is that I drove past their backyard for nearly ten years never knowing who lived there.
The church is one place where people of different generations can meet, not simply to, say, be entertained (movie, concert, or whatever) but to fellowship, have fun and learn from each other.
The greatest benefit of this meeting of generations is the conveyance of wisdom.
Wisdom can be defined as “the sum of learning through the ages” or “accumulated knowledge”
Wisdom doesn’t just come out of thin air. It is the result of lived experience. It has weathered many of life’s storms. It overlooks offenses and seeks to make things better. Now, to be honest some seniors are not wise, and some youth are not that unwise. But as a general rule, there is no substitute for wisdom bought with a lifetime of being acquainted with all of the struggles life throws at you. I’ve been fascinated with and have learned quite a bit from the seniors in my church through, for example, their stories of war-time experiences, lessons in how to take care of a garden, instructions in cooking, exemplifications of perseverance through difficult circumstances (like poor health).
It seems role models are in scarce supply these days. Next time you’re sitting in church look in the pews around you. There may be one sitting next to you.
Now, in addition to this, there is also a second way to attain wisdom (since I'm not wise, I need additional help)…
I bring this up upon reflecting on my life (that clicking noise you hear is the back button). I can honestly count the number of close friends I’ve had on the fingers of one hand. This paucity of friends is likely the symptom of my being a socially inept loner (hey, what do you expect when you voluntarily hole up at home all day). My two closest friends now (and the two closest I’ve ever had) are a married couple both in their mid-80s, both former schoolteachers, and both hospitality personified. And where did I meet them? In church. I’m hard pressed to think of any other venue where I could have met them and then become friends. The funny thing is that I drove past their backyard for nearly ten years never knowing who lived there.
The church is one place where people of different generations can meet, not simply to, say, be entertained (movie, concert, or whatever) but to fellowship, have fun and learn from each other.
The greatest benefit of this meeting of generations is the conveyance of wisdom.
Wisdom can be defined as “the sum of learning through the ages” or “accumulated knowledge”
Wisdom doesn’t just come out of thin air. It is the result of lived experience. It has weathered many of life’s storms. It overlooks offenses and seeks to make things better. Now, to be honest some seniors are not wise, and some youth are not that unwise. But as a general rule, there is no substitute for wisdom bought with a lifetime of being acquainted with all of the struggles life throws at you. I’ve been fascinated with and have learned quite a bit from the seniors in my church through, for example, their stories of war-time experiences, lessons in how to take care of a garden, instructions in cooking, exemplifications of perseverance through difficult circumstances (like poor health).
It seems role models are in scarce supply these days. Next time you’re sitting in church look in the pews around you. There may be one sitting next to you.
Now, in addition to this, there is also a second way to attain wisdom (since I'm not wise, I need additional help)…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)