Can We Handle Information?

Constitution day just passed on the 17^th of September. I suppose not many people noticed the day, just as I suppose not many people notice the Constitution itself. One student at a Modesto, California Junior College attempted to pass out copies of the Constitution, but he was quickly stopped by campus officials, according to news reports and the video above. (1) And so life goes on in our safe and insulated little world.

What is disturbing about the incident at an institution of higher learning is what it tells us about our society. When an administrator such as the one in the video has an entire binder full of regulations regarding speech and the dissemination of information, we should scratch our heads and wonder why. Is it because we are not capable of handling opinions that differ from ours? Is it because we cannot distinguish between truth and falsehood on our own? Is it because we cannot say “no thank you” when someone tries to hand us a pamphlet? Such nanny laws sound like a concerned parent telling a young child: “don't talk to strangers!” But are adults on a college campus children? (Ok, ok, maybe they do seem like it much of the time.) The anonymous creators of the binder full of rules apparently think so. Apparently they are trying to protect us from ideas that come from unofficial sources. “Trust your professors and trust your textbooks, but flee the intellectual snares of all others,” they seem to say. And it doesn't matter how historically, politically, and philosophically relevant something may be. Nay, even if it is one of the most important political documents in human history, it should not reach your ears if it does not come from an officially approved source.

No doubt lots of garbage is kept out of circulation this way, but I can't help thinking that I would rather be the one to decide if it is garbage or not. It is not just that I think copies of the Constitution should be passed out: if someone were passing out copies of the Communist Manifesto I would certainly take one, even though I profoundly disagree with it. A college campus, not to mention our society in general, is a place where we should be allowed to hear other people's ideas. Treat adults like children for long enough and they just might become children, or worse, imbeciles.

1 http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/19/california-college-bars-student-from-handing-out-copies-constitution/

Why "We" Don't Believe in Science, er, Evolution

The New Yorker recently had an article with the intriguing title: "Why We Don't Believe in Science." The article cites a poll showing that 46% of Americans believe God created the earth relatively recently. In other words, that is 46% who don't believe in evolution. It explains that this number has "remained virtually unchanged" in the thirty years that Gallup has been asking the question. Now, the obvious answer to the article's question of why we don't believe in science (which in the article is often equated with evolution) is that evolution is not true. Unfortunately, the article overlooks this answer and instead posits that the reason we are so backwards and don't believe is because of (wait for it...): "the irony of evolution: our views about our own development don’t seem to be evolving." Yes, that is rather ironic. Humans seem to be hardwired with a belief in a creator and a creation. One cannot help but be reminded of the Psalmist's words: "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands" (Psalms 19:1). Or the philosopher Paul's statement that, "what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse" (Romans 1:19-20).

How does The New Yorker propose to deal with this universally acknowledged fact? One is almost embarrassed at the crudeness of saying what the article proposes: brainwashing. To quote: "This means that science education is not simply a matter of learning new theories. Rather, it also requires that students unlearn their instincts." Yes, think about it. It is brainwashing. Yet another indication that Ben Stein was right in his documentary Expelled. The "science educators" of the article are fools... but don't take my word for it. To quote Paul again: "Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles" (Romans 1:22-23). Thankfully, according to the poll, only 15% of Americans have become total fools, exchanging God completely for a furry ape or a fish in the primordial slime. Which would you rather have: Father God or father ape?

Children of Angels

“…a sudden, sun-bright glow burst from inside Jeremy, turning him white-hot to look at, fading as quickly as it came. Jeremy shaded his eyes and glanced at the sun, wondering if the sudden light came from a sunspot or something.”

In this passage from the opening to Kathryn Dahlstrom’s new work, Children of Angels, the life of thirteen-year-old Jeremy Lapoint changes forever. With his father in prison and his mother battling to make ends meet, the hope and joy that Jeremy once knew have vanished. His peace is also robbed by the hateful remarks of bullies like Sid Lundahl, Chad, and others at Anoka, Minnesota, Middle School. He is altogether too accustomed to hearing himself called, “the son of the sleaze ball.” However, on the day that Ms. Dahlstrom’s readers first meet Jeremy, something is different. It is as if some long dormant part of him has been roused by the taunts and jeers of the bullies. He suddenly has the urge to stand up, to fight back, and to…fly. With a leap and a bound he soars through the air – half terrified, half ecstatic – like a teenaged Superman. It is only later at school – when he is chased by a vicious demon and rescued from the seeming peril by his guardian angel, Asiel – that Jeremy realizes his “superpowers” operate on a level entirely different from Superman’s. Asiel informs him that he is a Nephilim – part human and part angel – connected to the “heroes of old” described in Genesis chapter six.

Asiel, however, does not reveal the entire history of the Nephilim to the newly enlightened Jeremy. Instead, he responds to his ward’s frenzied questions, saying: “Seek the truth at the proper time – and the One who gives it. The angel in your kind longs to serve Him. The human … has a fight on his hands.” These words signal the beginning of Jeremy’s journey: his search for the truth about himself, his quest for the faith he has never known, and his pursuit of the peace that transcends understanding. His early steps along this road take him to the Higher Humanity Institute – a school for children who share Jeremy’s special powers, headed by “commandant” Louisa Prouse. But, the school is literally crawling with demons that only Jeremy can see. Daunting questions begin to swirl through his mind. Why is the presence of evil so strong at a school for the children of angels? Why do none of the other pupils know about the Nephilim? What will be the outcome of what Asiel dubs “the war for truth”?

The world Kathryn Dahlstrom has created within the pages of Children of Angels is an epic battleground pitting good against evil, truth against falsehood, and faith against doubt. In the midst of the action, some of the most pressing questions that may arise in the minds of men are examined:

“Where was God when they took my aunts to the gas chambers?”; “Why had Dad made drugs more important than Mom, Dana, and his son?”; “Do you really love me, Lord Jesus?” 

The writing style is both gripping and entertaining – aimed at young people, but appealing to readers across the age spectrum. The intensity of the action is enjoyably tempered with the type of lightheartedness and banter that only well-crafted characters in their early teens can provide. Also, the imagery that Ms. Dahlstrom uses is remarkably solid – the scenes vividly playing across the picture screen of the reader’s imagination. In fact, it would be wonderful if this story was adapted for the silver screen, bringing a fresh mixture of faith, fantasy, mystery, and excitement to movie-goers who crave what the back cover of the book calls, “adventure with a life-changing message.”

 [A special thanks to guest blogger Anna Gant for this review of Children of Angels! Also thanks to WinePress Publishing for this first book in the exciting New Nephilim series.]

Chesterton on Art

“A man wandering about a race-course, making bets that nobody took seriously, would be merely a bore. And so the hero wandering through a novel, making vows of love that nobody took seriously, is merely a bore. The point here is not so much that morally it cannot be a creditable story, but that artistically it cannot be a story at all. Art is born when the temporary touches the eternal; the shock of beauty is when the irresistible force hits the immovable post.”  --G.K. Chesterton

Chesterton, G.K. Fancies Versus Fads. 1923. Accessed 9 April 2012 <http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/Fancies_Versis_Fads.txt>

Not to Itemize but to Generalize

Michael J. Lewis, in an article on architecture entitled The Decline of American Monuments and Memorials, gives his opinion of why American art is uncomfortable with itself and unable to approach coherent greatness. Speaking of both the plastic arts and the written, he says:

"Allegory requires an imaginative act, and is literary, whereas our culture is uncomfortable with figurative language. This began around 1977, the moment the language censors began to attack phrases like “Man does not live on bread alone,” asking “What about women?” A painful literalism set in, which is hostile to figurative language in speech and to abstract allegory in art. Nowadays we tend to think literally rather than literarily, which explains why Frederick Hart had to portray the American military experience in Vietnam by means of three men of three distinct races—and why a women’s memorial was subsequently added. [Even though to the 58,000 male soldiers killed there were only 7 women killed.] The fear of leaving someone or something out is hostile to the allegorical impulse, which seeks not to itemize but to generalize, and to speak not specific truths but great truths. It is not surprising that a culture ill at ease with the notion of absolute truth would find it very difficult to make monuments that show urgency and conviction."

HT: Hillsdale College Imprimis

"My heart warn't right"

“It made me shiver. And I about made up my mind to pray, and see if I couldn't try to quit being the kind of a boy I was and be better. So I kneeled down. But the words wouldn't come. Why wouldn't they? It warn't no use to try and hide it from Him. Nor from me, neither. I knowed very well why they wouldn't come. It was because my heart warn't right; it was because I warn't square; it was because I was playing double. I was letting on to give up sin, but away inside of me I was holding on to the biggest one of all. I was trying to make my mouth say I would do the right thing and the clean thing... but deep down in me I knowed it was a lie, and He knowed it. You can't pray a lie—I found that out.”  --Huckleberry Finn

In this scene, Huck Finn has an excellent grasp of what is required for a relationship with God. Not only does he realize that a person “can't pray a lie,” but he also knows that, “I was playing double. I was letting on to give up sin, but away inside of me I was holding on to the biggest one of all” (1383). Huck is verbalizing one of the worst problems with prideful man's condition: repenting in word but not in deed. Wanting to have the cake and eat it too. Huck Finn realizes that this won't work. God requires true repentance, not a halfhearted or faked repentance. It is not surprising that Mark Twain picked up on this double-dealing by many people and embodied it in one of his most famous characters. Twain had an ever observant eye out for hypocrisy in every aspect of life. Huck eventually makes the intellectually honest decision not to pray what he doesn't feel inside. How many times, if we looked at our own lives, would we find that Huck is more honest with God about his heart's true condition than we are.

Twain, Mark. Huckleberry Finn. The Norton Anthology of America Literature. Ed. Nina Baym. Shorter 6th ed. New York: W.W. Norton, 2003. Print

C.S. Lewis On Praise

“I had never noticed that all enjoyment spontaneously overflows into praise unless (sometimes even if) shyness or the fear of boring others is deliberately brought in to check it. The world rings with praise—lovers praising their mistresses, readers their favorite poet, walkers praising the countryside, players praising their favorite game—praise of weather, wines, dishes, actors, motors, horses, colleges, countries, historical personages, children, flowers, mountains, rare stamps, rare beetles, even sometimes politicians or scholars. I had not noticed how the humblest, and at the same time most balanced and capacious, minds, praised most, while the cranks, misfits and malcontents praised least. The good critics found something to praise in many imperfect works; the bad ones continually narrowed the list of books we might be allowed to read. The healthy and unaffected man, even if luxuriously bought up and widely experienced in good cookery, could praise a very modest meal: the dyspeptic and the snob found fault with all. Except where intolerably adverse circumstances interfere, praise almost seems to be inner health made audible. Nor does it cease to be so when, through lack of skill, the forms of its expression are very uncouth or even ridiculous. Heaven knows, many poems of praise addressed to an earthly beloved are as bad as our bad hymns.... I had not noticed either that just as men spontaneously praise whatever they value, so they spontaneously urge us to join them in praising it: “Isn't she lovely?” Wasn't it glorious? Don't you think that magnificent?” The Psalmists in telling everyone to praise God are doing what all men do when they speak of what they care about. My whole, more general, difficulty about the praise of God depended on my absurdly denying to us, as regards the supremely Valuable, what we delight to do, what indeed we can't help doing, about everything else we value.”

C.S. Lewis. Reflections on the Psalms. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1958. Print. Pgs 94-95

The Roots of an Evil Regime

Periodically over the last few months I've been dipping into a most fascinating historical exploration. I am in no hurry to finish it, which is why I am only on page 231 of William Shirer's massive 1200+ page Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany. Despite my slowness, it is an intriguing read.

Here I learned of the almost comic “Beer Hall Putsch” where a young and fiery Hitler burst onto the view of Germany brandishing a pistol at a large beer hall and calling for a revolution in Germany. Bluffing that three government leaders he held hostage were in support of his putsch, Hitler garnered enough public support to throw the city of Munich into confusion. The next morning Hitler—still brandishing his pistol—marched through the streets of Munich with three thousand followers at his back.

But this revolution of November 1923 fell into the cracks of the pavement after a firefight with the police. Hitler fled as the rest of his Nazi cohorts scattered across the countryside and across Europe to avoid arrest. Most of them, including Hitler, were unable to avoid arrest, but Hitler turned even this dismal turn of events into a speaking platform for his movement. And after nine months in prison he was back on the street, feverishly polishing off the tarnish from his image.

While Hitler gave up his revolutionary aspirations after his arrest and imprisonment, his rise to absolute power was not entirely legal, and certainly not peaceful, although it was done with the consent of the German people. Hitler realized he must overthrow the German Republic from within so he began winning over the voting populace to the Nazi party. It was a long and seemingly impossible road for the once ridiculed Austrian Vagabond; yet ultimately, the blame for Hitler's rise to power rests with the German people. Even a year and a half after his appointment as Chancellor, when Hitler illegally combined the office of Chancellor and President into one Fuehrer, the German people were given one last chance to remove someone whose words and actions had clearly been leading the nation towards totalitarianism. William Shirer writes of Hitler's final grab for power:

“That the 'law' was illegal also made little difference in a Germany where the former Austrian corporal had now become the law itself. That it was illegal was obvious... But what mattered the law now? ...And the German people? On August 19 [1934], some 95 per cent of those who had registered went to the polls, and 90 per cent, more than thirty-eight million of them, voted approval of Hitlers usurpation of complete power” (229-230).

Shirer goes on in astonishment to note:

“the overwhelming majority of Germans did not seem to mind that their personal freedom had been taken away, that so much of their culture had been destroyed and replaced with a mindless barbarism, or that their life and work had become regimented to a degree never before experienced even by a people accustomed for generations to a great deal of regimentation... a newly arrived observer was somewhat surprised to see that the people of this country did not seem to feel that they were being cowed and held down by an unscrupulous and brutal dictatorship. On the contrary, they supported it with genuine enthusiasm. Somehow it imbued them with a new hope and a new confidence and an astonishing faith in the future of their country” (231).

And what were the origins of this new “hope” and “faith in the future?” Much of it came from the writings of a neurotic Englishman named Houston Chamberlain, also known as “the father of Nazism.” Chamberlain, made no secret that he believed his once influential writings and thoughts were inspired from outside of himself by demons. Chamberlain looked on his writings with admiration, sometimes “unable to recognize them as his own work, because they surpassed his expectations” (105). Shirer writes:

“Once, in 1896, when he was returning from Italy, the presence of a demon became so forceful that he got off the train at Gardone, shut himself up in a hotel room for eight days and, abandoning some work on music that he had contemplated, wrote feverishly on a biological thesis until he had the germ of the theme that would dominate all of his later works: race and history” (105).

Needless to say, Chamberlain's views about the Aryans were not just racist, but also “shoddy” and preposterous (105-107); nevertheless, the early Nazi press heralded his writings as the “gospel of the Nazi movement” (109).

Seeing the outcome of such a hate-filled and racist “gospel” at the foundation of a government should make us thankful that the “gospel” at the foundation of the American government was, believe it or not, the Gospel; the good news of Jesus coming to reconcile man with God, and man with man. (For example, the most cited author of the American Founders was the apostle Paul.) As can be seen, an era so dark in the world's history, as the Nazi era was, did not come about through benign neighborly love. Its roots were demonic and its trunk a rejection of Jesus' command to “love your neighbor as yourself.”

William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany. New York, Simon and Schuster. 1960

Education Servilus and Education Liberalis

“Ancient education was divided into two categories: (1) education for slaves (education servilus), which was restricted to teaching the slaves to do a particular job, to contribute to the economic system, and to conform to the demands of the society that enslaved them; and (2) education for the free (education liberalis), which equipped students of the Greek democracy and the Roman Republic to be free citizens who could come up with the ideas, knowledge, creativity, leadership, and virtues necessary for self-governance and the pursuit of excellence.

Today’s dominant approaches to education, both in the public schools and in the universities, are essentially a revival of the education for slaves. To be sure, those with 'successful careers' may be well-paid, but they still think and act like slaves.” --Gene Edward Veith

In a society so enthralled by the economy and making money we should not be surprised by this. Echoing our preoccupation in his inaugural address, President Obama affirmed, "we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age." A new age of slavery.

HT: Redeemedreader.com

Textual Evidence that the Gospels are Reliable History

The video below shows what careful readers like C.S. Lewis have known all along: that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts of real events. In essays like "Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism" Lewis shows that the literary technique of the Gospels is not like that of ancient myths; that in fact it is not a "literary technique" at all, simply "reportage." Episodes such as Jesus writing in the dust while talking to a woman, or the man who escapes the guards by squirming out of his tunic at the Garden of Gethsemane, are either true events "or else, some unknown writer in the second century, without known predecessors or successors, suddenly anticipated the whole technique of modern, novelistic, realistic narrative" (Lewis).

Dr. Peter Williams in the video below makes a similar case, arguing that the occurrence of names, places, and geography in the canonical Gospels is strong evidence of their authenticity.

HT: First Things

The Man Behind the Monster: An Interview with Grendel.

By Kate Corrnie, special to Forbode Magazine.

Today I had the unique opportunity to interview Grendel, a well-known literary figure, and someone who was just named to Forbode Magazine's list of 10 most ruthless characters. I caught up with Grendel at one of his favorite haunts: a desolate pond in Scandinavia near where he was raised. The place is a cross between those two iconic bodies of water: Walden Pond and the planet Dagobad. When I met him, Grendel was applying a fresh bandage to a wound he had recently received, so I asked him about it.

Kate: How did you lose your arm?

Grendel: I got in a fight with a big guy who ripped it off.

Kate: I'm so sorry! That sounds terrible. Can you describe what that experience was like?

Grendel: It was the worst day of my life, believe me. I was feeling down and out that day to begin with, real angry at the world, and all that. You know the feeling—well, maybe you don't.... Anyway I decided to take it out on some of old Hrothgar's folks, same as I've done many-a-time. It always makes me feel better to knock some heads. I get there and everybody's sleeping, and all that, so I grab a guy and show him who's boss, when all of a sudden this big guy jumps me and we have a real go at it. He has this incredibly strong grip. We're wrestling together for a while and I just can't shake him off. Finally he grabs hold of my arm—and by this time I'm thinking: “this place is hell, I need to get outa here”—and he literally pulls my bloody arm off!

Kate: Horrible! What did you do then?

Grendel: Well, he was holding my arm, not me, at that point so I got outa there in a hurry.

Kate: How do you feel towards the man who disabled you?

Grendel: How do you think?! How would you feel if somebody pulled your bloody arm off! That guy should be drawn and quartered! I talked to a lawyer but he acted like there was nothing to do. It was self defense he said. Self defense to pull somebody's arm off?! How wrong is that? My livelihood is gone!

Kate: Since you bring up your livelihood, why don't you tell me a little about your business?

Grendel: Basically, I'm a pirate. I take what I need and then some. It's not a bad business to be in in this economy, actually.

Kate: Clearly not, since you were recently named to Forbode Magazine's list of 10 most ruthless businessmen. It's been said that you don't just make a living, you make a killing. Is that an accurate characterization?

Grendel [chuckling]: Yeah, you could say that.

Kate: What was the pinnacle of your pillaging career?

Grendel: Well, I've been in the business a little over 12 years, so there have been a lot of good hauls, but I would have to say the best was the time I carried off 30 of Hrothgar's men in one night. I do everything on a graveyard shift, it just makes my work so much easier.

Kate: In your dealings with others you have often been compared to Cain. Do you think the comparison is accurate?

Grendel: Well... Sure. We're both kinda loners. Kinda outcasts from society. People don't like us, and we don't like people!

Kate: You say you are a loner. Did you have any friends growing up, Grendel? Why don't you tell us about your childhood?

Grendel: My life as a kid was hard. I grow up without a father: my mother was a single parent. The only place we could afford to live was little better than a swamp. No electricity. We had running water, but, unfortunately, it was running through the roof. I would have to say my childhood wasn't typical. I was always a loner; didn't have any friends growing up. I was always jealous when I saw the other kids having fun together. I tried to steal their toys and scare them. I guess I just wanted to make their life miserable because I was miserable.

Kate: Were you—forgive me if this sounds crude—were you a bully growing up?

Grendel: Yeah, you could probably say that.

Kate: How would you characterize your relationship with your mother?

Grendel: She taught me everything I know. Always stuck up for me. Still does. In fact, as we speak she's on her way to pay back the fellow who did this to my arm. Pity the poor wretches she gets her hands on. Raising me alone like she did taught her to be every bit as tough as I am myself.

Kate: We're running out of time, and I can see that shoulder is giving you a lot of pain. One more question: who's your hero?

Grendel: That's a hard one... Frankenstein's Creature is someone I really look up to, but on the other hand, there's a lot I admire in Gollum as well...

Editor's Note: Shortly after this interview with Forbode Magazine, Grendel passed away due to complications from the injury to his arm. Correspondent Kate Corrnie was the last person to interview him before his death.

More Than a Monster: The Symbolic Meaning of Grendel

“In off the moors, down through the mist-bands
God-cursed Grendel came greedily loping” (Beowulf Lines 710-11).

In this way the anonymous author of the epic Beowulf poem offers us a glimpse of the blood-chilling monster Grendel just before he attacks the mead-hall of Heorot. Leaving terror in his wake, Grendel ranges out from the wild swamps of Scandinavia with the express intention of seeking out men and doing them harm. But who is Grendel? On one level, Grendel is a Gothic forerunner of Frankenstein's Creature, worthy to take his place among the terrifying monsters who inhabit the world of fiction. Yet, like Frankenstein's Creature, Grendel is more than just an inhuman monster. He is a symbol of the jealousy and hate that seeks to destroy others' happiness and can ultimately cripple a civilization.

The physical description of Grendel is vague, an indication that his fictional existence in time and space is less important than the idea that he represents. The author of the poem has fleshed out Grendel just enough to show us that while misshapen and abhorrent, Grendel is not really alien to the race of men. The text indicates that he is essentially human in form. Huge and misshapen, but having “hands,” “arms” (Lines 833, 835), and a mother who is familiar enough with tools to use a dagger (L 1545-6). What places him solidly in the role of a human—albeit, disfigured—is his relation to Cain. It is this relationship to Cain that needs to be explored to fully understand Grendel.

Like Cain who killed his brother, Grendel is a “restless wanderer on the earth” alienated from the rest of mankind (Genesis 4:12). Unable to join the community of men, Grendel becomes envious and “nursed a hard grievance. It harrowed him/ to hear the din of the loud banquet/ everyday in the hall, the harp being struck/ and the clear song of a skilled poet” (L 88-90). Grendel's jealousy and hate finds outlet in destroying the good things he envies. In this way, Grendel personifies the destructive nature of jealousy.

The object of his envy is the mead-hall of Heorot. This is the center of the Danish community's civilization, and—giving the story universal application—this mead-hall is, “the greatest house in the world” (L 145-46). No civilization is free from the attacks of envy and strife which Grendel represents, since even “the greatest house in the world” is thrown into confusion. Clearly, Grendel is no backwater freak-show scaring some villagers, he is a cunning force that even the greatest civilizations must wrestle with. It is telling that Grendel only cares about terrorizing the main hall of Heorot, the center of civilization. To escape him, a man could leave the mead-hall, “shifting himself to a safer distance/ to bed in the bothies [outlying buildings]” (L 139-40). Since any building would be within the range of Grendel, it is clear that he represents a community problem more than just an individual problem. He purposefully strikes at the social and political heart of Danish civilization: the mead-hall.

This disruption at the heart of the community has serious implications. The feasting and fellowship that are synonymous with the traditional mead-hall are interrupted, crippling the harmony of society. It is a bad sign when men no longer feel safe in the place where traditionally safety and trust are paramount. And this breakdown of the community is long lasting. The text tells us that for “twelve winters” the mead-hall of king Hrothgar is terrorized by Grendel (L 147).

During this entire time, the coming of Grendel is unpredictable. He always attacks at night when the warriors are sleeping. Even on the night Beowulf hopes to encounter Grendel, “the hall guards were slack, asleep at their posts” (L 704). From the standpoint of realism it is unbelievable that a roomful of warriors—fearful of their lives and with a knowledge of Grendel's habits—would all fall asleep. When seen in the context of Grendel's personification of lurking envy in society, however, their sleep mirrors the vulnerability of society to those who hate what is good in it.

When the warriors do wake up to their danger they find that Grendel can not be hurt by traditional weapons of war, illustrating yet again that he is not just a physical enemy but a moral one as well that must be “wrestled” with. “There was something they could not have known at the time,/ that no blade on earth, no blacksmith's art/ could ever damage their demon opponent” (L 800-802). Swords cannot cut through the feelings of jealousy and hate that disturb the harmony of the mead-hall.

Grendel is not the only illustration of this. Reinforcing the point that this is an inner human problem, the text gives lengthy space to the envy of Unferth. Whereas all the other Danes welcome Beowulf, Unferth is left feeling, “sick with envy:/ he could not brook or abide the fact/ that anyone else alive under heaven/ might enjoy greater regard than he did” (L 502-505). Unferth is the fully human counterpart of Grendel in the text, mirroring in real life what Grendel represents symbolically. Unferth is envious of Beowulf''s glory in the mead-hall, just as Grendel is envious of the glory and happiness of all men in the mead-hall. Unferth is a murderer of his “own kith and kin” as Beowulf points out (L 587), just as Grendel is a bloody killer. Unferth seeks to humiliate Beowulf, just as Grendel seeks to humiliate all men. We are surprised to learn that Unferth is an unpunished killer, but this is precisely because he does on a small scale what Grendel does for a living: Grendel we are told—but it applies equally well on a personal level to Unferth—“knows he can trample down you Danes/ to his hearts content, humiliate and murder/ without fear of reprisal” (L 599-601). Happily, after Beowulf conquers the monster, Unferth is reconciled to Beowulf and they exchange presents, representing once again that when the monster of envy and hate is destroyed, peace and harmony are possible.

We end with the question we began with: Who is Grendel? Grendel is the rapacious envy of man given living shape. He cannot stand the happiness or glory of others in the mead-hall. If he cannot share it, he must destroy it. Grendel may or may not have lived in the forgotten past of Northern Europe but it doesn't matter. What matters is that Grendel still lives—lives and lurks outside our own mead-hall. But he may do more than lurk on the outside—on a personal level, we must beware of becoming Grendel. What God told Cain (the first ancestor of Grendel) before his envy caused him to kill his brother, is a good warning: “If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it” (Genesis 4:7).

Works Cited

Beowulf. Seamus Heaney, Trans. M.H. Abrams, Editor. The Norton Anthology of English Literature: the Major Authors Edition. 7^th ed. W.W. Norton and Co. 2001

Not Surprised

 The hostage standoff at the Discovery Channel building in Maryland should not come as any surprise. James Jay Lee wants to "save the planet" after watching An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore and reading extremist environmental books. But we should not think it is only extremists who want to stop all human population growth and consider babies a blight on mother nature. In a blog post from December 2009, I wrote about this very indoctrination going on wholesale in American colleges. This is an excerpt:

"Convince people that the earth is overpopulated and they will freely give up their right to reproduce; convince people that humanity is a parasite sucking life out of “mother earth” and they will rejoice when whole segments of this parasite are “eliminated” through holocaust, euthanasia, or abortion."

We reap what we sow. The only thing that is surprising is that more wackos indoctrinated in our schools haven't done something similar yet.

Envy

In off the moors, down through the mist-bands
God-cursed Grendel came greedily loping. (Beowulf 710-11)

This has got to be one of the best lines from Seamus Heaney's translation of Beowulf. One can almost see a huge misshapen form lurching across the cold moor; the wafting mist now concealing, now half revealing the monstrous descendant of banished Cain.

Who is Grendel? Grendel is the rapacious envy of man given living shape. He cannot stand the happiness of others in the mead-hall. If he cannot share it, he must destroy it.

Lord and Thane

The relationship of the Christian to Christ is often portrayed as that of a servant to a master. The parallel is good and true, but for those who find the metaphor of slaves either stale or repellent, consider this description of old Germanic kings and their followers taken from The Norton Anthology of English Literature:

When a warrior vowed loyalty to his lord, he became not so much his servant as his voluntary companion, one who would take pride in defending him and fighting in his wars. In return, the lord was expected to take care of his thanes and to reward them richly for their valor; a good king, one like Hrothgar or Beowulf, is referred to by such poetic epithets as “ring-giver” and as the “helmet” and “shield” of his people (25).

Abrams, M.H. The Norton Anthology of English Literature: The Major Authors 7th. ed. W.W.Norton and Co. 2001

What To Do With Your Life

Recalling the pessimism of Ecclesiastes, Samuel Johnson's History of Rasselas, Prince of Abissinia is the fictional journey of 3 young travelers on a quest to find happiness. Growing up in the sheltered “Happy Valley,” prince Rasselas, his sister Nekayah, and a maid, tunnel out of the idle luxury of the valley to look for meaning and happiness in the world outside. Everywhere they question those they meet if their profession and “choice of life” have made them happy. Invariably, the answer is no. Those with power are hated and deposed, those without power are abused; those with money have enemies, those without money are without; those with learning have wasted their time, “in the attainment of sciences which can, for the most part, be but remotely useful to mankind” (113), those without learning are rude and discontent.

It would seem upon first sight that Johnson is saying: “vanity, vanity, all is vanity.” Even the great pyramids that Rasselas and the princess visit are a testament to the futility of earthly achievement. According to the siblings' guide:

“I consider this mighty structure as a monument to the insufficiency of human enjoyments.... Whoever thou art, that, not content with a moderate condition, imaginest happiness in royal magnificence, and dreamest that command or riches can feed the appetite of novelty with perpetual gratification, survey the pyramids, and confess thy folly!” (78).

This echoes Ecclesiastes where Solomon says: “I undertook great projects: I built houses for myself and planted vineyards.... Yet... everything was meaningless, a chasing after the wind” (Eccl. 2:4,11).

Yet Johnson's narrative, like Ecclesiastes, is not without hope. Both enjoin us to enjoy each moment as much as possible and in the end both peer forward toward a dimly seen future significance. Near the end of the book, princess Nekayah puts it this way: “'To me,' said the princess, 'the choice of life is become less important; I hope hereafter to think only on the choice of eternity'” (122). Ecclesiastes comes to a similar conclusion: “remember your Creator... Remember him—before the silver cord is severed, or the golden bowl is broken” (Eccl. 12:6).

Samuel Johnson, The History of Rasselas, Prince of Abissinia. The World's Classics-Oxford University Press. 1988

Walking Into Chaos

Here is a copy of my letter to the editor of the Record Searchlight published last Sunday.

Consider the reasoning behind Judge Walker's ruling on gay marriage: his ruling argues that morality can no longer be the basis of our legal system. But if the moral law—what philosophers and the authors of the Constitution called “natural law”—is no longer the basis of society's laws, what is? The will of the majority? Clearly not, since Walker overturned the vote of the majority. There is only one other option: the will of a small elite like Walker who get to dictate what we can and cannot do on an ever-changing basis. Is any current law now exempt from challenge? Laws against polygamy, prostitution, animal cruelty, destroying the environment—even the idea at the heart of secular government: preserving the existence of human society—are all based on a standard of right and wrong. Recognition of a supreme moral law is the only rational anchor for society's laws.

California Ballot Measures 2010

As promised, here are some reasons for voting on the Propositions in the California ballot June 8. As always, be an informed voter and chime in with any pros and cons I may have missed.

Yes on Proposition 13. This measure is about a matter so trivial it is hard to fathom how enough signatures were collected to put in on the ballot. It eliminates tax assessments on buildings that have been retrofitted for earthquakes. In theory it could be a tax cut but as the Record Searchlight points out: “in practice county assessors don’t tax seismic retrofits anyway, according to the legislative analysis of the bill” (redding.com).

No on Proposition 14. While there is a certain idealism in doing away with political parties, this measure is somewhat frightening. “The proposal will require that candidates run in a single primary open to all registered voters, with the top two vote-getters meeting in a runoff” (ballotpedia.org). My question is: why even have a primary? Why not just hold the election and give it to the top vote getter since this is basically what this measure does? Consider: if two Republicans or two Democrats get the top votes in such a primary it means there will only be two Republicans or two Democrats to vote for in the general election. Since California is dominantly Democrat it is more likely to be two Democrats. And what about third parties? Say goodbye, they won't even be an option on the ballot in the general election. Not surprisingly, all six ballot-qualified political parties in California oppose Prop. 14.

No on Proposition 15. If passed this measure would overturn a longstanding ban on using taxpayer money to publicly fund candidates (specifically Secretary of State but potentially any candidate). It also charges all lobbyists groups $350 dollars a year, money which will go into a newly created campaign fund. I just don't see why the government should be funding every Joe Blow who begs, borrows, or steals 7,500 signatures and $5 donations. But it is complicated so see ballotpedia.org for this and all the other measures.

No on Proposition 16. Follow the money trail... PG&E doesn't want their monopoly challenged so they have given $41 million in support of this measure. While it sounds good that the voters get to vote, is it really necessary? A 2/3rds majority just so a local government (i.e. a city) can set up their own power grid and not pay PG&E? If the city of Redding is any bellweather, Redding Electric Utility rates in the city are cheaper than that provided by PG&E in the surrounding area. I would rather see more power companies than less. I am being a bipartisan voter, however, since Prop 16 is supported by the Republican party and opposed by the Democratic party.

Yes on Proposition 17. This measure allows auto insurance companies to give discounts to new customers with a good insurance history. It rewards the responsible, although critics say it could also penalize the irresponsible and young. The bottom line is that it does away with an arbitrary government regulation forced on the auto insurance business in 1988. And that is a good thing.

California Primary 2010

This year's Republican primary ballot for the state of California has quite a long list of candidates and I was a bit intimidated by it. Since other people probably have questions also I thought I would list some of the people I feel are best qualified. If you are not from California you can stop reading now. If you are not a registered Republican you can read or not read as you choose. If you know something about a candidate, either one I've mentioned or any I've overlooked, please leave a comment and tell us what's wrong or right about him or her. The candidates I've listed seem like the best choice to me now but I may still change my mind if future evidence paints them in a different light than my research into their bios has led me to believe.

Governor:
Realistically there are only two Republican candidates for this office: Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner. While an alternative such as the evangelical Christian Ken Miller from San Francisco may be an entertaining diversion, he has no possibility of winning even his home city (er, especially his home city!). The Big Two have many similarities: both supported abortion in the past and now (supposedly) have changed their minds. Both have supported Democrat candidates like Al Gore (Poizner) Boxer (Whitman) and John Kerry (Poizner and Whitman). For a look at their similarities see here. When it comes down to a choice between these similar candidates, I side with the one least tainted by politics: Meg Whitman. She can't be accused of being a career politician, heck, she barely even voted in the past! Meg Whitman has extensive experience as a businesswoman which is what this state needs to balance budgets. She also opposes California's cap and trade bill AB 32. And frankly, she's running an effective advertising campaign against Poizner, making herself sound good.

Lieutenant Governor:
Scott Levitt bills himself as a solid conservative. A practicing attorney, Levitt is quoted on Wikipedia as saying: “there is not a revenue problem in the United States of America, and there is certainly not a revenue problem in the richest state…California. There is an absolute spending crisis.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Levitt#cite_note-6 Levitt is for a leaner government which means less state employees and less bureaucracy. He opposes climate change legislation that will hurt the economy such as California's AB 32. And you've got to like a guy who calls the government, “a hundred armed creature... tentacles stretched into every facet of business and personal life.” http://www.levittforlg.com/?page_id=6

Secretary of State:
Orly Taitz is a colorful person who is entertaining to read about. A Moldavian-born Jew, she lived in Israel before moving to to the US and gaining citizenship in 1992. Bill O'Reilly called her a “nut” for her outspoken lawsuits in the Obama “birther” conspiracy movement. I predict she has little change of winning a general election, although, in addition to 5 languages, I think her varied background and law experience makes her qualified for a job like Secretary of State. Her only opponent, Damon Dunn, was a NFL player who registered as a Democrat in Florida in 1999.

Attorney General:
John Eastman. This man's credentials are in Constitutional law, a big plus over typical “lawyers.” He has worked with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and served as dean of Chapman University Law School. His campaign website http://www.eastmanforag.com/ portrays him as a conservative with a strong respect for the Constitution. Some of his published journal article are at SSRN. all of the titles look interesting, although I haven't yet read any, including one entitled: “We are a Religious People Whose Institutions Presuppose a Supreme Being”

Insurance Commissioner:
All of the candidates but Fitzgerald are termed out assemblymen looking for a new job. Fitzgerald has not done much campaigning so it seems that Mike Villines is the best choice. Villines has been active working on budgets with Schwarzenegger and supports health savings accounts. He has made some serious concessions to the left in past and current offices, but he is a politician in California after all. http://www.mikevillines.com/

United States Senator:
Chuck DeVore sounds like a solid choice. Termed out of the State assembly where he has been serving, DeVore worked with the Reagan administration early on in his career. He has supported traditional and nuclear energy for California as well as being tough on taxes.
Carly Fiorina is another option. She has been endorsed by Sarah Palin, possibly because they worked together during the McCain campaign when Fiorina defended Palin as a speaker and economic advisor for McCain. She also chaired the Republican National Committee's fund-raising efforts.
Tom Campbell is out for defending same-sex marriage and voting “no” on Prop. 8 in 2008. http://reason.com/archives/2008/10/24/ending-marriage-discrimination

United States House of Representatives, 2nd District:
Incumbent Wally Herger.

State Senator, 4th District:
Incumbent Doug LaMalfa

State Assembly, 2nd District:
Charlie Schaupp http://www.charlieschaupp.com/, a Marine Lieutenant Colonel, is pro-life, an NRA member, and has a history of family farming. Jim Nielsen is... well, the incumbent... Neither one sounds terrible, in fact they both sound pretty good. It might be worth while to vote for Schaupp just because he is not a career politician like Nielsen. What do you think?

State Board of Equalization, 2nd District:
Barbara Alby is acting board-member due to Bill Leonard's favorable resignation in March 2010. On her website she promises: “I will fight all tax increases.” However, George Runner may be the best choice for this position thanks to his support of the Tea Party and his promises to fight all taxes and challenge the status quo in Sacramento. http://www.georgerunner.com/ Runner at last check had a significant campaign contribution lead.

State Superintendent of Public Instruction:
Henry Williams Jr. was a homeschooling father for 12 years, as well as a history teacher at Simpson University for 2 years. According to his bio page, 3 children have graduated while a fourth is attending a public school. He enjoys the snow at Mt Shasta. A local?! Why haven't I heard of this guy before? http://www.williamsforstatesuperintendent.com/henry_p.html

But wait, Diane Lenning for Superintendent sounds good too! She wrote a book defending the American Republic in which she encourages everyone to MEMORIZE the US Constitution. See the book at Christian publisher Xulon Press. This is a hard choice, any thoughts about these two?

Be informed. Chime in with additional pertinent information on these candidates. Before the election I plan to post about the ballot measures and some local Shasta county elections.

The Future of the Family?

A few days ago I saw a quote from the Washington Post that keeps revolving in my mind.

“Once a country adopts an old-age pension system, it creates an implicit bias against raising children.... One of the natural reasons for raising children is not just because you like kids, but to take care of yourself in old age. Once a country gives everybody access to everyone else's kids' money [in the form of Social Security and Medicare], it undermines the natural economic incentive to raise kids.”

Building on this idea, I think we can construct a broader argument by positing that when the government becomes the dominant caregiver at any age the traditional role of the family as primary social support system is undermined. Who needs a wife, husband, mother, father, child, when a surrogate entitlement program works just as well? Why put up with messy relationships when a clinical dispensary provides everything that the members of a family once provided? Are we close to an Orwellian future society where the family is outmoded and government becomes more than just Big Brother but also a big impersonal family?