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?

Making Light of Oppression

Taking a cue from President Barack Obama, who encourages those who watch Glenn Beck and Fox News to vary their diet with the views of “the other side,” I decided to read a news blog that one of Obama's own advisors on religion and politics maintains. Rev. Jim Wallis's blog is called Sojourners: Faith, Politics, Culture. A large number of contributors write on it, including some Emerging Church familiars, most notably, Brian MacLaren. So perhaps this can hardly be called “the other side.”

If I must take a side, however, it would be strongly against a certain contributor's post entitled: Pedagogy of the Oppressor: Arizona's Ethnic Studies Ban. The author, Cezar Baldelomar, first points out that the US forcibly took the land that comprises California, Arizona, and Texas, and therefore illegal immigrants have a right to be there. In his words, “current immigrants... were once the rightful owners of the very territory they are now trying to enter.” But the focus of his article and the focus of my disagreement is not over this somewhat angry side note. The decline of “ethnic studies” in Arizona is what elicits his strongest barbs because Arizona is trying to make light (pun intended) of its “oppression” towards minorities. He quotes the Arizona Schools Superintendent Tom Horne as saying: “We should be teaching these kids that this is the land of opportunity. If they work hard, then they can achieve their dreams. And not teach them that they are oppressed.” But in Baldelomar's view they are “oppressed” and need to be reminded that they are. I believe our President also said he would welcome more “oppression studies.”

It is hard for someone like me who is rediscovering western classical education to be enamored of “ethnic oppression studies.” No pun intended this time, but the idea is foreign to me. Nor can I understand why Mr. Baldelomar (who is a graduate student at the prestigious Harvard Divinity School) thinks he is oppressed. Identifying with his fellow sufferers he exclaims that oppression “is our reality!” Is it really a reality or just an overactive imagination? I can think of one good reason to eliminate “ethnic studies” from schools and it doesn't even have to do with improving grades in important subjects. It is to erase the lingering thought that, “ethnic studies... confirm for minority students what we have been feeling all along, namely, that we were, are, and will be victims of oppression.” Prophesy is a dangerous business because sometimes the prophesy is self-fulfilling. Mr. Baldelomar believes he always will be a victim; maybe he is right... but he should give others a chance to think more highly of themselves. I hope this blog post is not mistaken for a form of oppression against a poor, suffering Harvard student.

The Revelation of King Arthur

The allure of Arthurian stories has held people spellbound since before the time of the printing press. Thomas Malory brought King Arthur and the Round Table to English readers in the 15^th century with his famous Le Morte D' Arthur, but the stories are much older than he and known in many other lands and languages. Today, the list of stories and poems that have taken King Arthur and his knights as their subject is inexhaustible. The fascination has led Robert Bruce Fruehling to write a book that equates the enduring appeal of the “once and future king” with the appeal that the Antichrist will have in the future. Fruehling's book, The Revelation of King Arthur: Deceit, Intrigue, and the Guards' Account explores the possibility of the future Antichrist aligning himself in the popular imagination with the messianic King Arthur.

The Revelation of King Arthur opens by explaining the innate need of humanity for a hero-king to look up to and follow. This need historically has led entire nations to be deceived into following men who claim to be the hero and national leader the people are looking for. Adolf Hitler in Germany is an example of someone able to deceive “even the elect.”

But the great deception of the Antichrist during the end-times and how this deception will be accomplished is the focus of the book. A principle part of the deception, according to Fruehling, is to de-legitimize the messiah-ship of Jesus and his status as the hero who has come to save us. If Christ is not our savior then we still need “another Christ,” the Antichrist, to save us. One popular heresy that is seeing a reemergence today is that Jesus did not die on the cross but instead married Mary Magdalene and fled Judea. In this heresy Jesus himself becomes unimportant and instead the “Holy Grail” takes on significance. Those familiar with The Da Vinci Code know that in this heresy, “the 'Grail' became a code word for the womb of Mary Magdalene, who carried the 'holy child of Christ.' The quest itself was the search for the holy bloodline” (60). What better leader to elevate to the status of Antichrist than one who claims to be a living descendant of Jesus?

The real meat of the book starts on page 51 when Fruehling describes this heresy and traces some of the subsequent stories about where the supposed descendants and relatives of Jesus settled. According to one of these legends, Mary Magdalene traveled to France where the Merovingian line of Frankish kings were descended from her. In true Da Vinci Code style, Fruehling includes photos of religious artwork depicting Mary with the Fleur-de-lys—the French emblem of the royal line—on them. Laugh if you will, but the point is that even the most ludicrous deceptions are believed by some.

Where does King Arthur fit into all this? Robert Fruehling quotes a published genealogist of Scottish royalty, Laurence Gardner. Writing about the house of Steward, Gardner makes the incredible claim: “this senior Steward descent goes all the way back to King Arthur's father, King Aedan of the Scots (notice not Uther Pendragon of England or Wales), on the one hand and to Prince Nascien of the Septimanian Midi on the other... The Midi succession stems from the Merovingians' male ancestral line through the Fisher Kings to Jesus and Mary Magdalene (104). Fruehling explains what this means: “amazing as it sounds, the whole legend of King Arthur and the Holy Grail refers to Arthur himself! He is in the Grail lineage, as we will see, and is known as the Grail King... the story of the Holy Grail connects the bloodline of Jesus to King Arthur and on through Arthur's descendants” (103). It is important to remember that the author does not believe any of these heresies about descendants of Jesus, he is merely warning that people are being deceived by heresies such as this one about the descent of Arthur and the related one in The Da Vinci Code.

What Fruehling does believe is that the prophesies about “the once and future king” Arthur are disturbingly similar to the prophesies about the Antichrist in the book of Revelation. Anyone familiar with their Malory knows that Arthur's last wound is a wound to the head. Compare to Rev. 13:3, 12, 13. The “red dragon” of Rev 12: 3 was embossed on King Arthur's standard as it still is on the flag of Wales today. When Arthur was born the midwife exclaimed: “Here is a Dragon!” Fruehling notes: “Coupled with the surname 'Pendragon' or 'Chief dragon' the prophetic significance will become apparent” (98). “He once was, now is not, and yet will come.” Rev. 17:8 “The once and future king.” Coincidence? Maybe. If you ask Fruehling, the similarity is more than coincidence (127-128).

When I received my copy of the book from WinePress Publishing, I was overjoyed to see—tucked away near the end of the book—a chapter on two of my favorite authors: C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien. Not surprisingly in a book that equates Arthurian myth with the end-times and Antichrist, the treatment of Lewis and Tolkien is not as blindly enthusiastic as most Christian readers. Fruehling examines their interest in the Arthurian legends in light of their friendship with the heterodox authors Charles Williams and Owen Barfield. Charles Williams, whose supernatural thrillers have a small but ardent readership, had an unhealthy interest in the occult. The influence of these men—particularly on Lewis—is a little mentioned fact and I was pleased to see it addressed in the book.

Fruehling explores what he finds to be a disturbing openness to the pagan elements of the Arthurian legends on the part of Christians. Christians are proud to heap accolades on C.S. Lewis, Charles Williams, and Steven R. Lawhead for their novels and poems in the Arthurian genre; however, Fruehling warns that these “Christian” authors veer dangerously into the pagan and occult in their writings on the theme. Speaking of Lewis's novel That Hideous Strength, which tells of a reincarnated Arthur and a magical Merlin in twentieth century England who save the world from a diabolical evil, he states his opinion that, “combining Christianity with esoteric thought and myth destroys the message rather than makes it easier to take” (145). Such a view about myth and story is completely opposite to that of Lewis himself who thought that myths could be used to convey valuable truths.

Fruehling accurately pegs the important contribution of That Hideous Strength to the corpus of Arthuriana and raises a valid argument about the use of pagan elements in a “Christian” book, but why he includes The Lord of the Rings in that corpus is not clear. To classify it as Arthurian literature is a stretch, although it would be hard for any fantasy writer to entirely escape the shadow of the Round Table. There are bound to be superficial similarities and Fruehling gives but three. Perhaps strongest of the three is the mentor/apprentice relationship of Gandalf and Aragorn compared to Merlin and Arthur (147). What Mr. Fruehling fails to mention, however, is that the motif of a mentor guiding a hero is common throughout heroic literature and could be equally applied to many works in the genre. Theorist Joseph Campbell points this out as one of the defining features of mythic quest stories.

Anyone interested in Arthuriana or the end-times will find The Revelation of King Arthur very interesting. At only 164 pages it is a quick read but the 8 pages of endnotes makes it feel like a full meal rather than an appetizer. Not all of Fruehling's points convinced me, but the mystery around King Arthur has always intrigued me and he offers a thought provoking scenario to tie up the mysteriously open-ended story of King Arthur.

Robert Bruce Fruehling, The Revelation of King Arthur: Deceit, Intrigue and the Guard's Account. WinePress Publishing, 2009.