Saturday, August 31, 2019

A recommendation

A very good review of C.S. Lewis: A Very Short Introduction, a book I've mentioned here before. Read it all if you have time. The review is a good introduction to the Introduction.
‘The lecturer, a short, thickset man with a ruddy face and a big voice, was coming to the end of his talk.” That was the opening sentence of the Time magazine cover story for September 8, 1947. The subject of the story, who swiftly exited the classroom for the nearest pub, was the Oxford University don and best-selling author Clive Staples Lewis. How did a scholar of medieval literature, with no formal theological training — a strident atheist in his youth — become, in the words of Time, “one of the most influential spokesmen for Christianity in the English-speaking world”?

This is one of the questions taken up by James Como in C.S. Lewis: A Very Short Introduction, a recent title in the Oxford University Press series of compact introductions to wide-ranging topics. Como’s unlikely achievement is to deliver a brief (under 200 pages) yet compelling literary survey of Lewis’s works, which include over 40 books, 200 essays, 150 poems, short stories, a diary, and three volumes of letters. I can think of only a handful of authors qualified to take on such a project, and Como is among them. A professor emeritus of rhetoric at York College (CUNY), a founding member of the New York C.S. Lewis Society, and the author of Branches to Heaven: The Geniuses of C.S. Lewis (1998), he is a leading Lewis scholar.

Nevertheless, the task is daunting. Lewis’s writings — his fantasy, science fiction, apologetics, and theological essays — were as diverse as his public personae. He excelled in his roles as a university lecturer, literary historian, broadcaster, debater, preacher, and public intellectual. His series of children’s books, The Chronicles of Narnia, has sold over 100 million copies in over 40 languages. Though he was a lifelong Protestant (Anglican), his works could be found at the bedside of Pope John Paul II. .... (the rest)

Wednesday, August 28, 2019

A liberal education?

I attended a small liberal arts college. The curriculum was designed around a major and a minor, with additional requirements to take integrated classes in the fine arts, music, natural sciences, literature, and social sciences. None of those additional classes went into great depth but I was forced to gain some familiarity with disciplines like English literature or classical music I would otherwise have slighted. In "Why the humanities can't be saved" John Gray argues not only that the battle is lost but that the humanities aren't worth saving in the current academic environment. In the longer essay he also discusses how we came to this sad state.
It is hard to see why any sensible person would enroll in a humanities degree at the present time. A common argument used to be that the humanities taught students how to think. A science degree transmitted knowledge in a particular discipline, while history, philosophy or English inculcated capacities of critical thinking that could be applied in many areas of life. The humanities embodied a freedom of mind that would be useful whatever students did after they left university.

This is not an argument that can be made today. “Critical thinking” has become a cluster of progressive dogmas, which are handed down as if they were self-evident truths. Students learn an intra-academic argot – intersectionality, hetero-normativity and the like — that has zero utility in the world in which they will go on to live.

They also learn that disagreement in ethics and politics is illegitimate. Anyone who departs from the prevailing progressive consensus is not just mistaken but malevolent. When enforced in universities, this is a prescription for censorship and conformism. What is being inculcated is not freedom of mind, but freedom from thought. Losing the ability to think while attending a university may be considered a misfortune. Incurring fifty or sixty thousand pounds of debt in order to do so looks like carelessness. ....

.... From being a philosophy of tolerance aiming at peaceful coexistence among divergent world-views, [liberalism] has become a persecutory orthodoxy that tolerates no view of the world other than its own. If the contemporary academy is hostile to liberal values as they used to be understood, one reason is the rise of a new liberalism that dismisses these values as phoney and repressive. ....

It would be better to admit that the battle there has been lost, and advise young people to get to know the canon by themselves. It will not cost them tens of thousands of pounds to buy a copy of Montaigne’s essays, Emily Dickinson’s poems, Joseph Conrad’s Lord Jim or Proust’s In Search of Lost Time, for example. If they want to move beyond western traditions, they can read Dostoevsky’s apocalyptic and hilariously funny Demons, the delightful Chuang-Tzu and dozens of other world classics. .... (more)

Sunday, August 25, 2019

"Once history becomes a club..."

Wilfred McClay on "The Weaponization of History":
.... The weaponizing of history corresponds invariably with a remarkable hostility to history. Its practitioners are content to slice a single fact out of a web of details, then repeat that fact with the stubbornness of protesters who have memorized a chant.

This aggressive historical simplification is at the core of the cult of intersectionality, which now rules American college campuses. The language of unchallengeable collective grievance relies on history for its authority. Notice how concepts such as “historically underrepresented” and “historically marginalized” are used to certify groups that deserve to be favored automatically in the present.

The condition of any particular person doesn’t have a reliable relationship to that aggregate group victimization. But the key move is to draw on the authority of history to construct unanswerable arguments in every dispute, and always refer individual cases to the invincible aggregate norm.

Why study the past? Today, the point is too often to gain ever better weapons to use in present battles, ever more unanswerable supports for our grievances. This argument from history is potent precisely because it relies on conclusions drawn from data that are no longer ready at hand. It all comes out of a black box called History.

But that cannot last forever. Once history becomes a club, it quickly loses its credibility as history. .... (more)

Thursday, August 22, 2019

Warriors for justice

From a long and very good essay, "How the great truth dawned," about Russian literature, the nature of good and evil, and the gulf between Christian ethics and those of the 20th century toltalitarians:
...Solzhenitsyn explains: “To do evil a human being must first of all believe that what he’s doing is good, or else that it’s a well-considered act in conformity with natural law.... it is in the nature of a human being to seek a justification for his actions.”

.... Ideology makes the killer and torturer an agent of good, “so that he won’t hear reproaches and curses but will receive praise and honors.” Ideology never achieved such power and scale before the twentieth century.

Anyone can succumb to ideology. All it takes is a sense of one’s own moral superiority for being on the right side; a theory that purports to explain everything; and—this is crucial—a principled refusal to see things from the point of view of one’s opponents or victims, lest one be tainted by their evil viewpoint.

If we remember that totalitarians and terrorists think of themselves as warriors for justice, we can appreciate how good people can join them. .... The contrary view, held by ideologues and justice warriors generally, is that our group is good, and theirs is evil. “Evil people committing evil deeds”: this is the sort of thinking behind notions like class conflict or the international Zionist conspiracy. It is the opposite of the idea that makes tolerance and democracy possible: the idea that there is legitimate difference of opinion and we must not act as if God or History had blessed our side as always right. If you think that way, there is no reason not to have a one-party state. The man who taught me Russian history, the late Firuz Kazemzadeh, used to say: remember, there are always as many swine on your side as on the other. ....

Tuesday, August 20, 2019

Lead us, heavenly Father...


Lead us, heavenly Father, lead us
O'er the world's tempestuous sea;
Guard us, guide us, keep us, feed us,
For we have no help but Thee;
Yet possessing every blessing
If our God our Father be.
Saviour, breathe forgiveness o'er us,
All our weakness Thou dost know;
Thou didst tread this earth before us,
Thou didst feel its keenest woe;
Self denying, death defying,
Thou to Calvary didst go.
Spirit of our God, descending,
Fill our hearts with heavenly joy;
Love with every passion blending,
Pleasure that can never cloy;
Thus provided, pardoned, guided,
Nothing can our peace destroy. Amen.

Saturday, August 17, 2019

C.S. Lewis

Accidentally discovered this evening, a very good BBC documentary hosted by A.N. Wilson. It is almost an hour long:

Friday, August 16, 2019

True Grit

Arrived in the mail: Charles Portis, True Grit, 4th printing in 1968, the year of publication. I believe I first read it serialized in The Saturday Evening Post. I once had a paperback copy but it disappeared somewhere along the way. This is a secondhand hardback and whoever owned it took very good care. I found it at Alibris (https://www.alibris.com/) which serves booksellers all over the country. The original cost in 1968 was $4.95. This one cost me $24.95. There has been a bit of inflation over the last fifty years so this is probably fair for a book that old in this condition. The book was very popular. The John Wayne movie came out almost immediately in 1969. I still enjoy that one although the Coen brothers film (2011) is truer to the spirit of the book.

From Kirkus Reviews in 1968:
When Tom Chaney got drunk and shot Frank Ross, fourteen-year-old Mattie Rose Moss was convinced that Chaney represented an eye-for-an-eye, tooth-for-a-tooth case. She lit out from Dardanelle, Arkansas, determined to be Tom's fitting executioner and negotiated for the help of Rooster Cogburn, a U.S. Marshal of wide repute, mean disposition, and deadly fast draw. Despite his initial reluctance and the unwelcome presence of a pesky bounty hunter who wanted to take Chaney alive, Mattie Rose crossed into the Indian Territory, where (in the 1880's) scalping was more common than barbering, and she brought down her quarry after a series of Pearl White climaxes. Annoyed by the loose allusions to her great adventure made by an Arkansas housewife-historian, middle-aged Mattie Rose sets all the record straight in a positive Presbyterian no-nonsense first person that is marvelously funny. ....

Wednesday, August 14, 2019

The nanny state and helicopter parents

I found this interesting:
...Penning the forward to the new book, Let the Children Play, [Sir Ken] Robinson explains how play helps children develop physically, mentally, emotionally, and socially.

Play, Robinson says, helps children learn to interact with others, to “practice teamwork, communication, and problem-solving.” Children also learn to express their emotions properly and think outside the box when confronting various situations through play.

But will these growth opportunities go by the wayside as society becomes more cautious and bubble-wrapped? How can we ensure that children have the opportunity for “real play,” not just structured physical activity?

Robinson provides four criteria that parents can use to measure “real play”:
Real play is not a particular activity: it is a state of mind, in which all sorts of activities are done, such as playing with sand and water, painting, skipping, climbing, chasing, role play, juggling, and hiding games. It involves all the senses and being physically active. These are some of the common characteristics of real play:
  • It is self-initiated and self-motivated: Real play is freely chosen. If children are forced to play, they may not feel in a state of play at all.
  • It is creative: Children engage in make-believe that bends reality to accommodate their interests and imagination.
  • It is active: Real play engages children physically as well as mentally.
  • It has negotiated rules: The rules of play come from the child, including entry to and from the game and what counts as acceptable behavior within it.

Sir Ken Robinson Explains How Parents Can Know the Four Signs of ‘Real Play’ | Intellectual Takeout

Sunday, August 11, 2019

Ordinary providence

Yesterday Kevin DeYoung posted this on Facebook:
I'm often reminded when talking to people in crisis, what a gift boring-routine-normal is. If your week, month, summer, school year feel like more of the same predictable pattern, there is reason to give thanks.
That reminded me of this:
Clarence Macartney told the story about Dr. John Witherspoon...a signer of the Declaration of Independence and president of the (then) College of New Jersey. He lived a couple of miles away from the college at Rocky Hill and drove horse and rig each day to his office at the college.

One day one of his neighbors burst into his office, exclaiming, "Dr. Witherspoon, you must join me in giving thanks to God for his extraordinary providence in saving my life, for as I was driving from Rocky Hill the horse ran away and the buggy was smashed to pieces on the rocks, but I escaped unharmed!"

Witherspoon replied, "Why, I can tell you a far more remarkable providence than that. I have driven over that road hundreds of times. My horse never ran away, my buggy never was smashed, I was never hurt."

So we must beware of thinking that God is only in the earthquake, wind, and fire; of thinking that manna but not grain is God’s food. Most of God’s gifts to his people are not dazzling and gaudy but wrapped in simple brown paper. Quiet provisions of safety on the highway, health of children, picking up a paycheck, supper with the family—all in an ordinary day’s work for our God.

—Dale Ralph Davis, Joshua: No Fallen Words (reprint: Christian Focus, 2000), pp. 48-49

Friday, August 9, 2019

Never alone with God

In "The Sound of Silence" Joel Pavelski describes what happened when he decided on a month with "No music. No podcasts. No excuses." From the article:
.... As the first few days of my sound fast went on, I showered in silence. I worked out without any motivational music, and every movement felt more considered, as though I was touching base with each part of my body while it was moving. I was friendlier to the other people walking dogs in my neighborhood. After a year and a half of running into them, I finally learned their names. I remembered to bring books on the subway.

Inside, my mind felt like it was sloughing off some kind of dullness, a hibernating animal waking from a long winter slumber. After a week, I felt more alert. More present. Peaceful. ....

Neuroscientists and psychologists estimate that we spend 15 to 20 percent of our waking hours daydreaming, drifting away from the task at hand and allowing the mind to refocus on our innermost feelings and fantasies. When your brain is relaxed, it doesn’t stop working. In fact, it never really goes offline. In the 1990s, Washington University neurologist Marcus Raichle discovered that a scattered collection of the brain’s pieces begin to fire in sync when your mind wanders. This neural network comes to life when you’re not focused on a specific task; it reviews the things that you already know and connects them in new ways. ....

“Idleness is not just a vacation, an indulgence or a vice; it is as indispensable to the brain as vitamin D is to the body, and deprived of it we suffer a mental affliction as disfiguring as rickets,” essayist Tim Kreider wrote, describing the function of this neural network in the New York Times. “The space and quiet that idleness provides is a necessary condition for standing back from life and seeing it whole, for making unexpected connections and waiting for the wild summer lightning strikes of inspiration—it is, paradoxically, necessary to getting any work done.”

I started looking for moments in my day to open up the space Kreider talks about. I forced myself to stand outside on my patio for twenty minutes every morning, coffee cup in hand, watching the world light up. I went on long walks just for the hell of it. I took breaks in the middle of the day to go to the Hudson River waterfront, to sit on a bench for a few minutes, admiring the view.

Instead of quieting down during these moments, my brain felt blissful and busy, lighting up with challenges to solve, reframing and reorganizing possibilities. When I returned from a walk or a break, I came back with a new idea or a problem that I’d solved: a thoughtful birthday gift for an old friend, a perfect response to the text I was avoiding. I planned my days in these moments, reordered my priorities and took stock of my performance honestly. ....

Novelist and short-story writer Sara Maitland, in her thoughtful and serene A Book of Silence, writes about expansive periods of tranquility spent in the Sinai desert, the Scottish hills, and a remote hovel on the Isle of Skye. ....

“In the Middle Ages, Christian scholastics argued that the devil’s basic strategy was to bring human beings to a point where they are never alone with God, and never attentively face to face with another human being,” she writes. “The mobile phone therefore represents a powerful breakthrough for the forces of hell.” ....

During my month of silence, I learned to stop drowning myself in stimulation. And when I quit layering on background audio as a convenient distraction, I found what I was looking for: permission and time to meet my unconscious self, rising up from the silence. It taught me that it’s okay to take a walk. That I’m not going to miss out if I’m not plugged in to something every minute of the day. That my brain works best with a little free time.

The truth is, it’s a little terrifying to be truly alone with yourself in stillness. But you can only know who you are, what you think, and what you have to say when you stop avoiding yourself. .... (more)

Thursday, August 8, 2019

A useful argument

A friend's Facebook post about the Ontological Argument for the existence of God sent me looking for the description of that argument in Kreeft & Tacelli's Handbook of Christian Apologetics (a very useful reference). It's there, number 13 of twenty such arguments. I've always liked the next one in that chapter, "14. The Moral Argument." In a week when everyone seems very sure that some things are clearly morally wrong an argument like this one may have even more power:

  1. Real moral obligation is a fact. We are really, truly, objectively obligated to do good and avoid evil.
  2. Either the atheistic view of reality is correct or the “religious” one.
  3. But the atheistic one is incompatible with there being moral obligation.
  4. Therefore the “religious” view of reality is correct.
We need to be clear about what the first premise is claiming. It does not mean merely that we can find people around who claim to have certain duties. Nor does it mean that there have been many people who thought they were obliged to do certain things (like clothing the naked) and to avoid doing others (like committing adultery). The first premise is claiming something more: namely, that we human beings really are obligated; that our duties arise from the way things really are, and not simply from our desires or subjective dispositions. It is claiming, in other words, that moral values or obligations themselves—and not merely the belief in moral values—are objective facts.
Now given the fact of moral obligation, a question naturally arises. Does the picture of the world presented by atheism accord with this fact? The answer is no. Atheists never tire of telling us that we are the chance products of the motion of matter: a motion which is purposeless and blind to every human striving. We should take them at their word and ask: Given this picture, in what exactly is the moral good rooted? Moral obligation can hardly be rooted in a material motion blind to purpose.
Suppose we say it is rooted in nothing deeper than human willing and desire. In that case, we have no moral standard against which human desires can be judged. For every desire will spring from the same ultimate source—purposeless, pitiless matter. And what becomes of obligation? According to this view, if I say there is an obligation to feed the hungry, I would be stating a fact about my wants and desires and nothing else. I would be saying that I want the hungry to be fed, and that I choose to act on that desire. But this amounts to an admission that neither I nor anyone else is really obliged to feed the hungry—that, in fact, no one has any real obligations at all. Therefore the atheistic view of reality is not compatible with there being genuine moral obligation.
What view is compatible? One that sees real moral obligation as grounded in its Creator, that sees moral obligation as rooted in the fact that we have been created with a purpose and for an end. We may call this view, with deliberate generality, “the religious view.” But however general the view, reflection on the fact of moral obligation does seem to confirm it.

Question 1:
The argument has not shown that ethical subjectivism is false. What if there are no objective values?
Reply: True enough. The argument assumes that there are objective values; it aims to show that believing in them is incompatible with one picture of the world, and quite compatible with another. Those two pictures are the atheistic-materialistic one, and the (broadly speaking) religious one. Granted, if ethical subjectivism is true, then the argument does not work. However, almost no one is a consistent subjectivist. (Many think they are, and say they are—until they suffer violence or injustice. In that case they invariably stand with the rest of us in recognizing that certain things ought never to be done.) And for the many who are not—and never will be—subjectivists, the argument can be most helpful. It can show them that to believe as they do in objective values is inconsistent with what they may also believe about the origin and destiny of the universe. If they move to correct the inconsistency, it will be a move toward the religious view and away from the atheistic one.

Question 2:
This proof does not conclude to God, but to some vague “religious” view. Isn’t this “religious” view compatible with very much more than traditional theism?
Reply: Yes indeed. It is compatible, for example, with Platonic idealism, and many other beliefs that orthodox Christians find terribly deficient. But this general religious view is incompatible with materialism, and with any view that banishes value from the ultimate objective nature of things. That is the important point. It seems most reasonable that moral conscience is the voice of God within the soul, because moral value exists only on the level of persons, minds and wills. And it is hard, if not impossible, to conceive of objective moral principles somehow floating around on their own, apart from any persons.
But we grant that there are many steps to travel from objective moral values to the Creator of the universe or the triune God of love. There is a vast intellectual distance between them. But these things are compatible in a way that materialism and belief in objective values are not. To reach a personal Creator you need other arguments (cf. arguments 1–6), and to reach the God of love you need revelation. By itself, the argument leaves many options open, and eliminates only some. But we are surely well rid of those it does eliminate.

Tuesday, August 6, 2019

Fifty years ago

WOODSTOCK
Dr. Paul Manuel—2015

In the summer of 1969, a friend and I went to a three-day concert held on a farm in upstate New York near a place called Woodstock. Some of the biggest names in rock music would be playing there. The advertising campaign was very successful, selling 186,000 tickets in advance. Organizers expected that 50,000 might actually show up. When the weekend of the concert arrived, not 50,000 but 400,000 (est.) converged on Woodstock, completely overwhelming the fences and the facilities. The vast majority who came assumed they would be able to get tickets at the gate. They were wrong. The gates were (torn) down when we arrived, but it did not matter—everyone who came got in.

Many people have a similar assumption about entry to heaven, that they will get tickets at the gate or will get in if they just show up. They, too, will be wrong, but in that case, it will matter, because that event will last much longer than three days. As the apostle Paul says, “we will be with the Lord forever” (2 Thess 4:17). Moreover, only those who have made advance arrangements will get in, who have been washed “by the blood of the lamb” (Rev 12:11), because “many are invited but few are chosen” (Matt 22:14).

We drove as close as we could to the site but had to park the car on the side of the road behind the many who had arrived before us. We walked with others for several miles, passing countless numbers who were giving up and going home, until we finally reached the place. Because the promoters were not prepared for that many people, there were not enough food stands, first aid stations, and, more importantly, not enough Port-o-potties. To make matters worse, it rained, a lot, turning the entire area to ankle-deep mud.

The concert was already in progress when we arrived, and the sound system was quite good, so we had no trouble finding the stage. It was in a valley, a third to a half mile below the ridge on which we eventually stood. I thought we had encountered a lot of people on our way in, but I was not prepared for what I saw from that ridge. The entire hillside was covered, from one end to the other and from top to bottom, with a seemingly endless mass of humanity. Apparently, the poor accommodations deterred only a relatively few of those who came. The vast majority chose to remain and were seated on the ground—in the mud!—with barely enough space to squeeze between. I had never seen so many people in one place at one time, certainly more than I could count.

When the apostle John sees in his vision of heaven “a great multitude that no one could count” (Rev 7:9), his description may not be an exaggeration. (The advertising for that event will also be quite good.) It will certainly be bigger than Woodstock, and it will have much better accommodations.

We worked our way down the hill looking for a place to sit, but the bodies were packed together so closely that there was barely enough room to walk without stepping on someone. By the time we got to the bottom of the hill, we were at the base of the stage, facing a tall wall and looking straight up. We could hear everything just fine but could see nothing, only the wall. At that point, we decided to give up and go home, which meant another trek up the hill and a long walk back to the car. Sitting in the mud was unappealing no matter how good the music.

The next year, Linda and I went to see the documentary film entitled Woodstock. It showed much of what my friend and I did not get to see. The movie theatre experience was quite different, of course, having shelter from the rain, a dry and carpeted floor, food options, comfortable seating, and (perhaps most importantly) bathrooms.

Heaven will have even better accommodations (no mud), including better food options, like “the wedding supper of the lamb” (Rev 19:9), enabling us to sit “at the feast with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” (Matt 8:11).

At the time, I did not realize how important Woodstock would become in American culture. There is even a US postage stamp commemorating the event (02/18/99 Scott #3188b). Some of the performers were very good (if you like rock music), and the entire gathering was amazingly peaceful, perhaps due in part to the prevalence of illegal drugs. Still, there were some not-so-good things as well (e.g., an overdose death). Heaven, though, will be far, far better, with great reason to celebrate and without any not-so-good things. “There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order…has passed away” (Rev 21:4). Best of all, we will see the greatest headliner of all: God Himself (Rev 22:4). There will also be great music (Heb 12:22; Rev 5:12).

Too smart?

A Wall Street Journal review of a new book summarizes its findings that intelligence isn't enough:
.... People with high SAT scores, for example, are less likely to either take advice or learn from their blunders. Folks with multiple degrees and professional expertise are often blind to their own biases. The consequences of these gaffes are often merely personal and embarrassing, but sometimes they are catastrophic. In American hospitals, one in 10 patient deaths appear to be the result of diagnostic mistakes. ....

College graduates are more likely than those with less education to believe in extrasensory perception and “psychic healing.” High-IQ types are just as likely to have financial problems, even though they often have better jobs with higher salaries. Because many “brainiacs” expect to outsmart others, they are often more heedless of risks and less aware of their own flaws in thinking. As the 19th-century psychologist William James once said, “a great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.” ....

The good news is that wisdom, unlike intelligence, can be taught, and these lessons bear real fruit. People with superior reasoning skills are more content and generally happier with their relationships. Yet in industrialized Western countries, where bravado is often mistaken for strength, a slower, humbler, more deliberative approach to decision-making tends to garner little respect. Our schools still prize innate abilities over other skills, and most students are encouraged to believe that speed (in answering questions and processing information) is an essential and even fateful sign of superiority. ....

What is fascinating is that IQ scores in industrialized countries have never been so high, rising the equivalent of 30 points in 80 years. Access to factual information has also never been so widespread. Yet we are no less susceptible to the allure of fake news and pseudoscience. We are as likely as ever to opportunistically prop up our own positions and take down those of our rivals. ....

Monday, August 5, 2019

"A perfect beginning to the beginning"

Kevin DeYoung explains what he did on his summer vacation. One of the things was writing for a "400-500 page book with over 100 Bible stories" that will be illustrated and is scheduled to be published in late 2020 or early 2021. This blog post contains two of the Old Testament stories. From one of them:
In the beginning, there was God.

Actually, that’s not quite right. Even before there was a beginning, there was God. He never started. He always has been, always is, and always will be. God is God. And there is nothing else and no one else who compares with him.

God doesn’t get lonely, or bored, or scared. He doesn’t need anything from anyone. He just IS. The great I AM. Whether people know it or not.

But don’t think that makes God a meanie. There is nothing mean about him. God is all love and all glory all the time.

Which is why in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. ....

Of all the special things God made, the most important thing was not a thing at all. It was a person. God may have been fond of fish, and he probably liked camels and kangaroos too (maybe even spiders!). But he created man in his own image. That’s us! ....

Things were off to a pretty good start. God was so pleased with his creation, he looked around, saw that everything was tremendously terrific, and rested on the seventh day. A perfect beginning to the beginning. (more)

Sunday, August 4, 2019

"Dives and Lazarus"

Ralph Vaughan Williams (1872-1958), Five Variants of "Dives and Lazarus"

"One short sleep past..."

John Donne (1571-1631)
Death, be not proud, though some have called thee
Mighty and dreadful, for thou are not so;
For those whom thou think'st thou dost overthrow
Die not, poor Death, nor yet canst thou kill me.
From rest and sleep, which but thy pictures be,
Much pleasure; then from thee much more must flow,
And soonest our best men with thee do go,
Rest of their bones, and soul's delivery.
Thou'art slave to fate, chance, kings, and desperate men,
And dost with poison, war, and sickness dwell,
And poppy'or charms can make us sleep as well
And better than thy stroke; why swell'st thou then?
One short sleep past, we wake eternally,
And death shall be no more; Death, thou shalt die.

Friday, August 2, 2019

"God hates visionary dreaming”

Via CT Pastors, Bonhoeffer in Life Together:
It makes the dreamer proud and pretentious. The man who fashions a visionary ideal of community demands that it be realized by God, by others, and by himself. He enters the community of Christians with his demands, sets up his own law, and judges the brethren and God himself accordingly. He stands adamant, a living reproach to all others in the circle of brethren. He acts as if he is the creator of the Christian community, as if his dream binds men together. When things do not go his way, he calls the effort a failure. When his ideal picture is destroyed, he sees the community going to smash. So he becomes, first an accuser of his brethren, then an accuser of God, and finally the despairing accuser of himself.
Quoted in "Bonhoeffer Convinced Me to Abandon My Dream."

Kipling, again

The first selection in "Five Best: H.S. Cross on Novels About Boarding School" is a Kipling I haven't read:
Stalky & Co.
By Rudyard Kipling (1899)

Each chapter of “Stalky & Co.” narrates a discrete episode in the adventures of Stalky, McTurk and Beetle. The three friends attend “the ‘Coll,’ ” a fictionalized version of Rudyard Kipling’s own boarding school, and have no use for school spirit, prefects, athletics or any ideals the school story was designed to promote. Instead the trio values cleverness, humor, poetic justice and loyalty. No one understands irony quite like Kipling, and mixed with young Stalky’s meticulous revenge schemes, the tone is hard to resist. When a master kicks the three out of their study, Stalky engineers the destruction of the master’s study: He shoots rocks at a drunk school servant, who imagines he is being harassed by the master himself; the servant retaliates, hurling rocks into the study and causing the master to use “strange words, every one of which Beetle treasured.” The Victorian-school story never recovered from its savaging by Kipling’s pen, and no later work has approached it in humor, descriptive beauty and unsentimental characterizations.
Stalky & Co. at Gutenberg.