Interview with Alex Chediak- Part II

Date October 3, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

The
following is the final installment of my interview with Alex Chediak on the new book
he edited- 5 Paths to the Love of Your Life: Defining Your Dating
Style. A preview of the book is available on the publisher's site. Part I of this interview. My review of the book will be posted Monday evening.

ROGER: The other two contributors advance positions
that promote deep commitments and parental involvement up front. Could you
summarize their positions for us?

ALEX: Yes, you must be
referring to Lindvall’s and Wilson’s chapters on The Betrothal Path and The
Courtship Path, respectively.   In the
betrothal path, the man and woman totally commit to marrying one another at the
beginning of the betrothal period; breaking up under any circumstances is
unacceptable, that is, it would carry the same sense of stigma as a
divorce.  Yet no physical union is
allowed in the betrothal period, either. 
Rather, the couple is to use this time preparing their hearts for
marriage, including the extended opportunity for each to “romance” the
other.  This way, the “falling in love”
part happens under the protection of total commitment.  And parental approval at the beginning of
the betrothal stage is also a key ingredient to guard the man and woman from
choosing rashly or otherwise making a poor decision. 

The main difference
between courtship and betrothal is that with courtship breaking up in the
premarital stage is acceptable in a number of circumstances.  Secondly, whereas the active involvement of
both sets of parents is more a vital component in betrothal, in courtship the
woman’s parents (and primarily her father) have a more essential role than the
man’s parents.  That said, both
courtship and betrothal presuppose one believing in male headship in both
marriage and a family.  The woman ought
to be protected in her father’s household until given in marriage to a man who
then takes her into his care.

In the Appendix, I show a
continuum chart that compares and contrasts dating from courtship from
betrothal.  As one proceeds on the
“Betrothal – Dating” continuum, there is, on the Betrothal side, a greater
emphasis on preliminary formality, on initial commitment, on the notion that
multiple experiences brings emotional damage (rather than a health learning of
social skills and spiritual refinement), on the importance of applying a
specific method rather than letting a couple employ cultural norms (“when in
Rome, do as the Romans”), and on the importance of considering objective
criteria (“How long have they been a Christian?  Are her parents believers?”) rather than subjective criteria (“Do
I enjoy being with this person?”).  
Lastly, one might say that in betrothal (and increasingly as one moves
to that side of the spectrum), one first commits to marriage, and then
falls in love.  While on the dating side
of the spectrum, it is not that objective criteria are necessarily unimportant
(certainly to the contributors I gathered for this book objective criteria were
important); it is simply that subjective criteria are given a greater hearing
in the processes.  In other words,
people fall in love, and then commit to marriage.     

ROGER: All of the contributors advocate the involvements
of the couple’s parents to some degree. However, for many people in this
culture such parental participation is impractical. What is a couple to do when
the parents aren’t a part of the couple’s lives?

ALEX: I think each of the contributors would say that what
unmarried couples should do in these situation is to more significantly involve
other married couples and older Christians in their churches.  I think this is especially true for single
Christians living (geographically) away from their parents.  This way, part of a couple’s community is
people who have been married for a long time, and are not simultaneously
dealing with the same sort of issues the couple is facing.  They can thus speak to the couple from the
reservoir of both life and marital experience. 
This can protect the couple from unhealthy patterns (e.g., spending too
much time alone) and serve to channel their communication and overall tone of
their interaction in a positive manner by helping them think through how what
their doing now will impact their future in ways they might not have
anticipated (e.g., How does each think about the role of “husband” or
“wife”?  How much do they value spending
time with their extended family?  How
will career be pursued, and to what extent?).    

ROGER: Another similarity in all of the contributors you
note is their rejection of “casual dating” as it causes a high number of
hookups and breakups. Why is this a problem?

ALEX: There are certain websites and other social pockets in
our culture in which  there is a growing
“hook-up” culture among high school and college students.  By “hook-ups”, I am referring to casual
relationships that can be almost entirely based on physical intimacy (e.g.,
premarital sex and the like).  The
reality of this being prevalent among youth has been bemoaned by both Christian
and non-Christian social critics alike.  
A 2001 survey conducted by Bowling Green State University in Ohio found
that one of every three of the local 11th graders had given up their
virginity for a partner who was “no more than a friend”.  So they harden themselves to the emotional
ties that sexual exchanges inherently involve, and then its easier to break up
and go to the next partner or next experience.   That is a major problem in terms of preparing for a lifelong
commitment to one person called marriage.  

It is now commonplace for many high school students and
college campuses to have abandoned dating altogether, as the process can become
“complicated” once “emotions get involved”. 
A much-discussed study by the Institute for American Values entitled
“Hooking Up, Hanging Out, and Hoping for Mr. Right” reported that only 50
percent of college women seniors reported having been asked on six or more
dates by men since coming to college. 
That notwithstanding, 80 percent of women surveyed said that “being
married is a very important goal for me”.  
It would take more time to unpack it, but I think we’re reaping the
whirlwind of the first generation raised by parents with high divorce
statistics combined with a post-modern approach to traditional values and
norms.  Male passivity and
indecisiveness is combined with the pervasive cultural assumption that women
are no different than men is resulting in a “dating scene” in which women are
relating to men in terms of more transient gratification with less commitment,
the result being greater confusion, and fewer and less successful
marriages.  That’s what I touched on in
the Conclusions chapter of our book, even though our contributors were
overwhelmingly pro-marriage. 

ROGER: In your discussion of marriage you make a strong
claim: “Deliberate, lifelong childlessness on the part of Christians often reveals
marriages fueled by the drive for mere emotional fulfillment and outright moral
rebellion against God’s design.” (194) Do you mean to say that all Christian
couples who choose not to have children are sinning?

ALEX: The key word in this statement is “often”.  I do not mean that all Christian
couples who choose not to have children are sinning.  What I'm concerned
with is an attitude that some bring to marriage that precludes part
of the reason God established the institution (namely, fruitful
multiplication).   I think there is Scriptural warrant to question
the preference not to have children merely because they are too expensive and
inconvenient, particularly if other areas of a couple's life also illustrate
general worldliness.  This is a far cry from a couple that chooses to be
childless (temporarily or permanently) so that they can better give their lives
away in gospel ministry among the unreached people's groups.  The concern
I have is people viewing marriage merely as an optional institution for their
own emotional fulfillment (which, I submit, is the common cultural
understanding, which is why same-sex marriage is becoming increasingly
plausible for many).  Rather, a more biblical view of marriage is that
where there is not a gift of celibacy, God ordains marriage as His good gift
for both the enjoyment and sanctification of His children, as well as the
propagation of the race.  And this includes not only companionship, but
also protection (from sexual immorality, I Corinthians 7:2) and procreation
(Genesis 1:28).  Just as some singles
downplay the protection aspect of marriage (struggling with self-control in
part because they have not received God’s good gift), so some married folk
downplay procreation.   I tried to touch
on both issues in my Conclusions chapter.

Category Posted in Interviews, Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology Comments 1 Comment »

A Not So Average Link List

Date September 30, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

Today Justin Taylor stopped by Stand to Reason for lunch and
prayer. It's always great to put a face with a name and exchange encouragement
in ministry. He's a director at Desiring God Ministries and an excellent
blogger at Between Two Worlds and Reformation 21.

This evening Biola hosted the free kick-off lecture to their Defending the
Faith lecture series. J.P. Moreland defended the Intelligent Design movement
and explained how Christians can be effective today as we were in the early
church. Hugh Hewitt headlined the event describing some of the difficulties we
face as Christians and donated his honorarium to the God Blog Con, enabling 20
Biola undergrad students to attend expenses paid. (Face and I will be
presenting a workshop there on apologetics.)

During the break I ran into Doug TenNapel. I thanked him for
clarifying the tyrannical reign Chief Justice Roberts will impose now that he’s
sworn in. Doug’s an insightful cultural watchdog space eel. Therefore, it
necessarily follows that you should purchase his latest work- Earthboy Jacobus, especially since he'll be on here soon to talk about it.

Ending the evening was the great John Mark Reynolds. Why great?
Aside from his always-astute cultural criticisms, he’s got preacher blood in
his veins and can get a crowd motivated. JMR spoke to the problem of evil in
our times, especially in light of the hurricanes. A powerful point he made was
that the evil we “suffer” today was nothing like the personal evils suffered by
those in the Medieval ages. However, they complained far less than we do. I
think we might look at Monty Python’s Holy Grail and realize that many of the
jokes reflected true difficulties of the times. They brought out the dead
because death was a constant companion within communities. No one had healthy
teeth (meaning lots of toothaches), and almost no one was ever close to being
clean. They didn’t have anti-bacterial soap to wash their hands with after
throwing the dead on the cart. Part of our problem is that we’re a bunch of
whining weenies living in the most luxurious time period of human history. We’re
just too self-consumed to realize it.

All-in-all, a nice day. It’s humbling to be reminded
of the great intellect that surrounds me. But more than that, these great
intellects are real people who have a passion for Christ and for people to know
Him. God has equipped His church well.

Category Posted in Main Page, Miscellaneous, Roger's Posts Comments 1 Comment »

Resisting Propaganda

Date September 29, 2005 Posted by Amy Hall

Tonight is opening night for a musical titled Bush is Bad, featuring such songs as “How Can 59 Million People Be So Dumb?,” “Lying Liars,” and “New Hope for the Fabulously Wealthy.”  Playbill informs us this “left-eyed look at the current sorry state of affairs in American government” is merely”the truth told bluntly but not savagely, with wit and without malice.” 

 

Tuesday night saw the premiere of Commander in Chief–a show where the evil Republicans, in their grasp for power, try to get the sincere, compassionate trophy woman Vice President to resign rather than assume the presidency when the President dies unexpectedly.  Luckily, she resists their attempts, recognizing her duty to take office in order to prevent “a return to book-burning and creationism in the classroom” that would no doubt result if the Republican Speaker became President.

 

Up until an outcry occurred last week, Roget's online New Millennium Thesaurus listed these synonyms (among others) for conservativism:  narrow-mindedness, discrimination, racism, and ignorance.  (I noticed they also recently removed the synonym conservativism from the entries for the word bigotry.)

 

Disturbing, isn't it?  The sad truth is that popular culture is currently full of these bits of anti-conservative propaganda.  You'll most likely never see conservative arguments intelligently countered in a film or on a television show.  There's no need to do any such thing when it's so much easier (and more instantly effective) to simply portray Republicans as evil, racist, and greedy; and often these jabs are thrown in even when they have nothing to do with the main plot of the program.  Everywhere we look, this is what we see. 

 

The trouble is that none of this reflects reality, and yet the more people absorb these emotional accusations, the more they will begin to believe these things do reflect reality just from the sheer amount of exposure to these images.  A person who is consistently bombarded with subtle (and sometimes not-so-subtle) anti-conservative images (not arguments) will eventually forget to separate his real-life experiences from these fabricated ones.  In fact, soon he will think the Republicans he actually knows personally (and likes) must all be exceptions to the rule, thus denying reality for the world the media is creating for him.

 

Even worse, you might think this won't affect you if you're a conservative, but it will.  Stereotypes have a way of seeping into the corners of people's minds unchecked.  They can make us doubt even ourselves. 

 

Don't give in to them.

Category Posted in Amy's Posts, Culture, Main Page, Politics Comments 6 Comments »

Confusion About Meaning

Date September 29, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

Pardon me while I force upon you some of the reading I have
to do for school…

Why can’t we agree on a definition for one word with only
four letters in it? The reason is simple: Words by themselves don’t really mean
anything for certain. They only have a definite meaning when you put them in a
context…. Words get their meaning from the sentences surrounding them. In turn,
sentences become understandable within their paragraphs, and paragraphs make
sense within the larger context of the complete document. The important word
here is ‘context.’ Meaning is derived from context, and without we have only
confusion. So what? How do meaning and context relate to research? Exactly like
this: All data comes within a context. Without context the data cannot tell us
what we need to know. (Research Strategies by William B. Badke, 40-41)

The difficulty with this passage is that there is some truth
mixed in with some real confusion. Without context there is certainly
confusion, but it does not follow from that fact that “meaning is derived from
context” or that words “only have a definite meaning when you put them in a
context.”

Words are social constructions. The problem Badke poses is
that some words can mean different things, and we only know what they mean when
there’s a context. This is a problem because we use words that have multiple
meanings. Badke offers “rock” as an example. It may be a heavy object on the
ground, a style of music, or a back and forth movement. The problem isn’t lack of
context, however. It’s that the language we’ve constructed refers to several
different things.

They key here is that language refers. Language does not
create reality or meaning, it refers to it. When I say “rock” I do mean
something specific, even if my reader doesn’t understand it. For the reader to
not understand what I’m referring to does not negate the fact that I’m
referring to (or meaning) something. The meaning exists regardless of who
understands it.

Context does help the reader understand, and in almost every
case it is necessary for understanding. Many, if not most, book titles utilize
this property. Take Research Strategies for example. The author meant
something specific when he put that title across the cover of his book. We
understand what he meant by it (what the title refers to) via the subtitle (the
context). It could be a history of research strategies in general, a plea for
military officers to study combat strategies, etc. The subtitle, Finding
Your Way Through the Information Fog, tells us that the author meant he’s
going to guide us on how to conduct research… even if he’s confused about where
meaning comes from.

Category Posted in Main Page, Philosophy, Roger's Posts Comments 5 Comments »

Interview with Alex Chediak- Part I

Date September 28, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

The
following is Part I of my interview with Alex Chediak on the new book
he edited- 5 Paths to the Love of Your Life: Defining Your Dating
Style. In the book, 5 perspectives on relationships are offered by
Lauren F. Winner, Douglas Wilsion, Rick Holland, Jonthan Lindvall, and
Jeramy & Jerusha Clark. A preview of the book is available on the publisher's site.

ROGER: Alex,
thank you for making yourself available for us. There's been plenty of
Christian material published over the past decade or so on dating. What makes
this book, Five Paths to the Love of Your Life, different from all the
others?

ALEX: Roger,
thank you for this opportunity.   One
thing that’s different about this book is that it provides a panel discussion
with a number of contributors (therefore the title, “Five Paths….”). The
contributors’ views on this topic more or less represent the spectrum of
perspectives on premarital romance practiced in western culture.  So for those unfamiliar with recent
literature, this book can be a kind-of “one stop shopping” to get the big
picture on the issue—because you learn not just what one person thinks, or how
one couple met and married, but how five diverse authors approach the
issue.  For example, I know one pastor
who is reading this book with his teenage daughter as she is just beginning to
think through these issues.  And for
those who have read other books, and perhaps have developed concrete opinions
on relationships, this book will help them learn in what ways other people
approach premarital romance similarly or differently than they do.  And that can be especially crucial if one
wishes to develop a budding relationship with such a person—or simply have an
educated, informed dialogue.  Hopefully
inaccurate stereotypes will be dismantled and the nitty-gritty can be
graciously discussed.   Singles can
wrestle through distinctions between principles and methods, between what the
Bible describes and what the Bible prescribes.   

Another
unique feature about this book is whereas many dating books are more
anecdotal–they tell a nice story of how two people met and married—each chapter
in this book first provides a super-structure of how that particular
contributor approaches relationships in general.  In other words, they present a model with a
scripturally-informed, biblical rationale—granted, one that may or may not
ultimately convince the reader.   Only
after providing this foundation, they apply their approach to three
scenarios:  one involving two high
school-age teens, another involving a pair of college students, and the third
involving a single woman in her thirties. 
Each has different family and relational community (some Christian, some
non-Christian).   The scenarios then
really tease out what the contributors have in common and where they see things
differently.  There has been a lot of
interested in this book from college ministries, for example.  It is even ideal for classroom discussion in
Christian ministry courses.  I know
several instances in which the book is being used in this way. 

ROGER:  I’ve met
a number of people who either don’t think much about their approach to romantic
relationships or mix various approaches together. Is there really a need for
Christians to study the art of relationships and settle down on a formal
approach?

ALEX: Hmmm.  The analogy
that comes to mind is the often-asked question:  “Why study theology in a systematic fashion?  Isn’t it enough to just read the
Bible?”   The reality is, every
Christian has a systematic theology—though it may be poorly or totally
uninformed.  Studying the various
perspectives that Christians throughout history and today hold on matters such
as justification, sanctification, spiritual gifts, the role of the law in the
life of the believer, creation/intelligent design, (to name a few) can be a
helpful exercise.  For one, it brings
the Christian outside herself and causes her to think critically about why she
believes and practices what she does. 
It exposes her to people who think differently, and she can join the
noble company of the Bereans, “examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things
were so”.  (Acts 17:11)    Or, in the words of I Thes 5:11, we should
“test everything; hold fast to what is good.” 

I think this principle applies to many areas of life,
including romantic relationships. 
Everyone has both principles and methods (though they may be all jumbled
up, as you suggest, Roger) that they bring to this issue.  And the real test comes when your would-be
“significant other” brings a totally set of assumptions to the table.  Now how do you communicate?   And again, as I mentioned in my first
response, for parents and teenagers wanting to gain a “big picture” perspective
on relationships, a book like this one is invaluable.  It’s the only book out there of its kind.  Pastors, too, have a particular need to
“study the art of relationships” (especially if they work with singles) as
doing so will significantly prepare them for the sort of
discipleship/counseling questions that arise. 
Singles today are in a different world than they were thirty years ago
and the landscape is rapidly changing. 
But now I’m reverting to my answer to your first question, Roger…..as to
how different sorts of people (including pastors, and dating “veterans”) can
benefit from this book. 

ROGER:
Three of the five “paths” in the book say that “dating,” to some degree, is
acceptable. Could you briefly lay out these perspectives and their differences?

ALEX: Winner, Clark, and Holland are all comfortable with the term
“dating”, and like you say, they find it acceptable in a number of
circumstances.  There is a lot of
similarity between these three perspectives, although each is written with the
unique personality and style of its author. 
All emphasize the importance of chastity, personal holiness, and of
keeping one’s eyes on the Lord above all else. 
They all value the importance of community and parental involvement,
rather than “going it alone”.  It was an
honor for me to be associated with each of these great thinkers and writers.

One slight difference might be how they approached the
scenario I presented (Jenny and David) of two high school age teens considering
dating one another.  Holland suggests
caution in this case, as, in his view, dating should only happen when marriage
is a realistic and age-appropriate possibility.   Winner and Clark seem more open to various avenues where they
can safely but honestly explore their interest in one another.  For Winner, dating should have an
orientation toward marriage, although it is not imperative that all dating
relationships will or should end in marriage. 
For the Clarks, part of the reason for dating is the personal and
spiritual refinement that can result, if young men and women accept the
responsibilities that come with it, namely personal commitment to holiness and
clear communication with others. So
hopefully that’s enough of a “teaser” without getting me into too much trouble.:) I
encourage you to read the book and let the contributors speak for
themselves!   

Category Posted in Interviews, Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology Comments No Comments »

The Word of God in the School of Man

Date September 23, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

AP reported yesterday about a new book designed to be uncontroversial in teaching the Bible in public schools…

“The nonprofit Bible Literacy Project of Fairfax, Va., spent five years and $2 million developing “The Bible and Its Influence.”… The 41 contributors include prominent evangelical, mainline Protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Jewish and secular experts…. Educators know biblical knowledge is valuable — 60 percent of allusions in one English Advanced Placement prep course came from the Bible — and that polls show teens don't know much about Scripture. Yet few public schools offer such coursework, partly due to demands for other elective classes, partly over legal worries.”

It is interesting that so much of English literature depends on prior understandings of the Bible and a simple Christian worldview, and yet most schools shy away from educating students on the Bible or Christianity. I remember in junior high and high school reading about world history, American history, Islam, and a bit of some other religions, but the only time we spent on Christianity was reading Jonathan Edwards’ Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. The problem with that was that it was in the context of how mean and silly those old Puritans were.

This new book seeks to get around all of the assumed legal barriers in its approach to educating students on the Bible. “To avoid problems, Bible Literacy's editors accommodated Jewish sensitivities about the New Testament, attributed reports about miracles to the source rather than simply calling them historical facts and generally downplayed scholarly theories — about authorship and dates, for example — that offend conservatives.”

Perhaps this is really a work of genius, but I doubt it. There appear to be too many people that need to be made happy in order for all of the religious and secular groups to agree. The compromises have to be made somewhere. For example, their historical-literary approach must lead them to some conclusions about the scholarly debates around the Documentary Hypothesis and the Synoptic Problem. Are they going to say that Moses wrote the Pentateuch as has been believed by most people in recorded history, or are they going to side with most of the modern scholars in saying that Moses had little to nothing to do with the process? Are they going to promote Q as a lost sayings Gospel and the supposed impact it has on who Jesus was, or will they accept the traditional record of gospel authorship? (See my solution to the Synoptic Problem) They may “downplay scholarly theories” as they say, but then they can’t really comment on who wrote what when, which a rather significant element of a historical literary approach.

Many other questions arise, such as what is meant by the editors accommodating to “Jewish sensitivities about that the New Testament,” or what they do with passages asserting the exclusivity of salvation through Jesus and others teaching the submission of wives to their husbands. In dealing with such controversial issues, I don’t see how this book can say anything substantive without offending at least some people. Though I haven’t seen the book, my guess is that it doesn’t really say anything substantive and it will offend plenty of people.

Is there a solution to educating students with the biblical background necessary for understanding English literature? Perhaps simply reading the Bible itself would be a good place to start, and would cost far less than $2 million to put that together.

Category Posted in Culture, Main Page, Religion (General), Roger's Posts Comments 1 Comment »

Changing the Minds of the “Hattersleys”

Date September 20, 2005 Posted by Amy Hall

To continue with my thoughts from Monday on Roy Hattersley’s article, I think it’s important to ask, how do we reach the “Hattersleys” of the world?  How do we change the minds of those who hate and fear Christians?  Hattersley was affected by seeing the compassion of Christians in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, so you might be tempted to say, based on that article, that all depends on our living out our faith with loving actions.  But it’s clear from the article that something else needs to be done as well.  One paragraph gives a clue as to the source of Hattersley’s prejudice against Christians:

 

The arguments against religion are well known and persuasive…Stem-cell research is forbidden because an imaginary God–who is not enough of a philosopher to realize that the ingenuity of a scientist is just as natural as the instinct of Rousseau’s noble savage–condemns what he does not understand and the churches that follow his teaching forbid their members to pursue cures for lethal diseases.

 

The root cause of his prejudice is not Christians behaving badly, it’s his belief that Christians are gullible, primitive idiots who believe ridiculous things and think it’s wrong to try to cure lethal diseases.  It was his lack of understanding of our ideas and the reasons for our beliefs that first shaped his perception of us.  Any right-living Christian he views at this point will do some damage control (as he described in the article), but this, by itself, will still leave people like Hattersley suspicious of us.  For him, we Christians may do some good, but we’re still, ultimately, a danger to society because of our “irrational” ideas. 

 

It’s clear from this that, yes, we need to show people God’s love with our actions, but we also need to explain the reasoning behind our ideas clearly, openly, and publicly.  Both steps are necessary and must be taken to reach the “Hattersleys.” 

Category Posted in Amy's Posts, Apologetics, Culture, Main Page Comments 2 Comments »

Happy Birthday, Cap'n Murdock!

Date September 19, 2005 Posted by Amy Hall

Avast, mateys!  It be Roger's birthday and International Talk Like A Pirate Day.  Arrrrr!  Let yer comments properly reflect these truths, says I!

Category Posted in Amy's Posts, Main Page, Miscellaneous Comments 5 Comments »

Maybe Religion is Okay After All

Date September 19, 2005 Posted by Amy Hall

I wrote last week about the fear that many on the Left have of religion.  Would eradicating religion from our society make this country a better place?  Roy Hattersley, a man of the Left, wrote last Monday about his confusion on this subject in his article, “Faith does breed charity:  We atheists have to accept that most believers are better human beings.”

 

Hattersley notes that Katrina disaster relief is largely being carried out by religious organizations:

 

Notable by their absence are teams from rationalist societies, free thinkers’ clubs and atheists’ associations–the sort of people who not only scoff at religion’s intellectual absurdity but also regard it as a positive force for evil.

 

Hattersley, who undoubtedly is used to hearing Christians characterized as angry, intolerant, and hate-filled by his fellow leftists, found something that confounded him when he encountered real-life Christians:

 

Last week a middle-ranking officer of the Salvation Army, who gave up a well-paid job to devote his life to the poor, attempted to convince me that homosexuality is a mortal sin.  Late at night, on the streets of one of our great cities, that man offers friendship as well as help to the most degraded and (to those of a censorious turn of mind) degenerate human beings who exist just outside the boundaries of our society. And he does what he believes to be his Christian duty without the slightest suggestion of disapproval. Yet, for much of his time, he is meeting needs that result from conduct he regards as intrinsically wicked.

 

This seems a great contradiction to Hattersley:

 

Civilized people do not believe that drug addiction and male prostitution offend against divine ordinance. But those who do are the men and women most willing to change the fetid bandages, replace the sodden sleeping bags and–probably most difficult of all–argue, without a trace of impatience, that the time has come for some serious medical treatment.

 

For people who believe there is no God and, consequently, no real “right” and “wrong,” anyone who calls another person’s behavior “sinful” must be a mean, oppressive, irrational person. Hattersley is only now being confronted with the truth–that is, when you give up the idea of “wrong,” you are also giving up the idea of “right.”  Only those who are submitted to a standard and see clearly what is wrong behavior will also see clearly what is right.  Only those who believe there is such a thing as “better” (and that we’re commanded to seek it) will try to lovingly lift others out of “worse.”  This is why it’s possible for Christians to love and care for those with whom they disagree.  But what reason (not to mention responsibility) has the atheist to love and care for the Christian?

Category Posted in Amy's Posts, Culture, Main Page, Religion (General) Comments 1 Comment »

Book Review: Into the Wardrobe by David C. Downing

Date September 18, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

C.S Lewis is most widely
known today for his children’s
tales, The Chronicles of Narnia. However, David C.
Downing notes in Into
the Wardrobe: C.S. Lewis and the Narnia Chronicles that,
“some of his contemporaries
were shocked when the eminent C.S. Lewis started writing
children’s stories.”
(XIV) Lewis had written some fiction previously, a sci-fi trilogy,
The Great
Divorce, and some poetry, as well as some notable literary
work, but not
fiction for children. So when the Chronicles began
to be written, what
emerged was not merely fairy tales for children, but a magnificent
composition
of classical, medieval, and modern ideas filtered through the creative
theological imagination of C.S.
Lewis.

Into the Wardrobe explores
the background of Narnia in the
life and thought of C.S. Lewis. As should any book of this nature, Dr.
Downing
begins in Chapter 1 with a biography of Lewis. In Chapter 2 we are
introduced
to the writing of the Chronicles in the order they
were composed. Here
Dr. Downing offers a summary of each book and some explanations of
their
origins, including the lost Lefay fragment that was a potential
beginning of The
Magician’s Nephew.

The last five chapters
examine the content of the series
categorically. Chapter 3 takes on the “spiritual
vision” of the Chronicles.
The spirituality of the series is seen through the perspective of
Aslan, who is
envisioned as “a Numinous Being,”
“Supremely Good,” “Creator,”
“Co-Sufferer,”
“Redeemer,” “Comfort and Guide”
and “Judge.” Next, Dr. Downing examines is the
morality taught throughout the series through Edmund’s
failures, technology,
and the virtues of honesty, empathy, privacy, and
trust.

Chapter 5 looks into the
classical and medieval elements found
in the Chronicles including hierarchy, chivalry,
magic, and astrology.
For those who have wondered where Lewis might have gotten the names for
his
characters, this is described in detail in Chapter 6. The final chapter
deals
with the literary legacy of the series and grapples with a few of the
criticisms that have been made of them and Lewis
himself.

Into the Wardrobe was almost
consistently a stimulating
read. My favorite chapters were the one on the spiritual roles of Aslan
and the
one about classical and medieval elements. For the former, as with most
Narnia
fans I suspect, I can never get enough of informed Aslan discussion.
For the
latter, the scholarly work of Lewis in classical and medieval studies
is
usually only a footnote in what I’ve read. Dr. Downing shows
that this area of
Lewis’ life and study is just as important as the rest and
played an
influential role in the formation of the Chronicles. The only chapter
I
didn’t care much for was the one on Narnian names. Perhaps
due to the subject
at hand, at a couple instances I felt like I was reading a genealogy in
the
book of Numbers

David Downing offers us a thought-provoking
behind-the-scenes
look at what went into the writing of The Chronicles of
Narnia. His
knowledge of the subject matter and accessible writing style make this
book an
educational and enjoyable read at the same time.

Category Posted in Book Reviews, Main Page, Roger's Posts Comments No Comments »

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »