Bible Challenge, Week Three: The Problem – Judgment

On September 2, a couple of teenagers were spotted throwing smoke bombs on the Eagle Creek trail in Oregon–a part of the country that has experienced unseasonal dryness and too many fires in the last few years.  A hiker confronted the kids: “Do you know how dangerous that is?”

Probably.  But if they knew in theory how dangerous it was to lob fireworks in a tinder-dry forest, they hadn’t yet learned that real acts have real consequences.  Such as an out-of-control wildfire that has consumed at least 30,000 acres of forest land, destroyed dozens of homes, and blackened some of the most beautiful scenery in the world.

They are young.  The earth was young too, when a seemingly small act tipped it into a death spiral.  The perpetrators, I’m sure, didn’t understand the consequences, even though they were warned.  But the consequences played out anyway, in the people themselves (shame, deceit, murder, etc.) and in the scales of cosmic justice.  God’s patience waited (I Peter 3:20) for several generations–and then, the flood.

Conservative Christians acknowledge that God has a right to judge.  We have a little more trouble accepting that God is right to judge.  Without judgment (which also involves putting a temporary halt to evil) we would have killed each other a long time ago.  Without a final judgment, heaven would become hell.  That doesn’t make widespread destruction any easier to think about (the children! the innocent animals! the towns and farms!), but a world without judgment would be even more destructive, and ultimately futile.

Here’s the pdf download:

Bible Challenge, Week Three: The Problem – Judgment

(This is a continuation of a series of posts about the “whole story” of the Bible.  I plan to run one every week, on Tuesdays, with a printable PDF.  The printable includes a brief 2-3 paragraph introduction, Bible passages to read, a key verse, 5-7 thought/discussion questions, and 2-3 activities for the kids.  Here’s the Overview of the entire Bible series.)

Previous: Week Two: The Problem – Rebellion

Next: Week Four: The Problem – Separation

Nine Reasons to Read the Bible (even if you don’t believe it)

  1. It’s unique. The Bible Creation story is not like any other creation story. TheBible Reading Bible God is not like any other God.  He’s the only ancient deity to link worship (temples, sacrifices, etc.) to a moral code.  He is absolutely central; a person beyond personality, not a representative of window or fire, not an idea, not a philosophy.  He escapes easy generalities, and so does his book.
  2. It’s eerily familiar. We’re always hearing echoes of it, not only in everyday conversation (broken heart, labor of love, thorn in the flesh, eye for an eye), but in values we take for granted. Whatever our political persuasion, we agree that the hungry should be fed, the injured cared for, the helpless attended to.  None of these principles were widely accepted in the ancient world.  We believe—or at least we say—that love is the greatest power in the world.  Rameses, Nebuchadnezzar, and Julius Caesar would have laughed at that.  We like Jesus, even if we don’t understand him.  All these things originate in the Bible’s thousand-odd pages.
  3. It’s historically relevant. Even if you’re skeptical about archaeology finds that support what it says about ancient times, the Bible’s influence on history is well documented. Those who are certain it inspired oppression, crusades, and pogroms should turn over a few more rocks.  Though it has been misused as a weapon, the Bible is also (and much more logically) the inspiration for revivals, reforms, and rethinking. It directly inspired the greatest surge in literacy, enterprise, and empowerment the world has ever seen (i.e. the Protestant Reformation).  The Enlightenment usually takes credit for those achievements, but without the Reformation there would be no Enlightenment (and after the Enlightenment gleefully kicked away the Scriptural platform it was built on, it collapsed in something called the Reign of Terror).
  4. It’s a treasury of ancient literary forms. Poetry, Historical Narrative, Allegory, Practical Instruction, Romance, Apocalyptic Imagery—every style and genre known to the ancient world is easily accessible between these covers, and in a multitude of translations, too.
  5. It explains the origins of two of the most consequential people groups in the history of the world: Jews and Christians. You may not like them. Often enough, they haven’t liked each other. One was a relatively small group bound by blood and tradition, which had a wildly outsized influence on world history and a proportionate amount of suffering (the honor of being a chosen people cuts both ways).  The second group is, by design, much more numerous and diverse, bound by faith and a conviction that God loves the world enough to die for it.
  6. It tells one Story. A rambling tale, to be sure. But any tale would ramble if it takes about 1500 years and at least 39 authors to tell it.  But the general outline of the story is the model for all stories in all cultures.  There’s a setting, a protagonist, an antagonist, a problem, a development of the problem, a climax, and a resolution.  Why do we tell stories this way?  Whether or not the Bible is the origin for the model, it’s a classic example of the model.  And the type of story it tells, of desolation and redemption, still haunts us.
  7. It provides the only objective reason for treating human beings as anything other than random accidents, disposable trash, or interchangeable parts to be manipulated. The reason is this: the Bible is very clear that human beings are shaped by God to bear his image.  For that very reason, they are not to be willfully murdered (Genesis 9:6) or even carelessly insulted (James 3:9-10).  If the value of humans is set by other humans it can shift at any time.  If that value is set by God, no one can change it.
  8. It’s the most banned book in history. It’s too reactionary, too subversive, too authoritarian, too libertarian.  Tyrants fear its revelation of a rival power; anarchists, modernists, post-modernists, communists, utopians, and well-intentioned progressives hate it for the same reason. The book is a scandal and a trouble—aren’t you curious as to why?
  9. It’s still around. And still a best-seller. What explains its remarkable staying power? Unless you are willing to at least become familiar with it, you’ll never know.

Bible Challenge, Week Two: The Problem – Rebellion

(This is a continuation of a series of posts about the “whole story” of the Bible.  I plan to run one every week, on Tuesdays, with a printable PDF.  The printable includes a brief 2-3 paragraph introduction, Bible passages to read, a key verse, 5-7 thought/discussion questions, and 2-3 activities for the kids.  Here’s the Overview of the entire Bible series.)

If the Bible is a story, it will share many of the elements of story, such as plot and characters.  Last week we looked at another important (and often overlooked) factor of stories: setting.  The setting God created was perfection, which makes it all the more ironic–if that’s the word–that the first characters to appear in our story rejected it.  That introduces the first big story element: a problem.

They probably didn’t realize they were rejecting perfection, but they knew enough to not to do what they did.  You may know the story, but have you ever thought about all the implications?  You’ll have an opportunity to do so in this week’s challenge.

Without further ado, here’s the pdf:

Bible Reading Challenge: The Problem – Rebellion

Two corrections: The scripture reference in Question 4 is missing the chapter.  It’s Genesis 3:21-24, not Gen. 21-24.  Three verses instead of three chapters.  Also, this week’s challenge is missing a Key verse.  How about Psalm 107:43:

Whoever is wise, let him attend to these things;

let them consider the steadfast love of the Lord.

To start at the beginning, here’s Week One: The Setting.

Next: Week Three: The Problem – Judgment

Schrodinger’s Baby

James Franco may be a little weird (for lack of a better word), but I like that he has wide-ranging interests, like philosophy.  In his short-lived YouTube series, Philosophy Time, he and Eliot Michaelson talked deep with various academics.  This video of their interview with Princeton Professor Liz Harmon was making the rounds four years ago, but it’s worth another look:

Did that go by too quickly?  Here’s Prof. Harmon’s argument (if you want to call it that) in her words with paraphrases.  The italicized responses are mine, but James and I seemed to be thinking along the same lines at times.

Harmon: Some of our terminology when talking about abortion suggests it’s, like, always sad to end a life, even if you, like, feel you have to.  But nah, not really.  “. . . what I think is that among early fetuses, there are two different kinds of beings,” and one has moral status (i.e., a right to keep living) while one does not.  “Your future as a person defines your moral status.”

Uh . . . okay.  But what if you, Dr. Harmon, had been aborted as a, whaddayacallit, “early fetus”?

Harmon: Not a relevant question.  Because I’m here.

But, isn’t that kind of 20/20 hindsight?  I mean, like, what makes the difference between this nice garden spot we’re talking in here and the medical waste bin behind a Planned Parenthood clinic (where you might have ended up if you didn’t have a future)?

Harmon: What makes the difference is “that [a woman’s] intentions negates the moral status of that early fetus.”  If she decides to have the abortion, that is.

So . . . what you’re saying is, the abortion is permissible because you had it, but it wouldn’t have been permissible if you hadn’t had it.  [At this point, circular arrows are superimposed on the screen, indicating what kind of argument it is.]

The professor tries to clarify: “If your mother had chosen to abort her pregnancy—”

Whoa, mama!  I mean, literally: are you sure you want to use the word “mother”?

“—then that wouldn’t have been the case, that you had moral status . . .”

(My head is starting to hurt)

Harmon: “. . . You would have had this very short existence in which you wouldn’t have mattered morally.”

Speaking of “morally” . . . .

(By now the guys look politely confused, as if they had finally given in to their wives’ demands to stop and ask for directions, and Prof. Harmon was the first passer-by they stopped to ask.  (Just wait until they roll up the car window again—the wives are going to get an earful.)

__________________________________________________________

You have to be pretty clever to keep with this argument.  It’s not rocket science; it’s quantum physics.  Just as a particle can be there and not there, a developing human being in the womb—what the professor calls an early fetus and a doting grandma calls a baby—is endowed and not endowed with moral status.  Just as the figurative cat in the box was presumed to be alive or not-alive on the whim of a single particle, the early fetus (or possibly even late fetus) is futured or unfutured, depending on the thought processes of someone who is not him or her.

The elephant in the room is the being in the womb—not a thought experiment, like Schrodinger’s live-and-dead Cat, but a real biological phenomena.  The DNA identify it as a human: more than that, a distinct human, with sex and hair color and fingerprints already determined.  Figments of the imagination can disappear without consequence, but 58 million aborted human souls (more or less, since Roe v. Wade) add up in unforeseen consequences of guilt, carelessness, sexual irresponsibility, and general devaluation.  The subterranean effects of legal abortion are impossible to measure, but don’t be fooled: they exist.  And one consequence is irrational rationalization like this.

Bible Challenge Week One: The Setting

(Today we begin a series of posts about the “whole story” of the Bible.  I plan to run one every week, on Tuesdays, with a printable PDF.  The printable includes a brief 2-3 paragraph introduction, Bible passages to read, a key verse, 5-7 thought/discussion questions, and 2-3 activities for the kids.)

Every story has certain elements in order to be a story.  We often think of characters first–somebody has to act in the story, and there’s usually a hero, or protagonist.  Usually, though not always, there’s also an adversary, or antagonist.  And then, of course, something has to happen.  Some kind of problem develops, or a conflict arises, that the hero has to solve or resolve.  The plot develops around this conflict and resolution, working its way to a climax.

But there’s another story element that we often overlook, and that’s the setting.  In some contemporary stories, the setting is not especially consequential: it could be any modern city, or Midwestern small town.  But in historical fiction, or science fiction, or regional fiction, the setting leans in, shaping a plot that couldn’t take place anywhere else, or in any other time.  (I wrote about the importance of setting in great westerns on my other website.)

The Bible story also starts with setting: the heavens and the earth.  We often pass over it in order to get to characters and plot, but for this week, let’s linger and think about what the setting means for this particular story.  What meaning is packed into the very first sentence of the world’s greatest story?

Here’s the download for our first week:

Bible Reading Challenge, Week One: The Setting

I neglected to add a Key Verse to the download, so I’ll put it here: Genesis 1:31–

And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.

Next: Week Two: The Problem – Rebellion

Power & Light

Time hurtles on.  We swoop through space on our little teeming rock, already forgetting the news that was everywhere two weeks ago.  Just two weeks ago . . .

Campers and vans were already clogging two-lane roads in Oregon and hysterical headlines were predicting traffic nightmares in Nashville and St. Joe MO.  But when Monday arrived we were on the road by 8:30 a.m. and encountered no complications on the two-hour to the “path of totality.”  After reaching the mid-size Midwestern town of our destination we found a city park, stretched out legs, watched the kids run around the playground, spread our blankets for a picnic and kept an eye on the sky.

I don’t need to describe a total eclipse of the sun: enough has been written already.  To me, it was both greater and less than anticipated.  I expected darkness but it was more like a bright moonlight or even a very heavy cloud cover (like before a tornado—I’ve seen that too).  I expected more stars, but we only saw Venus (I think) glowing wanly as though embarrassed to be waking up so early.  Totality was indeed spectacular: when the round disk of the moon slipped over the sun a gasp went around the park and a cry went up, as though we were cheering some great accomplishment.  Which was true enough.  The sun was suddenly, indescribably, a void—a hole in the sky surrounded by a writhing circle of subtly-colored rays, like nothing ever seen in all creation.

All the more astonishing when compared to only a few moments before.  We’re so accustomed to the sun: glorying in it after a long winter, sweltering under it during a long summer; joyfully welcoming it after days of rain, desperately wishing it would hide its face after weeks of drought.  But I never really appreciated the power of the sun until I watched it whittled down to almost nothing: a sliver, 5% or less of surface exposed.  And still as bright as day, forbidding as death, fully capable of singeing your eyeballs.  All its power present in every part or portion of it: if it could be cut in pieces, every piece would burn just as bright as the whole.

St. Francis addressed it as Brother Sun, bringing the flaming chariot of the gods down to human level.  And he wasn’t wrong.  Our immortal souls will outlast that ball of gas in the new heavens and new earth, where God Himself is our Light.  But it doesn’t do to get too cocky.  If the sun is a brother creature, he’s a big BIG brother, bending us under an elbow one minute and affectionately tousling our little heads the next, for the rest of our earthly lives.

Less than a week later, the sun hid its face from the Texas coast and thousands of people had their lives dramatically changed.  Anyone I know?  Not personally, but friends of relatives and relatives of friends.  The stately dance of the heavens is forgotten when calamity strikes close to home—down here where wind and clouds stomp around like rowdy kids.  Nobody was looking up (certainly not with NASA-approved paper glasses) except to pray desperately for the rain to stop.  Disaster usually comes from the sky, where the storehouses of wind (Ps. 135:7) and precipitation (Job 38:22) occasionally bust open and let us have it.  All for a reason, say the faithful.  No reason at all, just blind lunacy, say the skeptics.  To both sides, it’s proof of whatever they already believe.

As for me, I believe in Power.  And Light.  Specifically, I believe they have a Name, and that Name knows my name, and because of it I can lie down in safety.

What’s the Bible All About?

I was raised in a denomination that took the Bible very seriously: “We speak where the Bible speaks, and are silent where the Bible is silent!” In many ways, it was a great advantage, because I had quite a bit of knowledge by the time I graduated high school graduation: not only could I name all 66 books by sixth grade, but I could also sketch the life of Jesus, Paul’s missionary journeys, the kings of united Israel and major kings Israel and Judah, the miracles of Elisha, the plagues of Egypt , and the sons of Jacob. Name the twelve apostles? No problem. Find Jerusalem, Samaria, and the Sea of Galilee on a map? I could draw the map.

But I didn’t really know what the Bible was about. I would have said it was about a lot of things—mostly Jesus, right? I didn’t see how it all held together. My first glimmer of the unity of scripture came during my sophomore year in a denominational college, in a course called “Old Testament Literature.” My professor was known for choking up in class. A lot of my fellow students were embarrassed by him, but I will always be grateful for the way he pushed me down the road to salvation.

I can’t go into all the insights and convictions of that pivotal class, but the light first came on when he mentioned the two trees. Skimming over Genesis, he paused to point out the description of the garden in Genesis 2. The Tree of Life at the center usually gets little notice, because of all the snaky glamour of that other tree, but he referred us to Revelation 22:2: “on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.” I don’t remember whether he implied it or said it, but the connection clicked: the tree of Revelation was the same tree that appears in Genesis. The beginning tied directly to the end.

The discovery that the Bible was a unified narrative led to my conviction that Jesus was the Messiah prophesied throughout scripture, and hence, my savior. Wasn’t I taught that before? Sure, but I wasn’t listening too closely, and the central teaching was surrounded and often obscured by secondary issues. It’s ridiculously easy for the church to tilt off-center and lost sight of what she’s all about. But to this day, I peg my salvation from that class, and the revelation that scripture tells one story. It tells the story.

Several years ago I joined forces with Emily Whitten, my blogging partner at RedeemedReader.com, to write a one-year through-the-Bible study guide for ages 10 and up.  Our aim was to plant a sense of the scriptural unity in the minds of young students, or new students. A lot of people had the same idea at that time, such as Phil Visshur (creator of Veggie Tales) who produced a new series to teach kids What’s in the Bible? R. C. Sproul’s book by the same title was selling briskly.

We wanted to create something in the middle—for kids old enough to be independent readers, as well as new Christians of any age who don’t have a clue where to begin. (I wrote the lessons I’ll be posting; Emily adapted the material for younger kids.) We wanted the study to be accessible, easy to use, not too burdensome, and not too long.  In a year, a family or study group or individual could get a firm grasp of all the major themes and chronology of scripture.

Lots of excellent Bible curriculums pace slowly through the depths; we frankly aimed at the highlights, but also for building a framework for deeper study.  God’s revelation in history unfolded over time: beginning with hints, followed by covenants, followed by systems, followed by types and prototypes, followed by prophesies coming into ever sharper focus before the reality bursts through the screen. As we enter the brisk pick-up season of fall, huddle up during the winter, emerge from our caves in spring, and wind slowly down at the end of summer, we can watch His story unfold.

HERE’S THE PLAN

If you’d like to join me, the reading challenge will come in forty-nine installments, roughly four per month, to be posted on Tuesdays. Obviously, this leaves three weeks out of the loop, so I’ll skip Christmas week, Easter week, and the week of July.

The study follows a chronological rather than a canonical pattern. That is, rather than marching through the books of the Bible in the order they’re arranged, we’ll look at Job in connection with Genesis and selected Psalms of David along with I and II Samuel; team Daniel with Nehemiah, Joel and Malachi with the first chapters of Matthew and Luke, and so on.

Each week’s challenge will include 3-6 Bible chapters (or the equivalent), a short overview with further relevant scriptures, a key verse, 5-7 thought/discussion questions, and 2-4 suggested activities for kids.  The readings can be divided up for family devotional times, homeschool Bible classes, or personal study times.  The approach might also work well for a discipleship or mentoring situation where you meet with a new Christian once a week over coffee.

What does this look like?  For a sneak peek at a sample weekly challenge, click here.

And click here for an overview chart of the whole year, including themes and readings.

We’ll kick off with Challenge One next week.  Come along for a thrilling ride!

That Hideous Strength: Denouement

Denouement is not a common word in everyday conversation, so for a long time I didn’t know how to pronounce it.  It’s day-noo-MAHN (go easy on the final n).  This is the resolution of the story, or (according to my dictionary), “the events following the climax of a drama or novel in which such a resolution takes place.”  As we saw last week, the turning-point climax of THS arrives at the end of chapter 12, but the dramatic climax, which sees the defeat of Belbury, is yet to come.  That defeat is not in doubt, though.  It’s like the history of redemption: the denouement in which we’re living has plenty of drama, but the turning-point climax came with the Resurrection.

CHAPTER THIRTEEN: THEY HAVE PULLED DOWN DEEP HEAVEN ON THEIR HEADS

13-1 This may be the most difficult chapter of the whole novel for the contemporary reader.  I had to skim over whole paragraphs the first time I read it, because of all the references I didn’t get.  But there are also some interesting ideas that have affected my thinking.  I’ve mentioned elsewhere that The Once and Future King was one of the formative books of my youth, and the lovable, backwards-living, eccentric figure of Merlin framed my conception of the Arthur legends.  This Merlin is the polar opposite of of that one.  But if there was such a person, I have no doubt he would be much closer to Lewis’s version: a creature of Celtic paganism and early Christianity, with ties to the old spirits of earth.  He lived at a hinge in time, which Paul indicates in his message to the Athenians: “The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent . . .” (Acts 17:30, see also 14:16).  Lewis, drawing from Chesterton’s The Everlasting Man, makes a distinction between “good paganism” and “bad paganism” in pre-Christian societies, the good leading eventually to Christ and the bad leading to demons.  Merlin is of “good pagan” stock, and in fact a Christian—but very, very strange.

It’s interesting to compare his description of the moon with Filostrato’s in 8-3.

13-3  His accusation about Jane is disturbing to me.  Can God’s plans really be thwarted by human will?  We find ourselves at the intersection of destiny and choice, a question that has plagued philosophers, theologians, and even scientists since the beginning of time.  In Perelandra, Ransom decides that God’s ultimate will can’t be thwarted, but he holds several paths in mind.  If humans flub one plan, there will be another–but usually more difficult and with more painful consequences.

13-4  “Time is more important than we thought.”  No kidding!  Anyone who attempts to write serious historical novels must come up against the fact that the past is, if not utterly lost to us, then permanently out of reach.  All our efforts to reconstruct it are tenuous at best, and if time-travel ever became practically possible we would soon learn how inadequate our efforts were.  Dimble’s observation about “things always sharpening and coming to a point” is useful for all ages.  He’s applying it to Merlin’s time, when a man could (supposedly) be semi-pagan and still justified, vs. the modern age, when people can no longer plead ignorance and must choose sides.  But I think the statement has lots of applications: political, social, economical, spiritual.  Vague principles come into sharper focus as a crisis approaches, and casual alliances no longer apply; people have to take sides.

13-5  Merlin learns that his pagan powers are no longer lawful (the image of his firelit face next to the bear’s–their earthy elemental kinship–is one of those literary pictures that will stick with me forever).  As the inhabitants of St. Anne’s were profoundly discomfited by his presence, now Merlin learns how out of his element he is.  The taint of corruption about him, due to his magic, is precisely what makes him useful to the cause.  He is not totally sanctified.  As Ransom says, “a tool (I must speak plainly) good enough to be so used, and not too good.”  Upon learning his calling Merlin’s response is a bit like Christ’s, sweating drops of blood in the garden.  Is there any alternative?  Any other principality or power that can be called on to help?  In the seventh paragraph from the end, notice his appeal to those who are not part of Christendom yet observe the “Law of Nature”—he’s talking about the Way, or the Tao, Lewis’s subject in Part Two of The Abolition of Man.  But all earthly powers are to some degree under the sway of that Hideous Strength.  Only powers beyond the earth can help now, and Merlin will contain them.  Like an old wineskin filled with new wine, he will last only long enough to serve their purpose.  And then he will lose his life, but save his soul.

CHAPTER FOURTEEN: “REAL LIFE IS MEETING

14-1  After almost a whole chapter devoted to St. Anne’s, we now go back to Belbury.  Mark’s conversion at the end of ch. 12 was real–he has no desire to go back, though it’s to his advantage to play along.  Frost’s dissertations in this chapter are easy to skim because he quotes people who were very consequential in Lewis’s day but almost unknown today.  (Lewis had several arguments with Waddington, either in public correspondence or in footnotes.)  However, the idea that “Existence is its own justification” carries on today in philosophers such as Richard Rorty and Peter Singer, and catchphrases like “Whatever is, is right.”  Thomas Huxley, whom Frost quotes in the fourth paragraph, was an early defender of Darwinism who, contrary to Frost’s interpretation here, denied that evolution provided any ground for morals whatsoever.  That didn’t stop his own grandson Julius (and subsequent deep thinkers) from trying to theorize morality from evolution.  Frost represents the dead end of such attempts.

The paintings in the room where Mark begins his training range from the obviously perverse to the slightly “off”—which are more dangerous?  Do you recognize any art styles?  In the 12th paragraph from the end, he recalls reading of: “things of that extreme evil which seem innocent to the uninitiate . . .”  Chesterton again, The Everlasting Man, ch.6.  A pure heart and mind would be unaffected by these evil things (“to the pure all things are pure,” Titus 1:15), but Mark isn’t there yet.  At least he recognizes the danger, and is soon delivered from it by a most unexpected circumstance.

14-2  Another difficult-but-rewarding section.  If you have no patience with Lewis’s interplanetary mythology, okay, but notice that Jane still has her hang-ups and preconceptions that Mrs. Dimble is untroubled by (Titus 1:15 again?).  Jane is not that different from present-day feminists who see sex as a power struggle; she may have some idea that her new “spirituality” has freed her from it, but the vision she sees in the Lodge says otherwise.  The sensual woman in the flame-colored robe is easily understood as some sort of fertility goddess, but where do the dwarves fit in?  Clearly, they’re all laughing at Jane, but further illumination will have to wait.

14-3  Tolstoy wrote a chapter of Anna Karenina from the POV of a dog—here’s a stream-of-consciousness from Mr. Bultitude.  He, and all mammals, occupy a territory inaccessible to humans: pure quality, “a potent adjective floating in a nounless void . . .”

14-4  Mark has been having his own encounters with an earthy soul—a common tramp who shares certain characteristics with Merlin and others with Mr. Bultitude.  Imagine how Mark would have reacted to him before his turning point in Chapter 12, and you can see some concrete effects of his altered attitude (it’s not quite a conversion—not yet).

14-5  Things are “sharpening and coming to a point” (as Dimble observes in 13-4) for Jane.  She can’t exist in a spiritual vacuum for much longer; she’ll have to declare, either for Christ or for Ashtoreth.  Which means necessarily that she will have to deal with her humanity, her place in the world. She’s been seeing herself as mostly a cerebral creature, a woman “without a chest,” made up of approved influences and pride and self-importance.  Her conversation with the Director sets her up for “real meeting,” not just with God, but with her real self.  Left to ourselves, we don’t know who we are; it’s impossible to disengage the true self from nature, nurture, and community.  But God knows.  Jane’s experience is hinted at in Colossians 3:3-4 and I John 3:2.  Earlier her world was unmade; now she herself is remade by meeting the One who knows her fully.  (Lewis was deeply impressed by Martin Buber’s I and Thou around the time he was writing That Hideous Strength.  The title of this chapter comes from Part 1, sec. 13, where Buber writes, “All living is meeting.”)

CHAPTER FIFTEEN: THE DESCENT OF THE GODS

The narrative will pick up and move faster from this point to the dramatic climax (at last! sighs the patient reader).

15-1  “The gods” of this chapter are not only the ruling spirits of our solar system (the “Fields of Arbol”), but pure qualities proceeding from our creator: Meaning, Charity, Valor, Age and Time, Festival Joy.  Notice the “inconsolable wound” that wakes in Merlin at the approach of Venus: this is a stab of what Lewis calls “Joy” in his spiritual autobiography Surprised by Joy: the inborn longing that no earthly remedy can satisfy for long.  Try listening to Holst’s The Planets before or during a reading of this section.

15-3  Both Frost and Wither are beginning to unravel.  How?

15-4  In 14-5, Jane was told she would soon have to take a stand.  This is the point where Mark will have to take a stand—his literal encounter with the cross.  Note the “non-religiousness” of his conversion, which reflects Lewis’s account of his own conversion in Surprised by Joy.

15-6  Jules, the figurehead director of the N.I.C.E. who imagines he’s the real director, has been mentioned twice before; now he makes his appearance (remember the rule of three).  He’s also a product of modern education, a character who might have been a decent-enough reporter or hack writer if he’d been brought up with traditional values. As it is, he’s mostly a fool.

CHAPTER SIXTEEN: DINNER AT BELBURY

16-1  Recall Ransom’s observation to Jane in 14-5 that the demons hate their own minions as much as they hate us.  This chapter will bear that out.  The confusion of languages obviously recalls the Tower of Babel; the release of the animals suggests the Fall, when man and nature were set against each other.  The plot to conquer nature has failed.  Soon the earth itself will rebel . . .

16-3 – 16-6 Each of the Inner Ring meets a fate appropriate for him—how?  Do they all get a chance to repent?  When?  Might Romans 1:14 have some relevance here?

CHAPTER SEVENTEEN: VENUS AT ST. ANNE’S

17-2  The fashion show compliments 14-5 and the idea of our true selves being hidden: each woman has her dress picked out by the others; a dress that, once chosen, compliments qualities that they themselves didn’t fully appreciate.  Why is the least said about Jane’s dress?

17-4  “Britain” vs.  “Logres”: Lewis may get a little carried away here, with his idea of national “hauntings,” (any ideas as to what an American haunting would look like?), but the point is that humanity has had narrow escapes throughout history, some of them obvious and some not.  There will always be a Logres, until Christ returns.

17-7 and 17-8  Mark and Jane are reunited.  Recall that the novel began with their separation, and the narrative has pegged itself to their increasing distance.  But there have been intriguing parallels throughout.  They were each admitted to their respective Inner Rings in chapter 6.  Jane was introduced to “the Head” of St. Anne’s, and Mark to “the Head” at Belbury, in chapter 7.  Jane encounters the same holy fear at the beginning of ch. 11 that Mark encounters at the end.  Jane’s true conversion in 14-5 is closely followed by Mark’s in 15-4.

Their final meeting involves a mutual descent: Jane coming down from her pretensions and Mark from his arrogance; she in her festival garments and he most likely naked.  The world has been re-enchanted for them; they’ve rediscovered the magic of the commonplace.  What happens next?  A lot of baggage to work through, but remember Lewis called this “A modern fairy-tale for grownups.”

And so: “They lived happily ever after.”

The Abolition of Man, Part Three

Part One.

Part Two.

In the second essay of The Abolition of Man, “The Way,” Lewis showed that humanity seemed to have only one stable code of ethics, one set of standards for determining what’s good.  Though it goes by many names, western tradition calls it Natural Law, but Lewis tagged it the Tao, as a way of emphasizing that all cultures share it, whether east or west.  At the end of the previous essay, “The Way,” he poses a challenge from the opposition: if permanent values can’t exist outside the Tao, why do we need values at all?  It is possible to move beyond them?  Might this be the next step in evolution?

Fair question, says Lewis: let’s consider what it might look like.  And so he does: That Hideous Strength pictures just such a possibility.

In THS, the Inner Ring at Belbury have moved well beyond notions of good and evil; their only concern is utility.  Could it possibly be otherwise?  Can there be any other concern when the very notion of value is removed?  As Frost instructs Mark in Chapter 12.4, “Your view of the war and your reference to the preservation of the species suggest a profound misconception.  They are mere generalisations from affectional feelings.”  In other words, nothing is good (such as the preservation of the species) or bad (e.g., war) in itself; all that matters is control and power.

Lewis (and George Orwell) imagined control exercised by power: a totalitarian state.  The “smashing a

The CRISPR technique allows DNA to be “unzipped” for the removal of harmful genes, which will not be passed on to progeny.

human face, over and over” (Orwell’s definition of totalitarianism) is a bit more subtle in Lewis, but not much.  Today, in spite of all our hand-wringing over fascism and demagogues, Americans are more likely to be controlled by promises of comfort and safety–“personal peace and security,” as Francis Schaeffer defined it.  Not just in our environment, but in our own bodies.  The human genome has unfolded its secrets to science to such an extent that elite specialists can permanently remove  certain harmful traits from the blueprint (it’s been done).  This would seem like an unambiguous good, except that a) we don’t know the effects of tinkering with our DNA over time, and b) the ability to do so will almost certainly result in designer babies who will be born with a physical, aesthetic, and intellectual edge over those not so favored.

In the third essay of The Abolition of Man, Lewis boils it down: “When all that says ‘It is good’ has been debunked, what says ‘I want’ remains.  [I want] cannot be exploited or seen through because it never had any pretensions.  The Conditioners [i.e., those in control of the rest], therefore, must come to be motivated by their own pleasure.”  If you can even call it “pleasure.”  What kind of people are we talking about?

“I am not supposing [the future conditioners of the human race] to be bad men.  They are, rather, not men (in the old sense) at all.  They are, if you like, men who have sacrificed their own share in traditional humanity in order to devote themselves to deciding what humanity shall henceforth mean.”  We see this in That Hideous Strength: Wither’s disappearing act, Frost’s mechanical aspect, are images of men who have sacrificed their own humanity.  They are reduced to shells.  And, if they have their way, what of their victims?  “They are not men at all; they are artifacts.  Man’s final conquest has proved to be the abolition of man” [AOM p. 77).

Sitting in our air-conditioned houses, with medicine cabinets stuffed with pain relievers and relatively new automobiles waiting to take us wherever we want to go on well-paved roads, we may not feel like artifacts.  We may feel more like masters of our fate.  Science and technology have boosted us to a level of comfort and control undreamed-of even fifty years ago.  Surely Lewis, who once described himself as a “dinosaur,” is allowing a bit of the Luddite to creep up on him here.  Time, space, and disease have not been overcome, but certainly been tamed, and science has given us that power.  Why the gloom and doom?

“. . . [W]hat we call man’s power over Nature turns out to be a power exercised by some men over other men with Nature as its instrument.”  These words appear early in the third essay, but Lewis also put them, almost word for word, in the mouth of Professor Filostrato in That Hideous Strength, Chapter 8.3.  Where power is limited, so too the damage is limited.  But as power grows, so does its potential for harm.

In chapter 12 of That Hideous Strength, Mark is told that The Head of the organization is not really Alcasan, even though it’s Alcasan’s physical head they’ve been using.  There’s a spirit or spirits (Frost calls them “macrobes,” though they actually demons) that speaks through it.  Why do demons even need a “head” to speak through?  Because their power is limited also; they seek to be united with another power born not from the sky but from the earth: what used to be called “magic.”

“The serious magical endeavor and the serious scientific endeavor are twins: one was sickly and died, the other was strong and throve.  But they are twins.  They were born of the same impulse [i.e., to shape nature to our wishes]” (AOM, p. 87).  The efforts of the Inner Ring to recruit Merlyn will reunite science with magic and complete their power.  “It is the magician’s bargain: give up our souls; get power in return.  But once our souls, that is, our selves have been given up, the power thus conferred will not belong to us.  We shall in fact be the slaves and puppets of that to which we have given our souls” (AOM, p. 83).  Lewis means it spiritually, perhaps, but the Inner Ring will soon realize it physically.  And it won’t be pretty.

 

For our read-along to That Hideous Strength, start with the Introduction and follow the links.

That Hideous Strength: Climax

To catch up with the reading, see the Introduction, Setup, and Development.

Climax?  Isn’t it a little early for that?  Most of us have the idea that the climax is a high point of the story (as the word would seem to suggest), after which nothing is left but tying up loose ends.  But there’s another way to understand climax, in literary terms: it’s the point at which all the crucial decisions have been made.  We’ll come to that point at the end of Chapter 12.  The “high point” of the story will indeed wait until the fourth quarter, but it will be the working out of the characters’ choices, not the forcing of them.

CHAPTER NINE: THE SARACEN’S HEAD

9-1  Saracen means “Arabic,” referring to Alcasan’s ethnicity.  Saracen was also the inclusive name given to Muslim groups who occupied the Holy Land and fought against the Crusaders.  Poor Alcasan barely has the distinction of being a character in the story, and he’s not one now, as we’ll discover.  These scenes with “the head” are the closest Lewis ever came to horror literature, but notice they are all experienced indirectly; narrated or mediated by a character rather than by direct action.  He will take us into that forbidden chamber, but not yet.

9-2  No attribution has been found for the line quoted in the first chapter about “an inflammation swollen and deformed, his memory,” so Lewis himself could be the poet.  Great line, underscoring Mark’s clash with cold reality.  “They would kill him if he annoyed them; perhaps behead him.”  Notice how the N.I.C.E. has become they, but Mark does not yet identify with another us.  He’s between stools now, literally damned if he does and damned if he does not.  Notice how his “modern” education has not equipped him to deal with an unambiguous crisis.

9-3  A reader may be excused for feeling a little impatient with Lewis here; breaking off an exciting narrative to attend to MacPhee and his annoying discursions.  On the other hand, it’s rather clever of the author to introduce the subject of supernatural beings by means of a hardboiled skeptic. MacPhee’s background is worth noting: he’s the descendant of Scottish Covenanters who were deported to Ireland by James I as a way of getting rid of them, and also helping to civilize the “wild Irish.”  That’s why Northern Ireland is Protestant.  As a native of Belfast, Lewis no doubt had Covenanter blood in his veins.  He seems to have had some respect for the Scottish Calvinists who demanded proof in the word of God (like MacPhee’s uncle), but would probably fault them for lack of imagination and sympathy.  (G.K. Chesterton, one of Lewis’s spiritual guides, had no regard for Calvinism whatsoever.)  When Jane asks, about the eldila, “Are they perfectly huge?” she’s remembering her experience with hugeness in 7-2. ~ The poem Camilla quotes is by Charles Williams, a good friend of Lewis and member of the “Inklings” circle. ~ Logres derives from the ancient Welsh name for the England of King Arthur.  Arthur is probably one of the “perhaps about six” humans who never died but were taken straight to Heaven.  We can account for two more (Enoch and Elijah)—does the Bible preclude there being any others?

9-4 This strategy session produces no clear strategy, to MacPhee’s disgust, but we finally know what we’re up against.  “Science” proposes to join with “magic,” new power with old power, to surround and ultimately crush humanity.  Even in the midst of apocalyptic concerns, squabbles over authority and chain-of-command pop up.  The Director’s question about personnel (“Were you all under the impression that I had selected you?”) raises an interesting question about choice and destiny.  No one in the company can say either that they came freely or that they were compelled to come in; rather, it was both.  Lewis says this about his own conversion, in Surprised by Joy.  Recalls Jesus’ reminder to his disciples that their wills are not entirely their own: “You have not chosen me, but I chose you.”

9-5  The Director ponders.  It’s worthwhile to ponder with him, but if you get swamped by obscure references and vocabulary, the relevant point is that science and magic are not that far apart (more on this later).  Historically they were joined at the hip: “one was sickly and died; the other was strong and throve,” he wrote in The Abolition of Man.  Both were born of the same desire, “to subdue reality to the wishes of men.”  However, in reuniting with magic at this late date, science may be getting more than it bargained for.  “What should they find incredible, since they believed no longer in a rational universe?”  The Inner Ring is at the point that the inhabitants of Babel reached in Gen. 11:6: “They are one people, and they have one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do.  And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them.”

Even if you don’t follow the entire sequence of thought, it’s helpful to understand a few terms: Numinor belongs to the world of Tolkien; it refers to the fall of the Second Era in Middle Earth mythology.  (Tolkien was another member of Inklings* and Lewis was very familiar with his progress on The Lord of the Rings.)  The lost continent of Atlantis was one inspiration for Numinor. ~ Elan vital = life force. ~ Panpsychism: the belief that plants and inanimate objects, as well as humans and animals, enjoy some form of consciousness. ~ Anima mundi = world soul.

CHAPTER TEN: THE CONQUERED CITY

10-1  Mark is at checkmate: stay at Belbury, and descend to levels he doesn’t want to go; leave Belbury, and face conviction for murder, followed by hanging.  Take a moment to notice the wallet, a plot element with which Lewis has employed the Rule of Three: the first mention (4-3) introduces the object when Mark mentions to Straik that he has lost it.  The second (6-2) reinforces that loss (and reminds the reader about it) when Mark frets to Captain O’Hara about money.  The third mention springs the trap.  We know, though Mark doesn’t yet, that it’s a deliberate frame-up.  He’s also slow to recognize that guilt or innocence has no relevance whatsoever—no more than left or right, right or wrong, truth or falsehood.  The Inner ring has moved “Beyond Good and Evil” (to borrow a title from Nietzsche who foresaw this very thing).

10-2  At least Mark is finally and permanently alerted to his danger.  We want to cheer when he strikes out at Wither, but wait–Wither isn’t really there.  His mode of being has altered in a way we’ll learn more about later.  He is no longer a “person,” in any way we would understand.  But Mark, by contrast, may be on his way to becoming one: note carefully the last paragraph.

10-3  It will take a while, though.  He hasn’t a strong enough character to take a firm stand for either side.  Dimble has acquired that strength, but has to struggle with his own self-righteousness because of it: “trying very hard not to hate, and to despise, and above all not to enjoy hating and despising . . .”  This is a temptation for a lot of Christians (I’m one of them); how easy it is to look down on weakness or foolishness from our lofty perch!  Like we’re the ones who have it all together.  Our best antidote is I Cor. 6: “For such were some of you.”  Dimble ends up doing the right thing, but Mark is undone by indecisiveness.  Unable to make up his mind to take a genuine risk, he has his mind made up for him.

10-4  Dimble’s self-examination while driving home is another good reality check for Christians: if we feel ourselves getting carried away with outrage (and there’s plenty to outrage us these days), we should ask a similar question: “Is there a whole Belbury inside of you?”  The Brother Lawrence quote–“Thus shall I always do . . .”–is found in The Practice the Presence of God (ca. 1650), a collection of letters and meditations.)  Belbury is on the move elsewhere, as Dimble discovers when he reaches home and finds everyone in a state of high anticipation.  Finally the King is on the move (this, I believe, is the first use of the name Maleldil in THS) and Dimble is wanted for an expedition.

“It was an age, not a man, they were going to meet”

CHAPTER ELEVEN: BATTLE BEGUN

11-1  And about time! as MacPhee might say.

The fear that Dimble, Denniston, and Jane experience, each in their own way, while searching the wood has the same root: a fear of the noumen, or spirit world, which exists alongside our own and yet is so completely different (huge, as Jane perceived it) that to touch it is something like stepping through a trap door.  Dimble realizes that all ages still exist there: “it was an age, not a man, they were going to meet.”  Jane’s world is still being unmade (cf. 7-1); “it now appeared that almost anything might be true.”  Is she coming closer to God?

11-2  Miss Hardcastle’s account of shadowing Mark shows how little she understands the opposition.  Wither and Frost have a better idea what they’re up against, but their sources are not infallible either.  Their discussion once Miss Hardcastle is dismissed reveals that Frost really did have access to Jane’s mind—or his superiors did—when she dreamed about him.  But shortly afterwards her mind was closed to them.  Why, do you suppose?  What happened to Jane around that time?

And what do they propose to do with Mark?  What knowledge might they share with him that even Filostrato doesn’t know?  What “desire” in him might they appeal to?  (Wither’s stated wish to “to receive—to absorb—to assimilate this young man” reminds me of Uncle Screwtape.)  We haven’t seen much of Frost so far, but he will come into sharper focus.  He seems to be much more defined personality than Wither–until the last few paragraphs of this section, when we realize that both men have given up themselves in service to a “higher power.”  What desire might have led them to do that?

11-3  Mark alone.  Impending death can certainly wipe the lens of one’s perspective—if God is merciful.  Mark undergoes a kind of “Pilgrim’s Regress”: looking over his life’s ambitions and seeing them for a sham .  Notice the series of trivial steps, small compromises, and pygmy power plays employed to build up his ego, even from boyhood.  He’s not going forward yet, but that’s because he must first go all the way back: “You must be born again.”  As someone (I think is was Frederick Buechner) said, “the gospel is bad news before it’s good.”  The bad news is about us, and to see ourselves as we are is amazing grace.

CHAPTER TWELVE: WET AND WINDY NIGHT

12-2 and 12-3  Recall Mr. Stone from 5-1, an organization man who got on the wrong side of the powers that be and is desperate to redeem himself.  Obviously, Belbury and St. Anne’s are seeking the same prey—who will get to him first?

12-4  and 12-5  It’s interesting to compare these two conversations.  Frost with his “macrobes” and Ransom with his “unities” are talking about the same supernatural reality, but in his explanation to Mark Frost takes the reductionist approach, breaking all human responses down to meaningless reflexes.  Meanwhile Ransom, discussing the spiritual realm with his little band of followers, builds up a hierarchy of response reflective of God himself.  Frost would decrease, Ransom would increase, the significance of human life.  Does Frost know he’s talking about demons?  If so, he doesn’t care; names and distinctions have become meaningless to him.  But for Ransom and his band, a vague, unknown power is about to take a name—and a personality and distinctiveness they would never have imagined.  The knock on the door, and what they see when the door crashes open is one of the most striking literary scenes I’ve ever read.

12-6  We know without being told that the stranger pounding on the door at St. Anne’s is Merlin himself.  Any guesses as to who is ensconced at Belbury?  (We saw his little campsite in 11-1.)  Unintentionally, Frost and Wither provide us with some savory comic relief here.  But note Wither’s comment that he knows “the look of a Master . . . One sees at once that Straik or Studdock might do; that Miss Hardcastle, with all her excellent qualities, would not.”  Wither is wrong about the stranger, but right about Straik and perhaps Mark as well.  But why would the Fairy not do?  And “not do” for what?

12-7  We’re on Mark’s side now, or he’s on ours, but what happens almost at once?  Idolatry—seeing himself as the hero—weakens his resolve and makes him easy prey.  What’s different now is that for the first time he sees it: the true dimensions of the struggle.  It started with self-knowledge in 11-3.  Also, for the first time, he knows he can’t overcome his enemies alone.  “All that could in any sense be called himself went into that cry . . .”

And the last corner has been turned.  Whew!