Ayn Rand, Capitalism, and the Strange Gullibility of Evangelicals

Preamble

This post has really got out of hand. I began it quite a while ago when reading "Atlas Shrugged", but it has evaded my attempts to finish and post it by overcomplicating itself despite my best efforts (that is my story, at any rate).

What I really need is more subroutines - but they haven't been written, so in what follows they are all included, somewhat clumsily and thrown together, in the main text.

Let me delay no longer and get this over with -

Why do we love Ayn Rand so much?

I toyed with the idea of making the title of this post 'Putting the "Ayn" in "Heinlien" ', having revisited Robert A. Heinlein's book "Stranger in a Strange Land" as an adult, and being a sucker for such wordplay... As I read, I was struck by a number of similarities between the views of Heinlein and Rand. However, on further thought I will leave him out of it. This is mainly because I don't view his ideology as a serious threat. There is a naïve aspect to it - quite enjoyable, but difficult to sustain into maturity; in much the same way that one laughs out loud when reading D.H. Lawrence as an adult. I suppose that in order for something to be truly blasphemous one must be able to take it seriously.

I have heard it said (or rather, seen it written) that many Republicans (the very people Jesus chose to eat with in the face of all those Pharisees!) and Evangelicals love Ayn Rand. This was reported with tones of incredulity and, having read at least some of her books, I may add to this my own surprise. And yet on further thought I understand and experience the attraction myself.

I will begin, as I so often do, with a disclaimer: this will not be a thorough review of Rand's writings or philosophy but will resemble more closely some random thoughts collected in a misshapen net of rhetoric.

Prophecy has been claimed by many but proven for few. Nowadays modern Christians say, “the prophetic” which is a turn of phrase which jars my more traditional upbringing - much like saying “the floor needs swept”. However you term it, I don’t think that what is being described (in most of the instances I can think of) is quite prophecy as I would tend to define it, being instead more like saying encouraging things vehemently - the power of positive speaking, perhaps. I’d personally place prophecy more in line with predictions of the future rather than claims for it. Think of the Biblical prophets. Certifiably insane perhaps (though validated by the passage of time), but uninhibited by any bent on personal gain.

I mention this because perhaps the first phrase one might reach for to describe Ayn’s writings is “darkly prophetic”. Here is the thing though - she wasn’t a medium for some mysterious spiritual force in describing her apocalyptic landscape, but instead channeled lived experiences from a parallel reality, "a candle flame's width away" - in the Soviet Union. In short, she was simply saying “It happened there; it could happen here.” 

I’ve mentioned elsewhere that the human race is singularly short-sighted: the event horizon is very close. This is what makes far-ranging slow-game conspiracies such as the Illuminati hard to believe. “Peace in my time” as Hezekiah famously said. There are those grandparents who plan for their grandchildren’s prosperity but even this is sowing for a crop one will see - at least the first fresh green shoots of - in one’s own lifetime. History is full of examples of the fact that, unless there is some gain NOW humans are not very good about caring for a future they will not experience. (Of course, if there has been a secret break-through in immortality (or time travel) that would change everything. Suddenly nothing would be more likely than the Illuminati and their ilk.) As such we tend to believe that things will go on as they always have; we copy those around us even to our detriment; and we do things without properly connecting the dots to where they lead.

Douglas Murray, who wrote amongst other things “The Strange Death of Europe” was quoted in an interview saying, “the footfall tells the whole story”. This interesting turn of phrase indicates that there is a reason that immigrants & refugees flow only in one direction over the borders of certain privileged countries. There is a diffusion gradient, but the unit of measure is not "population". The problem is that we (those who live in these advantaged places) have apparently forgotten what the units actually are. Or perhaps we are too afraid (of being oppressive, racist and so on) to specify? Douglas is saying that unless we appreciate what makes us different - which involves a certain amount of "guarding" if you like - we will not have anything to offer. Diffusion tends to make all things grey, rather than creating rainbows.

The Friend of My Enemy

Eric Weinstien, in his podcast "The Portal" says:

"Many of you know that I occasionally refer to Donald Trump as an existential risk to the fabric of our democracy, and by extension the world, as we are the lone stabilizing nuclear and economic superpower as I see it. But what I have tried not to say until now is why I have called Donald Trump an existential risk since before his election, while I obviously see him as the enemy of my enemy. Is it not the fact that the enemy of my enemy is supposed to be my friend?"

.....

"Without fail, he [Trump] simultaneously takes the legitimate anger we all feel as well as the critiques that have been building for generations, but which have been silenced and stonewalled for decades by our mainstream institutions, and he remakes them in his own image so that they are more powerful, more politically effective, and much more divisive than the underlying correct versions of any legitimate and decent point he might raise. This has a tendency to polarize us about Donald Trump rather than about the issues at hand."

I really enjoyed this analysis because it helped me understand why I felt so conflicted about the issues in the recent election. It is not because I am innately conspiratorially minded (though this may be the case!) but because this mixture of issues being presented (this part is good) in a twisted and divisive way (this part is bad) is real. Would you rather vote for the person who is going to shut up shop on the discussion of these issues and continue the headlong (Randian) descent of society, or for the person who hits more of the right notes but produces a twisted melody from them? It is in reality an impossible question. ("You've made your choice then? No, not remotely!" - The Princess Bride)

In a similar way Ayn Rand carries a torch for some key issues that Christians also care deeply about. But beware: as Weinstien infers, "any friend of your enemy is not necessarily your friend". In an interesting debate on Socialism vs Capitalism I heard a lot of Randisms touted by the Capitalist side. And indeed, I find myself cheering on more the side of Capitalism. But there is one telling moment, the socialist side having naturally disavowed religion as a matter of course during the debate, when the capitalist side is forced into unfurling their banner:

1:15:07 - John Ridpath for Capitalism:

"The case that we are making for capitalism is a case for a social system, as I said in my remarks, that hasn't yet existed. All that you hear about the alleged evils of capitalism with regards to exploitation in regards to monopolies and all of this is quite frankly a complete misrepresentation of what capitalism is, it does not relate to what we are talking about at all. But I will say in regards to bringing in Jesus that the fact of the matter is that the case we are making is a radical attack on the ethics of Judeo-Christianity: we are rejecting the cross; we are rejecting sacrifice. In rejecting state and forced sacrifice we are standing up for a man's mind for reason for this earth and for freedom. So you're right, Jesus and we are on opposite sides." (Clapping from audience.)

1:16:16  - A rejoinder from Christopher Hitchens (on the socialist side):

"There's a trite school of thought that does try and maintain that you can derive socialism from Christianity, and I hope I said enough to make plain that I think that's that's nonsense. Christianity is historically the ideology of feudalism and of slavery and with those it's been very strongly compatible, and I think remains [compatible]. As to whether Jesus was or was not, I don't know because I have no view of whether he existed or said any of the things that are attributed to him. Some of the more popular remarks attributed to Jesus - I would say uncontroversial remarks tending towards a view of the brotherhood of man - are of course pre-Christian: wholly admirable points about the interdependence of the human race and the need to help others for one's own sake. These are uncontroversial pre-Christian and obviously easily similar to socialist morality"

(I include Hitchens' retort here because I find it rather interesting. There are two things I want to comment on. Firstly, that he hasn't done his homework (or much worse, is deliberately obfuscating) regarding whether the historic figure of Jesus existed. I say this because it is fairly well proven that Jesus did indeed exist as a historic figure - as well as any history can be proven. Hitchens' representation of this ("I have no view") is therefore highly charged with prejudice which of course we already knew - of course you might fairly say that I am highly charged with prejudice against him! Secondly, he mentions "pre-Christian virtues" - the intent seems to be to allow them but make it clear the credit doesn't go to Jesus. What is interesting here is that Jesus himself didn't claim that he was making original remarks. Instead, he was very clearly pointing back to "that which was from the beginning". He fulfils the law and the prophets - which is to say, things that are definitively pre-Christian. But even these don't claim to have invented any of what they represent. If there are truths involved, they are necessarily eternal in nature.)

As a reminder, the reason for this transcript is John Ridpath's remark. "We are rejecting the cross; we are rejecting sacrifice." (Ignore his remark about "rejecting forced sacrifice" because that is clearly a dig at the socialist side - not a good one because it doesn't succeed in associating Christian with Socialist sacrifice: Christianity is clearly about the sacrifice being willed and not forced.)

Sacrifice

I want to discuss the idea of sacrifice a bit more before moving on. (I may replace this with a link to a separate post in future but as of right now it hasn't been written!) To begin with, note the connection back to John Ridpath's war cry. Obviously is not sacrifice per se that is being rejected, because one must always sacrifice some things in order to have others. Rather, this is a stand against the sacrifice of one's own ego, one's own self. One is reminded of the passage:

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! 
How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven,
I will exalt my throne above the stars of God... (Is 14:12)

In contrast, "Greater love has no man than this" Jesus famously posited, "than that a man lay down his life for his friends". Jordan Peterson has some interesting things to say about sacrifice also, helpfully distilled down here.

In considering the meaning of sacrifice a few things came together for me. One was an association between fasting and "humbling oneself" as pointed out by Derek Prince. (I do not mean by this reference to espouse Derek's entire doctrine / world view, please limit the association to this one point.) He points out that the reason to humble oneself so is that there exists a universal principal that, "whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted." (Matt 23:12) and mentions that God does not ever humble us, we have to humble ourselves. Derek gives as a prime example that of the fall of Lucifer contrasted against the voluntary descent of Christ, who:

"Existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to death—even death on a cross." (Phil. 2)

I suddenly understood that this is sacrifice by definition - the architype, if you like. And, that this is exactly the meaning of a poem I'd written a couple of years ago: at the time I wrote without fully understanding, as one does, and likely now do not fully understand now either...

In a discussion between Jordan Peterson, Brett Weinstien & Sam Harris, Sam attacks the idea of sacrifice - I should rather say that he attacks Christianity by means of guilt by association to an action nowadays understood to be barbaric and unacceptable. He says, "Christianity is a cult of human sacrifice". Interestingly his words are correct despite the anathema of the meaning he intends.

In the same discussion Jordan Peterson explains sacrifice this way (my synopsis): if you give up something of value now, you can gain something of more value in the future. Animals "plan" for the future but only via instinct; we make pacts with the future, and "what's weird about this is that it works". Codification then happened: we formalize the means by which certain ends can be gained. Then by extension (we think) the greater the sacrifice the greater the return. And this misunderstanding may lead to horrific excesses such as human sacrifice. As always, I love the fact that Jordan's aim is not to get rid of the baby at all costs (unlike some others I could mention) but instead to understand the raison d'être for the bath water. When we discover laws of any kind - the law of gravity for instance, or the law of sowing & reaping - this does not, as some would posit, negate the concept of a creator. But at the same time there is a tendency to think that in our discoveries we have understood the universe when in fact we have often vastly oversimplified a universal law to meet our own limited understanding. Witness Isaac Newton's laws, which were an order of magnitude more accurate than what had come before, but still incomplete.

Given belief in a Creator one might reasonably expect to gain a greater understanding of universal laws by means of following His advice. And reading through the stories of the Bible two things are very clear: sacrifice is necessary, and it matters WHAT and HOW you sacrifice. Think of this in terms of a voluntary humility on the part of the one making the sacrifice; that this humility is in fact the whole point of, the essence of, sacrifice - the understanding and acceptance of one's place in the hierarchy of the universe; the "fear of God". We are not clearly told what went wrong in the case of Cain & Abel, but we do know that one sacrifice was accepted, and one rejected: the events that follow cast a more revealing light over the intent of the preceding sacrifice - for murder is not born out of humility. Then take Abraham & Isaac: the 'almost' child sacrifice, approaching the horrors of the neighboring gods - Moloch, Ashtaroth and their ilk. Yet with the important difference that this was an act of obedience not of placation. This was a voluntary humility; a letting go of the most cherished son of the promise. Abraham demonstrating that he understood his place in the universe. Further on the Hebrews chose codification over presence: “Speak to us yourself and we will listen,” they said to Moses. “But do not let God speak to us, or we will die.” (Deut 5:18). By the time that Christ came; He who was the universal law incarnate; Lord of the Sabbath, they had taken their myriad laws and run with them: if you placate God with the correct sacrifices, you may retain your own life, your own pride of place; no "coming under" need occur. 

Yet throughout the history of Israel there had been warnings - "What is more pleasing to the LORD: your burnt offerings and sacrifices or your obedience to his voice?" (1 Sam 15:22) - "For You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; You take no pleasure in burnt offerings. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart, O God, You will not despise. (Psalm 51:16) - "He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God." (Micah 6:8)

There is sacrifice in the world of Ayn Rand: her heroes have obviously subjugated their appetites in order to achieve the unimaginable. They are not sloppy, greedy, prodigal - no true superman could be. The only unbridled thing about them is their self, their ego. In her stories this intensity of purpose brings her heroes safe through the storm and into Utopia. Yet this pride of life is in fact the last and greatest barrier that keeps us from entering Paradise.

The Enemy of My Friend

Ayn Rand is famously long-winded in her books: key characters are granted implausibly long attention spans from listeners while they preach endless sermons - one nice example is when someone is defending their case in a courtroom. One's sense of reality is strained as the defendant's one-sided speech goes on... and on... and on... I will not attempt to transplant any of her sermons but instead quote shorter excerpts - where the same message may be found in a rather more accessible fashion.

"Our plan? We put into practice that noble historical precept: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Everybody in the factory, from charwomen to president, received the same salary—the barest minimum necessary. Twice a year, we all gathered in a mass meeting, where every person presented his claim for what he believed to be his needs. We voted on every claim, and the will of the majority established every person’s need and every person’s ability. The income of the factory was distributed accordingly. Rewards were based on need, and penalties on ability. Those whose needs were voted to be the greatest, received the most. Those who had not produced as much as the vote said they could, were fined and had to pay the fines by working overtime without pay. That was our plan. It was based on the principle of selflessness. It required men to be motivated, not by personal gain, but by love for their brothers.”

Dagny heard a cold, implacable voice saying somewhere within her: Remember it—remember it well—it is not often that one can see pure evil—look at it—remember—and someday you’ll find the words to name its essence.... (Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged)

In the first paragraph we see Ayn's enemy represented. There is no doubt that her enemy is also one of ours. Jesus' "Parable of the Talents" comes to mind. I believe that this ability to see through the "social-speak" to the heart of darkness is a large part of what is endearing about Rand. A claim of selflessness can be used as a bludgeon, a conversation stopper - because it appears to be a virtue. If you wish to read no further then know that the glorification of selfishness is what is put forward as the antidote, and this is where she departs dramatically from Christianity (that is to say, those who follow Christ).

Man & Superman

The representation of Rand's heroes and heroines is perhaps as telling as the descriptions of her enemies. None are overweight, all are fit and strong. They are highly intelligent and self-motivated and independent. They live and love with an unearthly intensity. And they see through the corruption around them to a pure vision, which is attainable here on earth.

"Who are these gods and goddesses that walk amongst us? They are incorruptible, they do not kill based on petty jealousies. They are white hot burning with the flame of industry."

It is interesting to note that Bernard Shaw enthrones a similar Superman as his hero, although his bent is supposedly towards socialism, which is (supposedly) directly opposed to Rand's objectivism. The fact is that it would take a Superman - in fact, a society of Supermen - to bring any of these ideal societies down onto Earth. This harks back to the debate exchange I quoted above: both parties wish to be clear that their ideas simply haven't yet been given a sporting chance - any observed flaws in their systems are due to improper experimental practices... Communism likewise relies on a perfect human nature in order to realize its lofty ideals. And in the practical outworking we have seen in recent history it was the imperfect human nature which dragged their utopias down into mass graves. Similarly, Ayn Rand in her actual life succumbed to the same gravity felt by all of mankind and could not seem to rise to the level of her own vision.

“My personal life,” says Ayn Rand, “is a postscript to my novels; it consists of the sentence: ‘And I mean it.’ I have always lived by the philosophy I present in my books—and it has worked for me, as it works for my characters. The concretes differ, the abstractions are the same.

“I trust that no one will tell me that men such as 1 write about don’t exist. That this book has been written—and published—is my proof that they do.”

However, in practice this did not turn out to be true. This preacher of independent thought gathered her own share of sycophants, those who could not or would not speak out on their own. (I suppose that once you have narrowed what is correct down to the essentials there can be no further argument. There can be no freedom from freedom itself...!) By the end of her life, she was collecting social security, something she had argued vehemently against.

The Shadow

Ayn's books tend to depict a society which is imploding - corrupted by such doctrines as "reward the needy" and hastened along by villains such as Ellsworth Toohey ("The Fountainhead"). Toohey sees and understands the downward spiral but seems viciously content to ride society into the ground - as long as he is the puppet master. This has a strange similarity to the demonic propensity to destroy their host: witness the pigs driven headlong into the sea (Mark 5:12–13). Less villainous but equally culpable are those who look only for approbation and, afraid of and craving public opinion, will not speak the truth. The hangers-on, the moochers - they live like leeches on the life blood of society.

Before leaving this point, I want to point out one of these aforementioned darkly prophetic themes. In "The Fountainhead" Ellsworth Toohey largely uses the newspapers, for which he writes, as the dissemination method for his poison. And his poison is seemingly innocuous. It is imbibed by all and sundry - willing masses downing the sugared draft of death. This is strangely reminiscent of the manner in which the media today has become the puppet of a shapeless but deadly force. I've wondered myself, and heard from many other prophetic voices of our times, the question "why?" Why does an (unnamed) organization present a name & face of care for the underprivileged, but strapped to the undercarriage is a series of bombs? Why does a writhing mass of spoiled students squirm towards immediate power but ultimate destruction of the very ground they stand upon? What "Shadow of that hyddeous strength / Sax myle and more it is of length" (The Monarche, David Lindsey) falls upon our society? In Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" society is indeed driven headlong into the sea. A small community of "supermen" alone witness the apocalypse from the safety of their wilderness sanctuary. They will be ready to rebuild once the last fires have burned themselves out.

Of course, you can call anything semantics and redefine it that way so that 2 + 2 = 5 by definition. (I mentioned this article in The Ark: Part 2.) But the way these people are going about it is so irrational that it is hard to understand how to refute their obvious error. They have cut away the very ground that any argument against them could be made from. Of course, in time they will find out that they have cut out their own foundation, but one wonders if after all this may not be that troubling to them. Say what you like about Ayn Rand (and who doesn't), but she does paint a very convincing picture of humanity coming up with an unreasonable version of society and following it through all the way to the bitter end where they starve to death, or society has fallen apart, or whatever other apocalyptic ending you might imagine. Of course, she was basing this off some of her own experiences, having witnessed the Soviet dream in practice: from the grand workers' paradise as envisioned to the starving populace and mass murders as actualized. Optimistically, in Ayn's world the heroes tend to be justified in the end. They are able to demonstrate their truth either by means of long tirades or by physical action. But in some cases, the rest of society does actually self-implode as part of this demonstration, eaten away at the heart by its own members.

Before leaving this point, I want to reference a book by C.S. Lewis which took on the same enemy, the same shadow, but with a very different intent and content. The name of this book is "The Abolition of Man", and perhaps the best way to introduce the different approaches each author took is to reference this website which details Ayn Rand's marginalia in her copy of "The Abolition of Man".

Enabling

A truly important idea in Rand's work is that of "enabling". The book "Atlas Shrugged" deals largely with this. On the one hand you have John Galt, a genius who recognizes the endemic corruption early on:

“John Galt is Prometheus who changed his mind. After centuries of being torn by vultures in payment for having brought to men the fire of the gods, he broke his chains and he withdrew his fire—until the day when men withdraw their vultures.”

As this quote describes, John Galt removes his talents from the world of moochers and creates his own Utopia in the Colorado wilderness - and spends his time, Robin Hood-like, convincing the rest of the world's talent - titans of industry in the main - to join him. Many of them are hard to convince because they cannot at first understand that their sense of honor, their inbuilt desire to save humanity, to prop up the dying world, is in fact enabling the "moochers" to grow fat. This is the image of Atlas supporting the world, but with the sudden comprehension that the globe is actually the distended body of a giant parasite embedded in Atlas's neck. By continuing to offer support, Atlas is actually enabling the parasite to continue to suck him dry. By "shrugging" the blood supply is cut off and the parasite collapses in upon itself.

I must confess that reading Ayn's assault on "enabling" has caused me to question the dynamic I often see myself taking part of in everyday life. Though events may be to some degree unfolding around me (despite me) I wonder at my part in enabling certain things to continue. This reminds me of "The Constant Gardener" - which, besides being the title of a book by John LeCarre, is a very powerful idea: that our daily tending of the things that grow (though sometimes imperceptibly slowly) around us is what shapes the result we end up with. As the Irishman admits in the joke after jumping to his death, (infuriated by receiving the same packed lunch yet again) - "I made my own sandwiches". This idea is especially relevant when it comes to our health - mental, spiritual, physical - and the health of our relationships - family & friends. Our daily gardening - or neglect - does measurably affect the state in which we find ourselves eventually.

In "Atlas Shrugged" Dagny finds herself eventually and reluctantly numbered amongst the converts to John Galt's philosophy. But to begin with she is everything heroic but with the fatal flaw of sympathy, a misplaced sense of responsibility: she must keep her railroad going. Her journey is perhaps the hardest of all because she is the strongest of all. She is destined (of course) to become John Galt's lover, rescued "like a brand plucked from the burning" as the epic comes to an end. But it takes a titanic struggle for her to understand that her dedication to keep the railroad going is actually sustaining the parasites that have fastened onto her & hers. She must abandon what she sees as her life's work in order for the new world to come about. "Unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains just a single grain; but if it dies, it bears much fruit." (John 12:24) Yet there is a discordant note when one comes to the next verse: "Those who love their life lose it, and those who hate their life in this world will keep it for eternal life.", because this cuts directly opposite to Ayn's message. One begins to see the cracks in the edifice. 

"Then, one sleepless night, she [Dagny] realized that her effort to fulfill that duty consisted of turning away whenever people discussed his job, of refusing to look at newspaper mentions of Taggart Transcontinental, of slamming her mind shut against any evidence and every contradiction. She stopped, aghast, struck by the question: What is it, then - faith versus truth? And realizing that part of her zeal to believe was her fear to know, she set out to learn the truth, with a cleaner, calmer sense of rightness than the effort at dutiful self-fraud had ever given her." (Atlas Shrugged)

Fantasy

It is somewhat unsettling to realize that in the world of "Atlas Shrugged" Dagny is the lone female titan of industry, surrounded by a circle of strong, intelligent men - and desired by more than one of them. There is this strange chivalrous notion that "the best man may have her" - the heroes do not fight over her; the most deserving gets her.  

Ayn sees the sexual act as a special thing, sacred and not at all one of guilt and shame. But she appears to think that it is man's volition that makes it so. That the smallness of motive is what corrupts the playboys and prostitutes. And conversely that greatness of motive - selfishness, true selfishness, is what redeems it.

This is a good example of the "distortion of reality" field Ayn deploys in order to showcase her ideal of "selfishness" as the prime "virtue". Supposedly with enough "purity" of selfishness it all works out in the end. The "lesser" heroes are content to let Dagny pass on to the more worthy; I suppose you could say they come to recognize that what they want most is this, rather than that. Our imagination strains to see this as a remote possibility - that a man could be so "good" while motivated solely by "selfishness" goes somewhat (!) against what we know to be true from our own experiences in the world. I'm using a lot of air quotes here simply because words and concepts are being strained somewhat out of their natural place and function. I said that Ayn "deploys" this distortion field, but this suggests a conscious intent which I don't believe to be the case. Instead, I would say this is simply her personality & worldview asserting itself as a matter of course on the things she creates.

In all the books by Ayn that I have read there is a strong current of personal fantasy being played out amidst the stirring strains of Randian ideology. Much as her villains are plucked ready-made from the parallel universe of the Soviet Union (as well as her observations on the state of society in the US at the time), it appears that her heroes are modeled after what is to hand: herself (or rather an idealized version of herself) and the type of men she was attracted to. (And who is to criticize her for this? After all, in this world there may not be anywhere else to turn for our heroes and heroines.)

Truth

Besides "Atlas Shrugged" another book worthy of mention is "The Fountainhead". Architecture and design make up the framework of this story. The hero, Howard Roark, is a struggling but brilliant architect: the only truly honest one in an industry which is given over to bloated designs, the dragging in of traditional constructs to mask the bones of modern structure, pandering to the corrupt tastes of popular culture. I enjoyed the description of Roark: he is not ashamed of the essential structure of his buildings; he will not hide it underneath false fronts, false pillars, false beams. The central idea here is that classical architecture - Greeks and Roman - was born of necessity rather than vogue, and it is dishonest to deliberately create such a structure nowadays when our building materials and methods have changed and no longer require it. "Truth in the inward parts" is here a theme that can be recognized and appreciated.

In this story, in contrast to "Atlas Shrugged", triumph of good is achieved without the complete destruction of the world. Roark's genius is strong enough to triumph over, to pierce through, the muffled weight of culture trying to drag him down. He emerges as a triumphant figure by the end of the book - one that it appears humanity may be able to follow up out of their current slough of despond.

These are stories of great pessimism but ultimately of great optimism: the insistence there does exist something worth saving out of corruption; the belief that industrious, hardworking and honest men may make a paradise for themselves. There is a descent into hell, but it is in order to clearly define the great heights that man may scale.

Sin

..."the only sin on earth was to do things badly. I still believe it." (- Dagny, Atlas Shrugged)

Given that the word "sin" in Biblical usage means "missing the mark" in the sense of archery, this is not far from the truth. All that is lacking is the definition of some terms!

Community

In "Atlas Shrugged" Ayn paints a beautiful picture of the elect living in harmony in the wilderness while the rest of the world goes to hell. The ideal of a community of men and women living perfectly free here on earth is truly beautiful, but I believe it is unattainable while we are still human. I have lived some of this dream myself and seen some of the beauty, experienced some of the grandeur, known some of the wonder; but I have also seen some of the politicizing which sneaks in on the backs of our natures, seemingly required as we forget why we are attempting to live the way we do - as if the form were the purpose. The iconoclast becomes the icon.

"She looked at the quiet, impregnable room, and at the light—the light that came from his motor—on the faces of men who were the most serene and confident gathering she had ever attended." (Atlas Shrugged)

There is a story I heard told about a group of people who followed this ideal and, selling all they owned, set out to build such a community. The young leader had bought a book on survival and his family were some of the first to arrive in the chosen spot and began to build log cabins right out of the book. At this point in the story, you can see it all come together: the romance of camping (for those who can understand this!); the unifying hardship of pioneering; camaraderie around the campfires; beloved sleep borne out of hard work and fellowship; a sense of purpose & oneness with nature. It is idyllic. Then everyone else begins to arrive - vanloads of young people, families and so on: and with them the need for rules. Every successive arrival adds another rule which adds another skin over the ideal until it is lost in the layers and perhaps completely forgotten. Thus, we leave civilization only to build it over again.

This is not to say one should give up. But instead endeavor to proceed with understanding rather than in delusion.

Perhaps this is a besetting sin for Christianity through the ages. From the beginning Jesus had to be very clear: "my kingdom is not of this earth". There would be no swords, no chasing out of the Romans, no tabernacles built on the mount of transfiguration. And yet we persist in thinking that His kingdom IS of this earth. Think about American history. The Puritans - Jingoism - Nationalism. Things we struggle with to this day.

In a simplified view of the First World War, we can see the great powers each with their own belief that their country, their nation, was to some degree the chosen people of God. Especially consider Germany - which came to be seen (by others!) as an evil power, but which started innocently enough simply believing that theirs was the nation God was currently backing. 

As I've said elsewhere, I am often reminded of what was said to a leader of the original chosen people of God: "Nay; but as captain of the host of the Lord am I now come." (Joshua 5:13)

Perhaps we are too quick to assume that God is aligning Himself to our agendas, nations, political parties...

The Strange Gullibility

Chuck Colson, once Nixon's strong-arm man in the White House, said: 

"When I served under President Nixon, one of my jobs was to work with special-interest groups, including religious leaders. We would invite them to the White House, wine and dine them, take them on cruises aboard the presidential yacht. … Ironically, few were more easily impressed than religious leaders. The very people who should have been immune to the worldly pomp seemed most vulnerable."

 (I've found this quoted a few times online - it has been dug up a few times recently regarding President Trump! - but haven't found the attribution source as yet.) 

This leads to this interesting article which talks more about Nixon's wining and dining of religious leaders.

Why are Evangelicals tagged in this essay, when all humans appear eager to accept anything that will advance their premises and often don't look too closely under the hood? Well, Christians are supposed to be somewhat immune from political and other types of glamour, and thus are more responsible when they fail.

Niggles

One thing that irritates me is where the apparent practicality of Rand & her message wears thin and you see a sort of cheap substrate beneath. Here's a few lines taken from end of "Atlas Shrugged" where the world has ended, and the elite are able to see what the remnants of humanity have been brought to as a result:

"In a distant field, beyond the town, they saw the figure of a man moving slowly, contorted by the ugliness of a physical effort beyond the proper use of a human body: he was pushing a plow by hand."

The reason that this is offensive may not be obvious to those without any farming or similar practical background. To begin with, ploughs are pulled through the earth not pushed. The image of a man behind a plough is always accompanied by either a horse or an ox pulling from the front. Secondly, the idea that a man could pull a plough is to credit this man with superhuman strength. I did a quick search to confirm my gut reaction and came up with some video from Africa purporting to be a man pulling a plough, and though there was a man pulling (and one guiding from behind) the ground being cultivated was obviously very soft - it wasn't a plough as I understand it, a curved blade that cuts into the ground and turns it over as it moves. Of course, such things could be scaled down to the point at which a man could pull a plough - either if the plough were very small or the ground soft. If this were done then this would simply be the kind of exercise sought after by the crossfit community, and not at all "the ugliness of a physical effort beyond the proper use of a human body".

Most fiction does not attempt to be accurate, either being completely fantastical by design or moderately fantastical by implication. But Ayn Rand takes herself so seriously that one cannot help being frustrated by these inclusions.

Happiness

"But neither life nor happiness can be achieved by the pursuit of irrational whims. Just as man is free to attempt to survive in any random manner but will perish unless he lives as his nature requires, so he is free to seek his happiness in any mindless fraud, but the torture of frustration is all he will find, unless he seeks the happiness proper to man. The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live." (John Galt's speech, Altas Shrugged)

I couldn't agree more with this statement from John Galt. However, what I believe this stems from, and what the implications are, are very different from what Ayn takes them to be. 

The Children of Israel were given strict ordinances to live under - very restrictive. They had (we assume) no understanding of the WHY, but were told "that it may be well with you and with your children forever". Now, one way of looking at this is to see these demands as those of a capricious and childish God who is teetering on the edge of being offended and is advising his chosen people to toe the line lest he be annoyed and smite them. I believe this to be a common view of the God of the Old Testament nowadays. (Some sects have believed that the God of the N.T. is a different animal - they should note that Jesus plainly stated that "not one jot nor tittle"...)

Another and almost diametrically opposite interpretation of the same facts is that there are certain ways of living that will produce the most happiness and healthiness and that these laws to some degree described how to live this sort of life, and this may be why God prescribes them. You have to understand that He was dealing with a pack of savages in the beginning, and may still be dealing with them to this day...

Terry Pratchett describes in one of his books how those who are wise can lead even ignorant villagers to abide by sanitary rules. Instead of telling them the unbelievable truth about disease-causing microbes migrating between septic & drinking water and thus the need to distance a wellhouse from an outhouse, it is necessary to spin a tale of magic and malevolent otherworldly creatures. This is simply translating reality into a language that can be understood and will be obeyed. Today we fear the invisible microbe; yesterday we feared invisible otherworldly creatures. How much of this is happening in the myriad laws of the Old Testament is an open question, but I will point out that most Christians today consider themselves free to eat bacon.

I believe that our Creator intends there to be delight in life, and thus creation is innately delightful to us.

"Now, flung at me like frolic or insolence, there came as if it were a voice — no words — but if you made it into words it would be, ‘Why should your heart not dance?’ It’s the measure of my folly that my heart almost answered, ‘Why not?’ I had to tell myself over like a lesson the infinite reasons it had not to dance. My heart to dance? Mine whose love was taken from me, I, the ugly princess who must never look for other love, the drudge of the King […]? And yet, it was a lesson I could hardly keep in my mind. The sight of the huge world put mad ideas into me, as if I could wander away, wander forever, see strange and beautiful things, one after the other to the world’s end. The freshness and wetness all about me […] made me feel that I had misjudged the world; it seemed kind, and laughing, as if its heart also danced. Even my ugliness I could not quite believe in. Who can feel ugly when the heart meets delight?" (Till We Have Faces, C. S. Lewis)

There are echoes of this in these words of Dagny's:

"No matter what her problem, this would always remain to her—this immovable conviction that evil was unnatural and temporary. She felt it more clearly than ever this morning: the certainty that the ugliness of the men in the city and the ugliness of her suffering were transient accidents—while the smiling sense of hope within her at the sight of a sun-flooded forest, the sense of an unlimited promise, was the permanent and the real." (Atlas Shrugged)

The fact is that all of us - socialists, communists, objectivists; atheists, agnostics, religious; all of us faithful - catch glimpses of the gates of Paradise. But as to the means to enter - that is not so clear.

Admission & Conclusion

The truth is that I have both enjoyed reading Ayn's books - delighted to be caught up in the world she creates, seeing myself as a part of this superman cadre who stand for the truth amidst a crumbling world - AND am extremely gullible. I'm not at all sure that I'm an evangelical, but this is a moot point. The preceding thoughts are an attempt to be responsible; to sift through the data and discard poison while retaining nutrition - I do not claim definite success...

An Open Letter to Jordan Peterson

Dear Jordan,

I was listening to your conversation with Jonathan Pageau recently and in the middle of the conversation was inspired to write to you. I actually shut off the podcast midway and began voice texting in my first thoughts. There were so many things that were being discussed that reminded me of some of my blog posts (http://roadtonarnia.blogspot.com/) - particularly The Ark: Part 1 and Part 2. At the time that I wrote these I did not even know you existed, which is something that perhaps those that read them will find hard to believe. I am not very active on YouTube and actually came to your podcast by way of the intellectual dark web which was in turn by way of Eric Weinstein who was in turn by way of a recommendation from a friend. I began listening back in the biblical interpretation years and made my way forward through lectures & various interviews. It has been wonderful to discover your voice, which could be described as the voice of reason in a world gone insane; or perhaps the voice of someone who actually seems to think reality is real and as such must be handled with care and gratitude as the gift that it is.

As I began to look into how to contact you I quickly realized that this was an impossibility. Though you do not seem to be a standoffish person in yourself I suppose it is a necessary function of the way fame works nowadays that all such hopes should be extinguished. One reads of C.S. Lewis painstakingly replying to each and every one who wrote to him - handwritten letters and often posted back on the same day! Such things seen miraculous in today's atmosphere. 

I did find the "Open Letter to J.P." subreddit: glancing through it reminded me of picking through driftwood on the ocean's edge. Trash & treasure piled together - it matters not what, there is a definite lack of communication going on. Each quiet splash of a new [letter] taking its place in the vast multitude may every so often evince some response from the community that has grown up along the edge of this fixed gulf, or at least a line or two from a lonely bot. It became quickly apparent that this group is to whom any such endeavor should be addressed (rather than to you), and at this realization my resolve failed me - "abandon hope, all ye who enter here".

Thus, knowing myself to be one speck in the immense ocean of humanity, my voice but one of these countless millions, doubtless better in some measurable way than some but equally doubtless worse than others, I content myself with "posting" this open letter here on my blog. If, by some miracle, you should stumble upon it this will be no greater magic than it being noticed amidst the flotsam & jetsam of the subreddit. I will also print this and send it with a copy of "The Place of the Lion" by Charles Williams - a personal favorite and one I think you will enjoy - on the off chance that this old fashioned method might win through!

I wonder if you have read the book "Ion" by Plato. If not, I would recommend it: it is very short and quite apropos, in that it deals largely with resonance and I notice so much of this taking place in the world: harmonics and overtones - yours being one of the clearer voices (most strident?!). In fact, perhaps the reason that I was thinking along some of the lines I also hear from you is because a) you had already changed the world by what you've been teaching, and I was experiencing some of the ripples, and / or b) we both are reacting to either the muse itself or other more fundamental resonators. These effects are of course exacerbated by the advent of the Internet.

(Strangely enough, having written this much I stopped writing to fog my garden for mosquitoes, and began to listen further to your conversation with Jonathan P. When you began to recommend a book called Ion I couldn't believe my ears. Then a few minutes later it turned out that you were talking about Aion, by Carl Jung. Ah well, there are limits...)

From the moment I began to understand the enormity of what you and your family have been through physically together with the enormity of what you are attempting to represent to the world, I have been very much reminded of the character Job in the Bible. As I listened to your interview with Jonathan Pageau this verse came back to me: "I have heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you.". This is a paradigm shift of immense proportions, and from some of the things I have heard you say, it appears that you recognize this shape looming ahead in the mist. 

In one of your Bible lectures you said of the Abrahamic Covenant something like: "it is the decision to live in the world as if it were constructed so that if you do the right thing the best possible outcome will occur." And you can see that Job took exactly the same tack: "And this man was blameless and upright, fearing God and shunning evil.", "...when the days of feasting were over, Job would send for his children to purify them, rising early in the morning to offer burnt offerings for all of them. For Job thought, “Perhaps my children have sinned and cursed God in their hearts.” This was Job’s regular practice.", and the repeated "In all this, Job did not sin or charge God with wrongdoing.". What is interesting here is that although this was in some sense enough - enough to live well, to prosper, to have the best possible outcome, enough for the time being - it was not at all the same thing as seeing God. Thus, "I act as though God exists".

There is a passage in "Perelandra" by C.S. Lewis that came to mind while thinking of the seriousness with which you consider (and push back against) surrender to the belief that there is a God:

As soon as the Lady was out of sight Ransom’s first impulse was to run his hands through his hair, to expel the breath from his lungs in a long whistle, to light a cigarette, to put his hands in his pockets, and in general, to go through all that ritual of relaxation which a man performs on finding himself alone after a rather trying interview. But he had no cigarettes and no pockets: nor indeed did he feel himself alone. That sense of being in Someone’s Presence which had descended on him with such unbearable pressure during the very first moments of his conversation with the Lady did not disappear when he had left her. It was, if anything, increased. Her society had been, in some degree, a protection against it, and her absence left him not to solitude but to a more formidable kind of privacy. At first it was almost intolerable; as he put it to us, in telling the story, ‘There seemed no room.’ But later on, he discovered that it was intolerable only at certain moments—at just those moments in fact (symbolised by his impulse to smoke and to put his hands in his pockets) when a man asserts his independence and feels that now at last he’s on his own. When you felt like that, then the very air seemed too crowded to breathe; a complete fullness seemed to be excluding you from a place which, nevertheless, you were unable to leave. But when you gave in to the thing, gave yourself up to it, there was no burden to be borne. It became not a load but a medium, a sort of splendour as of eatable, drinkable, breathable gold, which fed and carried you and not only poured into you but out from you as well. Taken the wrong way, it suffocated; taken the right way, it made terrestrial life seem, by comparison, a vacuum. At first, of course, the wrong moments occurred pretty often. But like a man who has a wound that hurts him in certain positions and who gradually learns to avoid those positions, Ransom learned not to make that inner gesture. His day became better and better as the hours passed. (Perelandra, Ch. 6, C.S. Lewis)

In my blog series "The Ark" I posited that the Catholic Church had been at times the guardian of civilization - in other words, it did the job of an ark. As I learn more about the Catholic Church (shedding some of the Protestant bias that I was brought up with as I move forward) I have come to understand that partly this is because they (the Catholic Church) have managed to keep their heads when losing their hearts. The Protestants (huge generalization here!) have tended to do only the latter; scientists only the former. I trust that you will manage both, recognizing that each is in equal measure a gift. Jonathan Pageau spoke of straddling two worlds as being something which might tear one apart. But what I hope for is a bringing together.

In Chesterton's biography of Thomas Aquinas, "The Dumb Ox", he describes the following:

Siger of Brabant, following on some of the Arabian Aristotelians, advanced a theory which most modern newspaper readers would instantly have declared to be the same as the theory of St. Thomas. That was what finally roused St. Thomas to his last and most emphatic protest. He had won his battle for a wider scope of philosophy and science; he had cleared the ground for a general understanding about faith and enquiry; an understanding that has generally been observed among Catholics, and certainly never deserted without disaster. It was the idea that the scientist should go on exploring and experimenting freely, so long as he did not claim an infallibility and finality which it was against his own principles to claim. Meanwhile the Church should go on developing and defining, about supernatural things, so long as she did not claim a right to alter the deposit of faith, which it was against her own principles to claim. And when he had said this, Siger of Brabant got up and said something so horribly like it, and so horribly unlike, that (like the Antichrist) he might have deceived the very elect. 

Siger of Brabant said this: the Church must be right theologically, but she can be wrong scientifically. There are two truths; the truth of the supernatural world, and the truth of the natural world, which contradicts the supernatural world. While we are being naturalists, we can suppose that Christianity is all nonsense; but then, when we remember that we are Christians, we must admit that Christianity is true even if it is nonsense. In other words, Siger of Brabant split the human head in two, like the blow in an old legend of battle; and declared that a man has two minds, with one of which he must entirely believe and with the other may utterly disbelieve. To many this would at least seem like a parody of Thomism. As a fact, it was the assassination of Thomism. It was not two ways of finding the same truth; it was an untruthful way of pretending that there are two truths. And it is extraordinarily interesting to note that this is the one occasion when the Dumb Ox really came out like a wild bull. When he stood up to answer Siger of Brabant, he was altogether transfigured, and the very style of his sentences, which is a thing like the tone of a man's voice, is suddenly altered. He had never been angry with any of the enemies who disagreed with him. But these enemies had attempted the worst treachery: they had made him agree with them.  

Those who complain that theologians draw fine distinctions could hardly find a better example of their own folly. In fact, a fine distinction can be a flat contradiction. It was notably so in this case. St. Thomas was willing to allow the one truth to be approached by two paths, precisely because he was sure there was only one truth. Because the Faith was the one truth, nothing discovered in nature could ultimately contradict the Faith. Because the Faith was the one truth, nothing really deduced from the Faith could ultimately contradict the facts. It was in truth a curiously daring confidence in the reality of his religion: and though some may linger to dispute it, it has been justified. The scientific facts, which were supposed to contradict the Faith in the nineteenth century, are nearly all of them regarded as unscientific fictions in the twentieth century. Even the materialists have fled from materialism; and those who lectured us about determinism in psychology are already talking about indeterminism in matter. But whether his confidence was right or wrong, it was specially and supremely a confidence that there is one truth which cannot contradict itself.

I recently read David Berlinski's book "The Devil's Delusion". It was refreshing in the same way that I find your lectures to be. What is missing is the foregone conclusion that God does not exist - and cannot be allowed to exist. Also missing is the foregone conclusion that God does exist - and cannot be allowed to die. Instead you begin by respecting the Bible for what it definitely is (rather than despising it for what it is claimed to be), and because of this are able to expose a lot of truth - from an evolutionary psychologist's perspective, true, but given the idea of "the one truth which cannot contradict itself" this simply works. You are one of the archaeologists uncovering the artifact...

As a sub point, viewed from David Berlinski's perspective I find your insistence on evolution being entirely a forgone conclusion somewhat interesting. I'm not arguing against evolution per se: for my part, I grew up "Creationist" (ie, evolution is false) and then become more scientifically oriented (ie, became convinced that evolution was proven to be completely true, so I must make room for that in my theology), but now I am more inclined to hold such scientific claims loosely and for what they are - theories, yet to be proven. And likewise to hold certain Christian claims loosely, until they be proven!

We are promised that "every knee shall bow & every tongue confess" which would mean proof in an undeniable sense. And until then yes, we must "act as though God exists" (Hebrew 11:6) and that must be enough, against the day when we truly see.

Respect,

Jon

 

Diffusion

 "Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil". (Matt 6:13)

We do not get stronger by exposing ourselves to temptation and learning to say no. The true crux of decision often comes before we meet with the temptation itself.

It is true that one can become more tolerant of alcohol, enabling one to drink far more before becoming noticeably intoxicated. However, this does not mean that one is stronger against the improper use of alcohol. And there may be some sacrificing of oneself along the path to gain such  powers.

In the case of pornography, apparently with enough exposure (!) one becomes inured to some degree. So the videographers and directors of such videos although no doubt they exist in some mild state of titillation (!) they are able to carry out their work in a clear-headed fashion without being completely distracted by things that should take the breath away of someone not used to such delights. However, again this hardening is not at all the same thing as being strengthened against temptation. It has just moved the boundary of temptation further into darker and more extreme areas. And this is doubtless why habituees of this art find difficulty being aroused by the simple things of married life.

There is a story regarding how St. Aquinas' brothers attempted to lure him away from the path of monastic solitude and back to their ancestral house. They forcibly detained Aquinas and then introduced a prostitute in his room. There is a wonderful description of the ensuing scene in "The Dumb Ox", a biography of Aquinas by GK Chesterton:

"He sprang from his seat and snatched a brand out of the fire, and stood brandishing it like a flaming sword. The woman not unnaturally shrieked and fled, which was all that he wanted; but it is quaint to think of what she must have  
thought of that madman of monstrous stature juggling with flames and apparently threatening to burn down the house. All he did, however, was to stride after her to the door and bang and bar it behind her; and then, with a sort of impulse of violent ritual, he rammed the burning brand into the door, blackening and blistering it with one big black sign of the cross."

I myself was the witness of a similar barring of the door. Working late nights doing janitorial work there was a particular account filled with grime and overflowing trash cans where the walls always displayed certain anatomically illuminating posters. I had been raised to regard such things as verboten; I should say rather, I had been raised not to regard such things - but this of course is the problem. The siren call was strong to a young man alone at night. I struggled; sometimes I succeeded, sometimes I failed. But one night was different. We often worked in teams of two, and this one particular night I was working with a man I will call LF. We came to this particular account, and immediately on entering the door LF's first action was to decisively take down the posters and introduce them to the trash can. There was a war like quality to his actions reminiscent of the previous description of Aquinas. As a laconic explanation for his actions to me LF said, "Their employers don't want them looking at this stuff." Which was doubtless true enough, and says in itself something about the utility of such pastimes. There may be some exceptions where an employee might, knowing his employer had a sympathetic ear (perhaps having seen similar things in the boss's office?) complain that the janitors had stolen artworks. But in the main I believe that a certain shame would prevent this course of action.

I remember this night always as a breath of fresh air entering a stifling room. It was a course of action I had never considered, and cut directly across the struggles, successes and failures of my previous nights.

So it is when we go to work on a cold morning. Everything about the atmosphere around the car invites us to stay inside the warm cocoon. But what must be done can be done and it is best initiated with an efficient indignation: a fire that is found on the inside and drives impatiently out through cold fingertips until they are warmed. As As the old adage says, the tree warms us up twice: once when we split the wood and again when we burn it.

There are some roads down which it is not expedient to travel. Staying in one's car instead of working on a cold day is one of them, and this is evidenced by the lack of a paycheck which in turn leads to a greater chilliness than that which was avoided in the first place. Diffusion gradients lead to diffusion.

Time

 You tell me death is final night

The end of choosing wrong from right.

I ask what then if God, the One

In whose hands all the sands of time do run,

When no last rites are said, no holding hand

Stands by to wrest the sinner's prayer from dying voice -

What if He breathes upon those last few grains of sand

Provides the space, as needed, for the choice?

Must Purgat'ry at all costs be denied -

Semantics versus Lord of Earth and Sky?

For all those who now face their final night

Shall not the judge of all the world do right?

A Memory of Magic

With my mask on and ear plugs in I am immersed in the same sense of womb-like isolation that I remember as a child: trudging up the gravel drive of an early winter morning, buckets of pig slop hanging heavy from my arms and slushing against either side of my Wellingtons, fur rimmed hood pulled over my head and zipped up completely, leaving me peering out of a warm tunnel at the darkened frosty path ahead. 

In this moment isolation has been in measure forced upon me by the strange laws of Covid on Aircraft. But I have taken ownership by adding ear plugs which completes the effect in a pleasing fashion. There are momentary and nonsensical dissonances where we the passengers remove our masks en masse to consume small packets of salty snacks and sip sparkling water. My ear plugs are likewise removed to communicate with the hostess. Then, having somehow avoided contamination during this brief period of insanity, I dive back in to the safety of my cocoon.

During one of these warm still periods, the plane gently descending over a night darkened and rain softened Seattle, I stare out at the miniature roads and houses, wondering once again at the myriad strangers represented by each light. Suddenly, from just over treetop height, a lonely junction between two roads drifts into view. Golden hooded traffic lights stand at the four corners, pillars surrounding a temple court. Dipping garlands of telephone wire enclose the space, glistening with mist. Street lights cast a hallowed glow over the scene; warm, yellow and familiar. Darkly emerald trees stand outside the crossroads, fading to black. I see the form of something archetypal stirring, but it passes before I have time to attempt a photograph. It remains clearly in my mind, where I know that a picture would have blurred and misrepresented what I saw so clearly.

Surely there is a magic when things meet: certain junctions of roads; meetings of waters, cloudy & clear; dialog between intelligences; wine & food pairings - or even the stark contrast of complimentary tastes or colors themselves. Saunas and cold plunges. The Incarnation. The wind whipping against a stationary figure high on a cliff edge. Candlelight in a darkened window. I use the word "magic" because I speak of things greater than the sum of their parts. There is a little light let in from somewhere quite other.

There are no doubt scientific rules that govern such experiences. I remember once hearing a worship leader explain that certain chord progressions led people into a desired emotive state. At the time I was offended: I thought at the time by the idea that the sacred could be engineered - as though sacred means "in defiance of natural laws". On closer inspection this explanation makes no sense whatsoever. While the word "supernatural" does suggest something that is above the laws we are normally governed by, in actual fact any such thing must necessarily be a fulfillment of these laws rather than the destroying of them.

I think perhaps what remains irksome in my memory is that a person wished to use this science to create an emotional state in others during a time of worship - when surely we should be most free from human manipulation? More than that: for this to be done to the congregation without their knowledge and free will. This in an important addition because we often deliberately go to music to have our emotions manipulated - anyone who goes to a concert would leave unsatisfied if they had not been moved during the performance. But in the case of worship there is the hope that "the anointing" just happens - a kind of magic, if you will. We don't like the idea of being manipulated - even though it stands to reason that we are being manipulated during most of our waking hours, and perhaps as a result during some of our sleeping hours also. Perhaps the best leaders of men are those who manipulate while being  unconscious of the fact that they do so? A cynic would say "while appearing unconscious".

The modern day wizards of Hollywood strive to reach this magic. Yet it is far less often attained than the existence of some kind of science behind the scenes would suggest. There are so many multi-million dollar flops. Bishop of Durham style: "all the right ingredients but nothing has risen"...  (reference: Gerald from "The Sacred Diary of Adrian Plass!) This is hard to understand. One has the idea that with enough money involved plus intention, anything is possible - but this is not apparently the case.

Once achieved, even the best of these moments is merely the whisper of something beyond; a hint of what must be the true magic. As though the wind stirred the trees and they almost spoke.

He Is Risen!

The Terror of the Grave and the Truth of the Resurrection (Bishop Robert Barron)

I am Not Throwin' Away My Shot!

My youngest son is enamored with the musical Hamilton. He has memorized a lot of the lyrics (and has had to be helped with the navigation of some of them!). A central theme in this story is the idea of not throwing away one's shot. Alexander Hamilton, one of the founding fathers of America, starts things off by singing about his unlikely beginnings, his ambition and the fact that he is not going to throw away his shot.

Because I have heard this song both played and sung many times in the recent weeks this phrase has been turning over in my mind and may have collected some other thoughts, snowball fashion...

The premise is that we have all been given a shot - "at life", if you like, and we should use it. If we don't use it, we are like the man who is given the talent and buries it in the ground. He presents it at the resurrection and says "look, I still have exactly what you gave me - take it back and be happy with me". The response is equivalent to "I never knew you".

On the other hand what is the shot, exactly? And what should we use it on?

Firing one's shot implicitly means that one does not have it anymore. It is used up - not saved; it is not buried in the ground; it becomes marred by use, like the jacket in the fairy tale concerning the sons of the king.

Alexander Hamilton, in a duel at the end of the musical, deliberately fires upwards so as not to kill his opponent and thus looses his own life. This possibly apocryphal story ties in nicely with the theme. The ability to kill a person is not "the shot" that we must not throw away: in other words by throwing away this lead bullet Hamilton has not thrown away but rather confirmed his shot. It is true that we have this freedom, this ability to hurt others. But "our life above others" is not the investment opportunity we have been given.

There is a curious story about a man named Onan in the Bible. Because it is somewhat controversial, and used to support some controversial doctrine, many people have heard of Onan and the other protagonists in this tale: patriarch Judah and his daughter in law Tamar. The whole somewhat sordid story may be found in Genesis 38, and can be found here. I won't retell the story, but will instead comment on it.

The first thing to note is the intense important of "seed" - one's descendants, one's inheritance. Through the eyes of these ancient actors you can see that this is of primary importance. There are echoes of God's promise to Abraham: 

"When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to him and said, “I am God Almighty. Walk before Me and be blameless. I will establish My covenant between Me and you, and I will multiply you exceedingly." (Genesis 17). 

And before that:

"Then the LORD said to Abram, “Leave your country, your kindred, and your father’s household, and go to the land I will show you.

I will make you into a great nation,
and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
so that you will be a blessing.
I will bless those who bless you
and curse those who curse you;
and all the families of the earth 

will be blessed through you.” (Genesis 12)

(As an aside - looking at these two passages together you can see a transition in what God was asking of Abraham. Initially it was enough for him to be obedient to a call to adventure. But as things progress he is being asked to "walk before me and be blameless". I think of this as being the beginnings of the path "back to the garden" - away from the savagery of men's beginnings on the Earth. This proves to be a very long journey indeed.)

This theme is repeated over and over again through the Bible - the importance of one's bloodline. And over and over again there is the emphasis on the importance of having a son. This reminds me of some lines that I wrote, motivated by my reaction against a friend's disappointment when his wife gave birth to a baby girl:

For unto us a Son is Born

It is a boy! - This cry of long-awaited joy
Also describes the alternate -
Daughter; disappointment; a blank fired

O foolish ones, how slow your hearts are to believe
All that was prophesied.
For never was there but one Son,
And he already born.

No proud father here on Earth has ever known
This fulfilment, long foretold
Save Joseph - no father; almost husband; fully mystified.

Echoes of this event still
Sound and resound in our minds
But what deliverance do we look for when we thus
Desire a son, someone to carry on our line?
What long awaited hope will he
Carry us towards?

Why seek we Him among those yet unborn?
The consummation has already come.

There is now no line to be continued save for His,
And in Him all sons and daughters may find equal hope,
All families of earth be blessed.

In the story, responsibility came knocking on Onan's door: his brother dies, and now he must marry Tamar and continue his brother's line. That he must do this was clearly known to him and Tamar and to his father Judah - at a time when none of the myriad laws of the Old Testament had yet been set in stone: suggesting that it was part of an underlying canon of truth which the OT laws in part embodied. However you wish to slice this cucumber I don't think you can argue against the fact that Onan knew what he was doing was wrong and that he did it anyway.

And why did he rebel against what he ought to do? It was because he realized that he only had one shot and he did not wish to throw it away continuing his brother's bloodline.

Some people have taken this story to be a warning against masturbation or contraceptives, concluding that the intent to impregnate must never be artificially foiled. I shy away from this explanation as being overly specific and simplistic. Without arguing against such claims (I do not want to throw away my shot in this essay!) I argue that this story is all about avoided responsibility.

It is interesting to note that the bloodline which Onan refused to participate in was that of Christ Jesus.

In fact the only way we come out with more than we went in with is by giving what we have away. That is what an investment requires.

Alive and kicking today is the idea that we have more than one shot. If one views procreation as the essential thing then this conclusion naturally follows. You can see that Solomon, with his thousands of concubines and wives, could be said to have had many shots in this sense. But in reality he only had one and that one he muffed up. It could well be said of him that no man in history was ever given so many talents - whether you define this as weight of gold or ability. Initially it seemed that his investment was wise. But by means of subsequent investments, the multiplication of shot attempts if you will, he was finally left destitute.

Courtship - the winning of love and an opportunity for commitment - is one of the most exciting things on earth. And it is something that there is a longing to do more than once.

I've thought many times before about the impulse of a knight errant to rescue a damsel in distress. It is a wonderful impulse - and a couple may, in a very real sense, thus offer "salvation" to each other. There may be offered stability, friendship, pleasure, family - even a rescue from a current dragon whether that be mental, spiritual or physical. Don't get me wrong, this works both ways: there is just as much "rescuing" that happens from woman to man as the other way.

And so, on to a confession. I've been happily married for some time now, but as life goes on I've seen other "damsels in distress" and wondered what I could offer them. (The answer isn't the easily identified "one night with the King".) Stability, a new life, appreciation, happiness? Some of this impulse might be easy to see through as selfishness, an inflation of the value of what I have to offer. But the real antidote is the full truth: I do have such gifts to offer, but I may only give them once. I only have one shot. Following on, one sees that we cannot "re-offer" this gift once given, for it invalidates the gift. Let me be blunt: if I am unfaithful to my wife in order to offer faithfulness to another woman, what is the value of this "faithfulness"? This logic also applies to the other aspects. Thus, the whole imagined romance (knight & damsel, slain dragon, sunset) falls apart into a much more sordid tale, leaving a ruined family in the wake of what is now clearly a selfish intent.

Read carefully here, for I am not saying that love is not large enough to reach outside the circle of a family.

Another confusion that arises is that we have but one shot in this life for glory or fame. This equates glory with the root purpose of life, whereas it may be a byproduct can never be an end. There is a very satisfying exposition of this by Bishop Robert Barron in his talk at Google. Out of such a view comes  disappointment, a sense of failure, when one dies (or approaches death) having "only" been a good father or mother; worked to put bread on the table; worked to be fair and just in one's small dealings in one's small social group. I would argue that such a person has succeeded in not throwing away their shot, although wealth, fame and glory may not be theirs.

A life lived may lead one up to the summit of Everest, but what is important will always be how one treated the guides and fellow climbers rather than the achievement of the summit. One may arrive in positions of great power, responsibility and glory. But even in the most magnificent palace known to man only the foundational principles will remain what is important about one's life. 

Do you love your wife?
With all you've got inside you
Are you layin' down your life?
What about the others?

Are you livin' as a servant
To your sisters and your brothers?
Do you make the poor man beg you for a bone?
Do the widow and the orphan cry alone?
(Don Francisco, Steeple Song)

To those who do not throw away their shot, He will say:

"Come, you who are blessed by My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world."

Goldfish

Is it important to know the shape of where are you are living; the boundaries of your habitat? 

Does this matter as long as you can exist happily & peacefully inside? 

Is it living dishonestly to never enquire about the exact shape of your inherited society?

Photo credits: Ahmed Zayan, instagram.com/zayyerrn

I propose that all of us live inside such goldfish bowls, and that most people do not realize the true extents of these boundaries & restrictions until a crisis - an unusual internal or external force - reveals them: they bump up against the glass. At this point they have to make a decision - do they forsake it for some new boundary? Or do they own it & defend it?

We watch others thus englobed and judge their complacency. 

We are watching through the curved lenses of our our own bowls.

.
.
.
.

For the future: Commitment / Marriage / Rumspringa / Basilisk / Vocation / Citizenship / Parenthesis