May 31, 2005

Evangelical Hat Tips

Posted by Matthew Lee Anderson @ 4:37 pm | Categories: Outside Articles of Interest, Philosophy | 4 Comments`

I got home today and discovered Joe Carter clipped my restatement of his post. Thanks for the link, and welcome Evangelical Outpost readers.

In the same post, Carter writes:

Personally, I have a hard time accepting the idea that libertarianism and Christianity are highly compatible. I think that libertarianism tends to favor the individual over other social structures, such as the family and community.

Disclaimer: I have yet to read Mike’s essay: these are just a few quick thoughts that were prompted by Joe’s comment.

Since I’ve picked on him lately, I’ll continue. I haven’t yet read the comments, so he may have clarified his position, but this hardly seems a tenable reason to dislike a philosophical position. After all, it was Christianity that gave us the concept of the individual (see Cochran’s excellent Christianity and Culture). At the least, Christianity teaches that the individual is primary in the order of salvation, and I see no reason why this can’t also apply to political structures.

May 30, 2005

Back to Work

Posted by Matthew Lee Anderson @ 1:14 pm | Categories: Epistemology, Philosophy | 5 Comments`

After a full weekend of cleaning, moving, and unpacking, I am officially moved in to the new apartment. It doesn’t have internet access right now and won’t for a while, so blogging will be tough, but I always seem to manage.

Only 26 long days, though, until I will be gone for 2 weeks getting married and honeymooning. I’ll be asking the other Mere-O contributors to step up in my absence.

While I was gone, Joe Carter clarified his thoughts regarding the place of doubt in the Christian life. He writes:

I have to admit that I personally have a difficult time sympathizing with Christians who express doubts about God’s existence. The very idea strikes me as
evidence of immaturity and the need for more humility. In holding such a view,
though, I am reminded of my own need for humility and to do my duty to, as Jude
exhorts, “be
merciful to those who doubt.”

I agree with Carter’s position, now that it’s explained a bit more, but I have reservations about identifying ‘doubt’ with “immaturity” and “the need for more humility.” In this post, I’ll try to add some clarifying comments to Carter’s position, and then clarify my qualms.

In the comments to the post, Carter writes:

(b) Most doubts have nothing to do with the intellect so it isn’t a matter of
being “irrational.” If everyone were basing their beliefs purely on reason than
everyone would believe because the expected payoff would be the rational choice
(see: Pascal’s Wager). The fact that they don’t believe is a matter of the will,
not the intellect.

This is, perhaps, the clearest expression of Carter’s concern. What Carter seems to be suggesting is that ‘doubt’ and ‘certainty’ are psychological predicates, and not philosophical predicates. In other words, they have more to do with our cognitive functioning than they do with our level of justification. I may have many reasons to believe a belief is true and still doubt that it is true. Alternatively, I may have no reason to believe that the moon is made of cheese and still be utterly certain that it is true, because ‘certainty’ describes my mental state and not my level of justification for believing. In both cases I would be committing an ‘intellectual sin’ for not aligning my soul with the level of justification that I have.

When Christians actually doubt, it is not, as Carter affirms, reasons that are the issue, but the soul. What’s needed is grace, which comes (I think) in the form of a divine communicative act. I think this is most evident in that most Christians who doubt the existence of God do so in response to experiences of pain or evil in their own life–this certainly was the case for me. It is during these times that God seems silent–even Scripture loses its vitality. Giving someone reasons to believe during these times can be callous, and is often ineffective for bringing them out of their doubts.

Yet I think this also means that doubting the existence of God is not necessarily a sign of ‘immaturity’ but a sign that somewhere the soul is out of line, which is possible regardless of the level of spiritual maturity. The experience of evil and pain can be so overwhelming as to make one call in to question past experiences and awarenesses, even for the most spiritually aware person. Add to this the use of ‘doubt’ (again as a psychological predicate) during these times by demonic beings, and it seems that no one is immune from this experience. This also applies to the “need for humility” cause.

There’s much more here to be explored. Carter’s post is interesting and thought provoking, which is par for the course over at Evangelical Outpost.

May 25, 2005

More “hot ice and wondrous strange snow”

Posted by Matthew Lee Anderson @ 11:18 pm | Categories: Epistemology, Theology | 1 Comment`

From another term paper:

“Not only is the Christian God indescribable and magnificent, the description of God is interesting as well” (emphasis mine).

That (rather unwittingly, I am afraid to say) sums up the whole problem of Christian theology.

From C.S. Lewis

Posted by Matthew Lee Anderson @ 9:18 pm | Categories: Life in general, Literature, Quotations | 1 Comment`

C.S. Lewis might as well have written this regarding Bombadil.

“No natural feelings are high or low, holy or unholy, in themselves. They are all holy when God’s hand is on the rein. They all go bad when they set up on their own and make themselves false gods.”

From the Weight of Glory, page 100, and found in a student’s term paper.

May 24, 2005

Mere O back-up

Posted by Matthew Lee Anderson @ 6:31 pm | Categories: News | 2 Comments`

For some reason, Mere-O has been not working very well. It now seems to be in good order.

I am not going to be able to post as much the next few days as Jonathan would like. The reasons:

1) Term papers just came in. I have to get them graded asap so that I can know which papers I will submit to my program’s writing contest.
2) I am moving out of my house on Friday (this is also the day my term paper submissions are due). That means that, well, I have to spend all day Friday moving.
3) Biola’s graduation is this weekend, which means I get to attend the requisite programs and parties for good friends who will be graduating.
4) I’m moving furniture into our new apartment all day on Saturday.

So, posting will be light. The next serious post I have lined up in my head is a reply to my brother’s excellent complaint about natural law.

May 23, 2005

Reply to a Critic

Posted by Matthew Lee Anderson @ 3:33 pm | Categories: America, Reviews (Books) | 3 Comments`

Here’s my response to the lengthy reply by Georgiana Preskar. I’ll extend the final word to her, even though it’s our blog. In other words, after this I’m done and she can reply if she wishes.

Ms. Preskar writes:

Thank you for your great review of my comments about your review of Seeds of Deception:Planting Destruction of America’s Children They were honest and I certainly did not take them as a put down in any way. In fact I am enjoying my interactions with people on my Book. I will respond to your comments.
Hoorah!

You mentioned the circle as being out of place in my explanation of the tools used in the Marxist Dialectic. I agree that the circle is used in many settings. Teaching religious education, I used it myself. We use it now in Bible Study. It is useful in bonding people, but it is with people who hold the same beliefs.
Actually, in the program I teach in, the whole goal is to challenge student’s beliefs so that they either discard them or reinforce them. It’s called critical thinking, and it’s what we’ve been doing here. Now, that may not be the purpose of SEED’s circle, but it does mean that you are unjustified in extending the criticism to circles in general, as you seem to in your book.

The SEED circle is used to include and exclude in order to change people’s minds and win them over to their belief system. LOVE is the motivating force for changing SEED attendees from traditional values to SEED values of moral relativism. The group wins over the person to their side. This is far different than using it to bond people of similar beliefs.
To play devil’s advocate, maybe their old beliefs were false ones. Wouldn’t an evangelical Christian try to engage a non-Christian in the same sort of dialogue to convince them of the truth of Christianity? Yes, I know it’s relativism, but aren’t they still persuading people of the truth of relativism (no, I don’t think that statement is incoherent).

The pagan circle has very special rituals connected to it accompanied by spells and other magic. This is far different than a circle simply to share our beliefs with each other or pray to God. It is used for evil in many of these instances.

As for you thinking the Marxist Dialectic is not part of our society, just take a look at our society and one cannot deny it. Everyday teens debate their parents, but now they win because they are using the dialectic to get their parents to compromise. Amazing that years ago parents simply said “NO” and did not have to give their children explanations. They were smart enough to know that when you get out of the “IS” and the “absolutes” that one can easily be compromised in decisions.
Maybe they “win” because parents are bad arguers, not because parent’s “compromise.” Maybe teens have better reasoning skills……maybe. Regardless, saying that everything proves that Marxist dialectic is occuring is the equivalent of saying nothing is. Why is parents saying “NO” without explanation even good? I HATED it (like any child) when parents didn’t give reasons for their decisions. If parents make a decision, I think they’re obligated (just like the rest of us!)to have sufficient reasons for making the decision. Parents, after all, are not infallible.

If you truly understood the Marxist Dialectic you would see how this is happening. There must be two opposing views. Each position is a thesis. The opposing view is the antithesis. In order for the final stage of synthesis to arrive, each side must put aside their differences and come up with a solution that is good for both.
Technically, this is Hegelian, not Marxist, but I digress……

Can you honestly say that political correctness is not the Marxist Dialectic? Can you honestly not see that setting up the oppression and victim status and teaching it in classrooms across America is not the Marxist Dialectic in action? Please I ask that you rethink your stand on this issue.
Well, actually, as I’ve emphasized, I’m in agreement with you on a number of points. I think PC is hogwash. I think that moral relativism is bankrupt. I’m against state sanctioned homosexual marriage. I simply want better reasons than what you’ve given in your book.

As for Rick Warren (people can read your comments), I think the claim rather funny. I know someone who works in Warren’s office and he is certainly not “new age” like some of the authors you mentioned happen to think. Incidentally, Deceived on Purpose is simply laughable. His argument is essentially that Eugene Peterson translates “in earth and in heaven” as “above and below,” which is actually a new age term. It also just so happens that in 1st century Jewish/Hellenistic cosmology, the Heavens were “above” and the earth “below.” I’m no fan of the Message, but it will take much more than ONE COINCEDENTAL PARALLEL to convince me that Peterson is secretly a new-age guru. I’ll point out he only has ONE TEXT that he mentions.

It was remarkable that once again they did not focus on the Massachusetts Scandal or pedophilia or the horrors of teachers being trained to go back to the classroom with anti-American and pro-homosexual ideas. Instead I realized they would have defended Rick to the death. It only backed further my theory of brainwashing for these people were in Stage 4 of Mind Control, Chapter 9 in my Book.
And here we come to the crux of the matter. I followed your resources of the “Massachusets Scandal,” and it turns out that none of them are from reputable news sources. The only reference I could find was here. This is the sort of rumor-mongering that wouldn’t stand up in a court of law, nor is sufficient to actually persuade me that it happened or that you’re right. Secondly, you’ve set it up so that anyone who disagrees with you is under “Mind Control”–is brainwashed. That’s essentially what you accuse me of, when you claim that I’m “not able to understand.” Do you see, Ms. Preskar, that the same charge could apply to you? You’re position is utterly watertight–anyone who disagrees with you is brainwashed. This simply isn’t an intellectual virtue.

The Message directly misquotes the Bible and interprets differently even the Our Father. Mr. Anderson, I will take the Lord’s Word any day over The Message. I will listen to God, at the end of Revelations, as He told us not to reword His Words. I will also listen to Him about not signing covenants as Rick Warren has people do in his 40 Day Program.
Do you read it in Greek? In Hebrew? You know, God’s word was written in Greek and Hebrew, and I actually won’t stand to read it in anything besides this. That’s why I don’t read the Old Testament–I don’t know Hebrew.

Peterson’s Message is a paraphrase, a free translation. Your NIV or KJV, or NKJV or RSV is also a translation. See above for other complaints about claims about the Message.

We actually got the attention of the Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings about this program and hopefully she will take some action. This is SERIOUS stuff and nothing to push aside. We are not only talking about a life filled with disease of mind, body and soul, but our children’s eternity.
Hoorah.

You next said that my info was everywhere and nothing new. I must ask why did so many people write me and tell me they had NO idea it had gone so FAR? Many people who read the book had no idea about the Homosexual Manifesto, nor the Massachusetts Scandal, nor the murders of innocent children by homosexuals, nor the homosexuals involvement in Nazi Germany, nor the White Privilege information, nor the pedophilia info., nor the book list of GLSEN and especially the SEED material. In fact many did not even know there was a Humanist Manifesto or that WEAVE had taken on a liberal stand in Sacramento to teach our children homosexuality and white privilege.
Again, I would simply ask you to read a tad more closely. I said that there was no reason to discuss the “horrors of the homosexual lifestyle.” Frankly, what you say is not new. I was unsurprised at what I read.

I did not mean to offend you by saying that I do not think you “got” the Book, but when you say things like mind control and brainwashing do not exist when it is right before your eyes, I can not think anything different.
Please try. It’s not “right before my eyes” like you suggest. You can continue to call me blind, but I might continue to call you paranoid. What would be the point? If you give me the benefit of the doubt, then we can discuss together whether the instances you identify ARE ACTUALLY instances of brainwashing–so far, I’m just not convinced. But if you simply call me “blind” and keep shouting at me, we’ll never go forward.

And now, I am done. I would publicly invite Ms. Preskar to respond in the comments,but then Mere-Orthodoxy will move on. There is new ground to be explored and new ideas to discuss. This conversation has been illuminating for me, but now it must end.

May 22, 2005

A Final Bombadil Reply

Posted by Matthew Lee Anderson @ 4:01 pm | Categories: Literature | 1 Comment`

After the last Bombadil post, Burglar made this comment:

I hadn’t thought of this before. Perhaps this is an avenue for further reflection. Denethor and other characters (foolishly) favor appeasement and counsel against war, but perhaps Bombadil represents a truly genuine pacifist position. Is Bombadil Switzerland?

This seems right on a political level, but I am also still intrigued by interpreting Bombadil on a “natural” level–I think in another letter, Tolkien refers to Bombadil as the “dying spirit of the Oxfordshire countryside,” or something to that effect. This comment seems more in line with Thorgerson’s and my debate.

I would like to publicly announce, though, that I am increasingly persuaded by this claim by Thorgerson: “Bombadil has not chosen to remain where he is, doing what he does because he is consumed by a lower love. Rather, it must be a higher love that drives him otherwise (in Tolkien’s world) there would be visible signs of his being consumed.”

In light of the discussion, I am officially putting my interpretation to rest. I gave it a couple days to think more about it, and I now think that my attempt to see Bombadil as questionable is itself questionable. I am willing to endorse Thorgerson’s position.

May 21, 2005

Seeds of Deception Redux

Posted by Matthew Lee Anderson @ 5:57 pm | Categories: America, Reviews (Books) | 7 Comments`

Update: Fixed some grammar in my second to last paragraph.

I posted this review of Seeds of Deception nearly a month ago. I was as honest as I could be about Preskar’s work. When checking Stacy Harp’s Mind and Media review list, I noticed that Ms. Preskar had replied to my review. Continuing the trend of highlighting reader comments for everyone on the blog, I will post it here in full. In order to make my replies clearer, I will simply respond after each relevant point.

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your heated review of my Book. Both David and you became very upset while reviewing my Book. When a Book stirs up such emotions, it draws attention to it. Obviously everyone does not like the same kind of book. For the very reasons you did not like my Book, others did.
I did not actually get “upset” at the book, nor would I call my review “heated.” Rather, I affirmed your position on a number of points, and then pointed out what I thought the basic problem of your work: it’s a conspiracy theory and the evidence is personal testimony. You don’t inspire trust in the reader, and consequently your argument suffers.

It is a story. Itis a journey and meant to tell the journey and not just the facts. Of course you sound like a man who would not enjoy the journey of discovery. It is interesting that other men have written positives about the Book; it was my concern that perhaps men would not enjoy it. I have found you and David and one other to be the only ones not to enjoy it.
May I simply suggest that you read the recent discussion on Tom Bombadil? Do think twice before suggesting that someone doesn’t “enjoy the journey of discovery.” I’m not upset–it’s so off the mark that it’s quite laughable. As for making it a “story,” it seemed that the “story” detracted more from the book than enhanced it. But that’s merely a stylistic point.

As for the ideas of the Book, it is rather obvious that my discovery is the Marxist Dialectic that is permeating our society through programs such as SEED. Understanding the “compromise” brought my ideas of mind control to reality, and now I see for myself what is happening in our country. I certainly gave credit to Dean Gotcher throughout the Chapters, as I did to all of my resources.
Well, that’s just where we disagree. I actually don’t find it obvious that “Marxist Dialectic” is at work in society any more than “Platonic Dialectic.” When you start identifying the use of “circles” in classrooms with “Marxist Dialectic” and “witchcraft,” your position, well, loses credibility. I happen to have attended a solid Christian university that uses “circles” in the classroom and teaches in a “discussion” format–of course, that may mean we’re all Marxists, but if you run around saying that, people will laugh at you. Really.

I did use many footnotes and told when I found my sources in other sources. That did not mean that I did not check them out for myself. I refuse to write a Book that does not credit every thought or idea from other people, or books, or websites. I would never cheat anyone of the respect due them for their thoughts or knowledge on subject matter. I would also not cheat anyone of the ackowlegment that I found a source in their book. I am proud of my research and will debate anyone about its authenticity and value in writing my Book.
Again, I never suggested that you didn’t cite appropriately. I merely mentioned that I am suspicious of the sources that you use. Why, for instance, should we trust books like “The Pink Swastika”? That’s my only question. If you are reacting to my statement that I wanted to “inquire for myself from the original sources,” that should make you happy. It means I want to look into the credibility of your argument. As it is, your analysis depends upon secondary works that may or may not be credible. I’m simply not sure.

As for using Purpose Driven Church material, it is a part of the whole picture of brainwashing. Eugene Peterson’s Book, The Message, changes the words of God in the Bible. I am not going to hide this fact and it is just the way it is. Warren used it in his Book; I did not! I am not calling Warren a bad person or what he has accomplished as bad, only the way he got there. I do not believe that the end justifies the means.
Again, I did not suggest that you called Warren a bad person. However, I will ask for arguments. What makes you think that Warren is attempting to “brainwash” America? You assert it in the book, but frankly, it seems preposterous. I always tell my students to make arguments, not assertions. I would simply ask you to do the same.

In January I put out a new edition; unfortunately I sent old copies to Mind and Media and these went to you. My new edition has many of the editing errors corrected, plus more information in the Purpose Chapter. It also includes information on a teacher who went through SEED and is willing to testify against it.
Hoorah!

What does amaze me about you and David is that there is no concern shown throughout your entire review about the children and what is happening to them because of the brainwashing that is consistently being used in the schools. There is no review of the incredible evidence of the horrors of the homosexual lifestyle and what it does to their mind, body and spirit. At first the desire to be respected permeated the homsexual agenda, but now it is our children and marriage they seek. As for the White Privilege, if you did not get this part, I am not sure why? I can’t help you with this one.
I am concerned about students educations for more reasons than their simply being brainwashed. I teach in a program designed for home-school students–I know all the problems of public schools, and I am deeply opposed to the worldview often promulgated there (note: read The Abolition of Man for an explanation of my complaints). On the other hand, my brother is an educator in a public school and works extremely hard to provide solid education for his students (and is quite successful, judging both from his debate teams and his student’s blogs). So I am concerned, but I will not call for the destruction of public schools (to use the hyperbole you seem to be fond of!) without more evidence and better reasoning. You must convince this soldier before he will go to war.

Regarding homosexuality, I did not think it important to rehearse the horrors of the lifestyle. My job was to review the book, not repeat it. Frankly, there was nothing in the book about the lifestyle that wasn’t available somewhere else. As for my own position on the issue, though I’ve never posted on it, the general tenor of this blog will make it unsurprising that I am against the legalization of homosexual marriage and against the promotion of the homosexual lifestyle in the public square.

Regarding what you said about “White Privilege,” your question makes me think you didn’t actually read my review. I never suggested I didn’t “get it.”

David of course believes all my material is made up nonsense. He calls it hateful and uses the outdated rhetoric of people who truly are brainwashed.

And my complaint is simply that you use the “outdated rhetoric of people who truly are brainwashed.” That’s not quite my complaint, but it’s close. The problem with “brainwashing” arguments are that they cut both ways. How do we know you aren’t in the same camp as the people you criticize (namely, “brainwashed”)?

He is upset because I suggest keeping children away from homsexuals because of influences on them or perhaps even their attentions on them.

Now this makes sense, since all studies indicate many children are homosexual because of adult child molestations by family members. The statistcs are high amongst homosexuals that molest children. I am NOT saying that all homosexuals molest children as David so ridiculously has said on his review. That is a blatant lie! Amazing he is more concerned about the homosexuals then our children and their loss of innocence.
This deals with David’s review, not mine. I don’t know the statistics, and if I did, I probably wouldn’t trust them anyway.

I do not believe that either of you have the ability to understand what I was saying in the Book and it has nothing to do with the material or how it was written, for even with the first edition mistakes, I still have people telling me how much they enjoyed it. It has to do with a mind set that refuses to see what is clearly happening in our world of today.
I would simply invite you to stick around Mere-Orthodoxy and read for a while. Inquire for yourself whether your statement that I lack the “ability to understand what [you were] saying” is true. It is a heavy charge you make, and you should not make it lightly. Regardless, it is not a very effective way of winning people to your side or making friends–especially since I gave your book a charitable review. I suggest you read it again. For other readers, I’ll simply quote my own words: “However, if Preskar is right about SEED, then she is right to be concerned,” and “If this is what SEED promulgates, then Preskar and I agree,” and “From the language of the website, this actually seems a tenable claim to make.” The complaint I had with your book was simply that your argument did not lead to your conclusions.

I do thank you for reviewing the Book.

Georgiana Preskar
Author

You are always welcome to comment at Mere-O. If you read, you may find writers who are closer to being your friends than your enemies. However, we are the sort of friends who above all honor the Truth and attempt for clarity and care in our thinking. We are interested in transforming our culture, and of seeing the cause of Christ triumph, but we will not sacrifice intellectual integrity to make this happen.

Thank you for joining us at Mere-O. I hope you find the dialogue informative and pleasant. I harbor no hard feelings toward you for your comments–I would simply encourage you to be more guarded before you attack those who criticize either your positions or your books. If you want your message heard, then being a winsome proponent of it will simply sell more books.

Yours ever,

Matt Anderson

Mere-Orthodoxy

May 20, 2005

More on Bombadil

Posted by Matthew Lee Anderson @ 3:32 pm | Categories: Literature | 1 Comment`

Jesse Thorgersen and I have dialogued some be on the role of Bombadil in Tolkien’s LOTR. His latest is worth everyone seeing. His text is in italics–mine will be “normal.”

This is an interesting discussion, thanks for hosting it and dragging me over!

Here’s what I agree with:
“If Bomabdil is tied to Middle Earth, then when Middle Earth falls, so will he. And yet I can’t help but wonder if Tolkien is suggesting that there’s a world beyond Middle Earth that remains untouched by time”. Right, Tolkien does suggest that (and in Silmarillion states it).

Good. I thought that was where we agreed.

But I still do not accept the next step in your argument: “pleasures beyond Bombadil’s domain that Bombadil cannot (or will not, as I have suggested) attain.” We agree that Bombadil is tied to the earth, and we also agree about the role his home plays in the journey for Frodo: for Frodo to remain there WOULD be to be consumed by “natural loves” as you term them.
Your statement about Frodo is right.

To clarify where what we disagree on, it is the goodness or fate of Bombadil’s person — I see him as the guardian, you seem to see him as both that, and also an incarnation of the “tied to earth” or “consumed by natural loves” man. Bombadil is on the earth to be the “guardian of nature” (I’m just going to stick with that for simplicity). That is his end. For him to leave that, even for the sake of the quest, would be to go against his proper purpose and role in the great plan. That would be to sin. For Frodo to try to be Tom Bombadil, or hide with Tom Bombadil would be just as much of an error. Tom is loving what he is meant to love, and because of that, he has ascended to what you are labelling Divine Love. Bombadil has not chosen to remain where he is, doing what he does because he is consumed by a lower love. Rather, it must be a higher love that drives him otherwise (in Tolkien’s world) there would be visible signs of his being consumed.

This is the clearest expression of the interaction between “divine” and “natural” loves that I’ve seen in some time. I’m not going to push my interpretation any farther, in fact, simply because (a) this is very persuasive and (b) I have no idea if “it must be a higher love that drives him otherwise (in Tolkien’s world) there would be visible signs of his being consumed.” I’m not nearly familiar enough with Tolkien’s world to be able to reject it, and it doesn’t seem the sort of thing that you could really give an instance of. I’d be interested to know what you make of Gandalf’s return to Bombadil.

Here is a question, how under your interpretation do you deal with the Barrow downs scene immediately following?

I’m not sure. I’ve thought about it some, but I don’t know what to make of the Barrow-Wights themselves. In fact, even on your account I don’t know what to make of the Barrow downs.

I think your argument is interesting and points out something profound about Bombadil that I had not thought through before. But, your main arguments for something being “wrong” with Bombadil are not convincing for me. He merely strikes me as strange or enchanted, and from my experience with Tolkien, strange and enchanted things are usually good in an unexpected way rather than a hidden and unlikely source of evil.

And you obviously have much more experience with Bombadil than I do, but when I say “wrong,” I don’t mean out-and-out evil. Rather, he strikes me as the sort of “good” that left on its own would end up evil. However, if Bombadil is pre-adamic, then perhaps he passes his test when he takes the Ring. Maybe my contention is simply that though innocent, he is not incorruptible. This seems to make sense of his “Adamic” position in the book. Perhaps I’m still clinging too closely to elements of my interpretation, but the episode of the Ring I find too disturbing to simply write-off as Frodo’s lack of maturity.

The conversation reminds me of Chesterton’s analysis of what happens when people appeal worship “nature”. In St. Francis of Assisi, he writes:

No sooner did the Greeks themselves begin to follow their own noses and their own notion of being natural, than the queerest thing in history seems to have happened to them. It was much too queer to be an easy matter to discuss. It may be remarked that our more repulsive realists never give us the benefit of their realism. Their studies of unsavoury subjects never take note of the testimony they bear to the truths of traditional morality. But if we had the taste for such things, we could cite thousands of such things as part of the case for Christian morals. And an instance of this is found in the fact that nobody has written, in this sense, a real moral history of the Greeks. Nobody has seen the scale or the strangeness of the story. The wisest men in the world set out to be natural; and the most unnatural thing in the world was the very first thing they did. The immediate effect of saluting the sun and the sunny sanity of nature was a perversion spreading like a pestilence. The greatest and even the purest philosophers could not apparently avoid this low sort of lunacy. Why? It would seem simple enough for the people whose poets had conceived Helen of Troy, whose sculptors had carved the Venus of Milo, to remain healthy on the point. The truth is people who worship health cannot remain healthy on the point. When Man goes straight he goes crooked. When he follows his nose he manages somehow to put his nose out of joint, or even to cut off his nose to spite his face; and that in accordance with something much deeper in human nature than nature-worshippers could ever understand. It was the discovery of that deeper thing, humanly speaking, that constituted the conversion to Christianity. There is a bias in a man like the bias on a bowl; and Christianity was the discovery of how to correct the bias and therefore hit the mark. There are many who will smile at the saying; but it is profoundly true to say that the glad good news brought by the Gospel was the news of original sin.

At any rate, the conversation has been good. Thanks for participating!

May 19, 2005

Responses to Bombadil

Posted by Matthew Lee Anderson @ 5:49 pm | Categories: Literature | 2 Comments`

Many thanks for the links and the feedback on the Bombadil piece. I realized when I was writing it that it’s a tendentious position, and that most would disagree with the interpretation. As I mentioned, I submitted it here and to the Torrey newsletter, but I’m happy if they don’t publish it as I’m not sure I’d ever get the feedback I wanted. That said, here’s the feedback and some replies:

Jim said:
This site (and the article it refers to) might be useful to you.
I actually read the latter before I submitted it. I don’t know enough of the external evidence to make much of it, but I’m not sure that his analysis and mine are mutually exclusive, since his seems more about Bombadil’s “species” in Middle-Earth. I wonder myself is Bombadil is not sui generis. After all, Goldberry remarks simply that “He is,” and Bombadil resists the Hobbit’s attempts to add any information after his name.

Andrew Selby said:
Nice bit of writing, Matt.One sentence that needs clarification is when you assert “The Genesis-esque character of Bombadil reinforces the ‘natural loves’ interpretation.” I sort of intuitively know what you mean, but I’d be interested by a sentence of your explanation.
Well, perhaps I’m seeing a bad version of Thomistic nature/grace dualism here, but my intent was to communicate that Bombadil represents a sort of “natural” state of affairs, a type of pre-lapsarian, edenic state. Hence the “natural loves,” as opposed to those loves that might be divinely infused. In the Great Divorce, Lewis has a woman in hell who is slavishly devoted to her son. Her love is “natural”, and “natural loves” move us higher on the ascent to heaven, yet are not sufficient in themselves. I see Bombadil as representing this.

Lynn said:
To call our affection for Bombadill a mark of our immaturity, and to name Bombadill as irresponsible for “fencing himself in” is to misinterpret this difficult scene. Whatever Bombadill is, he is a positive character and there are two quick reasons for this. The first is his love and dominion over nature (very elvish / hobbit like of him). We are already unsucspicious of him for this.
First, welcome to Mere-O! I hope you’ll continue to participate. This is exactly the common interpretation that I’m challenging. I don’t discount that he’s “good,” but in the way that natural affections are “good”–they are appropriate for a season, but must ultimately be transcended.

The second is that he is the only character in the whole of the Trilogy that is unaffected by the ring. His ability to play with it and not be controled is far from a mark of immaturity (immaturity is seen in the Fellowship through Boromir). Rather, Frodo’s shame at being seen when he puts the ring on suggests that it is Frodo who has to mature, not Bombadill.
I thought of this, and I’m not quite persuaded. The whole scene with Bombadil and the Ring left me rather suspicious of Bombadil himself. After all, Bombadil does interrupt Frodo’s story to ask to see the Ring, and does so “suddenly.” I am curious as to what compels him to ask that–it suggests to me that even though the Ring has no power over him, he is not immune from the power of the Ring. The second thing is that when Bombadil holds the Ring up to his eye, it is both “comical and alarming” to the Hobbits. In short, Bombadil doesn’t strike me as the sort of “dangerous” charachter Aslan does–he strikes me as powerful, good, and yet not incapable of being bad (unlike Aslan).

Finally, over on Jonathan’s site, Jesse Thorgerson responded to my post in the comments section. He writes (and it’s quite good, so I’ll quote in full):

I just read Anderson’s review. I think he is right until he tries to take a moral lesson from Bombadil.

The idea is expressed in a much more nuamced way, but if this is the point, I think he is a bit off: “the joys of this world are real, yet they are not the highest or the deepest available to us. They are “less keen and lofty,” and “nearer the mortal heart”—so much nearer that we are tempted to remain with them, as Bombadil has chosen.”

Anderson has correctly presented how Bombadil is used in Frodo’s journey (which is not necessarily supposed to be our journey — this is not Pilgrim’s Progress). However, Bombadil himself is good: he is incorrupt. A saint, if you will. But he is meant for another time, or perhaps for all times. The quest for the Ring is not his quest. Remember, Middle Earth has had many ages, and many ages are to come: Bombadil does not end with one of them, and so his place is not to fight in the wars that define the age. He is who he is: a keeper of the fields and forests perhaps.

Anderson is most right to liken him to Adam. For an Inklings literary parallel, I think of Father Time at the and of the Last Battle. We do not see him arise and cry out, “Where the hell have you been this whole time, Father Time!?!? In case you didn’t notice, we sure could have used a GIANT in that LAST BATTLE.” Like Father Time, Bombadil is a sort of guardian of the world: he is at one with it, and that is his proper telos. He is not to be emulated but neither can he be judged, any more than can the fields and brooks he wanders over.

The comment is insightful and very helpful. Yet I’m not sure we disagree. When Gandalf mentions the possibility of Sauron getting the Ring, he says of Bombadil, “then he will fall, Last as he was First, and then the End will come.” If Bomabdil is tied to Middle Earth, then when Middle Earth falls, so will he. And yet I can’t help but wonder if Tolkien is suggesting that there’s a world beyond Middle Earth that remains untouched by time, and pleasures beyond Bombadil’s domain that Bombadil cannot (or will not, as I have suggested) attain. Perhaps readers could help me understand the concept of the Grey Havens, but my thesis is simply that Bombadil’s delights are shadows of the delights to come–shadows that seem so real that Frodo is tempted to remain there.

Update: Milton Stanley writes:
I enjoyed it too, and I think your analysis is on-target. But I’m not sure I understand this sentence near the beginning: “The final impulse to overcome the now prohibitive love of Bombadil. . . ” Did you mean to say Bilbo? In either case, I’m not sure I understand what that love is and why it’s prohibative. Peace.

Yes, I did mean to say Bilbo. I will change it accordingly. Thanks for pointing it out.

It seems that his love for Bilbo is what might keep him from accepting his “quest” to take the Ring to Mt. Doom. In this way, it seems a hinderance or an obstacle that needs to be overcome. Perhaps “prohibative” isn’t the right word.

On another note, thanks for the comment. This has been an incredibly fruitful excercise for me!

May 17, 2005

An Encouraging Word

Posted by Matthew Lee Anderson @ 11:03 pm | Categories: News | 1 Comment`

Faithful reader Jonathan had these kind words to say:

Wow, Matt. MO has been careening downhill of late. May your daily visits plummet accordingly.

No one has goaded Mere-O (I refuse to let it degenerate into MO) into blogging more than Jonathan. We love and hate him for it, too.

On Why we Like Tom Bombadil and Probably Shouldn’t

Posted by Matthew Lee Anderson @ 10:57 pm | Categories: Literature | 6 Comments`

I’m going to enter unfamiliar territory for Mere-O: Lord of the Rings. I am no expert in the matter–in fact, I have just finished only my second read through.

Yet below is an article that I have written for the Torrey Honors Institute Symposium, the newsletter they send out. There’s no guarantee they’ll publish it–right now, it’s still in “rough draft” fashion. However, my conclusions are dangerously novel (I think) for those who know LOTR.

Just for clarification’s sake, everything below has to do with the books, not the movies.

Update: Thanks to Milton Stanley, I’ve corrected an error in the essay.

In the Fellowship of the Ring, a clear and unmistakable transformation occurs in Frodo. He undergoes a process that involves assuming responsibility and fulfilling his duty. When Gandalf reveals to Frodo the nature of the Ring and Frodo’s responsibility, Frodo responds:

‘I do really wish to destroy it!’ cried Frodo. ‘Or, well, to have it destroyed. I am not made for perilous quests. I wish I had never seen the Ring! Why did it come to me? Why was I chosen?’

It is easy to hear strains of adolescent whining in Frodo’s complaint. Reluctant to assume the task of taking the Ring to Mount Doom, Frodo instead agrees only to remove the Ring from the Shire and maintains hope that Gandalf will find a better keeper for the Ring. Frodo’s fear of the Enemy is only overcome by a “great desire to follow Bilbo” that “flamed up in his heart.”

Only at the council of Elrond does Frodo actually accept his quest:

An overwhelming longing to rest and remain at peace by Bilbo’s side in Rivendell filled all his heart. At last with an effort he spoke, and wondered to hear his own words, as if some other will was using his small voice.

‘I will take the Ring,’ he said, ‘though I do not know the way.’

The same desire that had “flamed up in his heart” and motivated him to act now “fills all his heart” and must be overcome. Frodo’s ability to accept his task is described both as an “effort” and “as if some other will was using his small voice.” The final impulse to overcome the now prohibitive love of Bilbo seems to come from outside of himself—yet Frodo seems to understand enough to make the effort to take it.

It is through this process of accepting responsibility that we see Frodo maturing. By the end of the Fellowship of the Ring, Frodo has the wisdom and courage to leave the Fellowship behind and take only his helper with him to Mordor, taking upon himself the whole burden of the quest’s success. Frodo’s decision is crucial, as one gets the sense that the rest of the Fellowship is preparing to force him to Minas Tirith as he deliberates. It is Aragorn who later commends Frodo’s decision as “courageous.” Yet the chief obstacle to the maturation process is Frodo’s natural love for Bilbo. His decision opposes his natural affections.

The chief episode between when Frodo decides to leave the Shire and when he decides to take the Ring to Mt. Doom is the episode of Tom Bombadil. One of Tolkien’s most enigmatic and attractive characters, interpreting Bombadil can be hazardous. Yet set in the context of Frodo’s maturation process outlined above, we discover that Bombadil is someone who has rejected responsibility in favor of what I will call his “natural loves.”

At first glance, Bombadil is an immensely attractive character. Clad in a blue jacket and yellow boots, Bombadil’s rhymes creating a bounding sensation, and delight the most unsophisticated ear. When we first see him, he is gathering flowers for his wife, the Lady Goldberry. Though very old, both Bombadil and Goldberry have an exuberance and gaiety that suggests they are young lovers.

Just as we readers find ourselves drawn in by Bombadil’s merry rhymes, so the Hobbits experience an irresistible attraction to Bombadil and Goldberry. When we first meet Goldberry, Tolkien writes:

‘Fair lady Goldberry!’ said Frodo at last, feeling his heart moved with a joy that he did not understand. He stood as he had at times stood enchanted by fair elven-voices; but the spell that was now laid upon him was different: less keen and lofty was the delight, but deeper and nearer the mortal heart; marvelous and yet not strange.

Additionally, when Frodo and Bombadil discuss the Ring, he finds himself telling Bombadil more than he even told Gandalf. When Bombadil asks to see the Ring, “to his own astonishment,” Frodo consents.

Yet the sense of enchantment Bombadil produces is also a touch disturbing. When Frodo hands him the Ring, Bombadil toys with it, causing Frodo to become a “trifle annoyed” because he “makes so light of what even Gandalf thought perilously important.” When Frodo attempts to slip away by putting on the Ring and becoming invisible, Bombadil sees him—yet Frodo’s laugh is one “trying to feel pleased,” suggesting a high level of self-consciousness and discomfort on Frodo’s part.

Additionally, it seems Bombadil has rejected any responsibility for acting in the outside world. He has intentionally fenced himself in, and limited his cares to tending his land and Goldberry. When Gandalf discusses Bombadil at the council of Elrond, he suggests that if given the Ring, Bombadil would forget it or “most likely throw it away.” Gandalf hints that he is “perhaps waiting for a change of days.” There is a sense that Bombadil is not trustworthy, that he lacks the sense of responsibility and gravitas necessary to help the Fellowship with the Ring. In short, he is nearly a foil of Frodo—he is someone who will not give up the life he has for a greater responsibility, even if it means saving Middle Earth. He will not put the perpetual springtime of his natural loves behind him for the sake of a greater and higher calling.

This approach to Bombadil accounts for Bombadil’s position as “Master of wood, water, and hill,” as it does the fact that Frodo’s experience is in Bombadil’s house points toward the deeper joys that are coming, but cannot be had with Bombadil. When Bombadil instructs in Middle Earth’s lore, Frodo tastes the timelessness that will be had in full at Lothlorien (and presumably the Gray Havens):

Whether the morning and evening of one day or of many days had passed Frodo could not tell. He did not feel either hungry or tired, only filled with wonder. The stars shone through the window and the silence of the heavens seemed to be around him.

It’s hard to not hear an echo of Genesis 1 in the above passage: “And there was evening and morning, one day.” Even if there is not, there are enough other Adam-like characteristics to draw the parallel—Bombadil is, after all, master of the earth, and he is the one who names the Hobbit’s horses. The Genesis-esque character of Bombadil reinforces the ‘natural loves’ interpretation. Furthermore, it is Frodo’s dream of “a pale light behind a grey rain curtain” that Frodo returns to when he reaches the Grey Havens:

And then it seemed to him that as in his dream in the house of Bombadil, the grey rain-curtain turned all to silver glass and was rolled back, and he beheld white shores and beyond them a far green country under a swift sunrise.

It is in the house of Bombadil that Frodo has dreams of his life in the Grey Havens, just as it is in the experience of Adam and the natural loves that we get hints of the deeper joys to come.

The joys of Bombadil’s house are real, just as the joys of this world are real, yet they are not the highest or the deepest available to us. They are “less keen and lofty,” and “nearer the mortal heart”—so much nearer that we are tempted to remain with them, as Bombadil has chosen. Yet Frodo will not remain with them—through what might be called grace (“It was as if some other will was using his small voice”) Frodo is able to set aside his love for Bilbo and fulfill his responsibility. Yet we are called to join Frodo on his quest, and to mature along with him. It is no surprise that Bombadil’s rhymes are the most-accessible and enjoyable of the book—our enchantment with Bombadil simply suggests that our delights are yet immature, and that we must strive harder to seek the “keen and lofty” joys that Tolkien’s work contains. It is nothing less than a calling to mature with Frodo, to set aside the lower things and to earnestly seek the higher.

May 13, 2005

GodBlogCon-ing

Posted by Matthew Lee Anderson @ 11:28 am | Categories: News | 1 Comment`

I’ve added to our growing sidebar a link for the upcoming GodBlogCon. I hope that many of you will be able to make it. It should be a fun time.

Next Page »