Category Archives: Archives

Romans 9

Seraphim Hamilton

The centerpiece of Reformed argumentation is their interpretation of Romans 9.  They read Romans 9 as a discussion of unconditional predestination unto salvation.  However, Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart notes that according to the plain reading of the text, and according to the Greek Fathers, Romans 9 has very little to do with individual election unto salvation at all.  Rather, it has to do with the separation and ultimate reconciliation of Israel and the Church (77).

Let us therefore look closely at the ninth chapter of St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans that we may see and understand what it really teaches.  St. Paul begins in verses one through five by identifying his own love for Israel, and that they are honored with the Old Testament Scriptures and prophecies, that they are honored in that the Messiah Himself — God incarnate — comes from their people.

They have been chosen as the covenant people, St. Paul says, and that is their honor.  The question that he deals with, then, is, “how in the world can Jesus be the Messiah if His own people reject Him?”  St. Paul begins his answer in verses six and seven.  He states, “For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but ‘Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.’”

We therefore see the point that Paul is making.  Those who believe not in Jesus as Messiah are not truly part of Israel.  To prove that not all who are descended from Abraham are under the covenant, St. Paul points to the first child of Abraham who was not under the covenant — Ishmael.  Therefore, because not all children of Abraham in the beginning were necessarily under the covenant, the same can be true of the modern fleshly descendants of Abraham.  St. Paul seals this argument in verse eight.  He writes, “This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.”  Thus, we see that covenant status is not dependent on fleshly inheritance.

St. Paul continues his argument in verses nine through thirteen, key passages in Reformed theology.  He writes, “For this is what the promise said: ‘About this time next year I will return and Sarah shall have a son.’  And not only so, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad — in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call — she was told, ‘The older will serve the younger.’  As it is written, ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’”

What does St. Paul mean by this?  Is he talking about election unto salvation?  We see that he is not.  First of all, when St. Paul quotes Malachi 1:2-3 in saying that “Jacob I loved, Esau I hated,” it is not talking about lack of divine love.  Rather, the Old Testament is using hyperbolic covenant terms.  Douglas Moo writes to this effect, “The verbs ‘love’ and ‘hate’ in Malachi are covenantal terms. They do not express God’s emotions…but his actions….  We might paraphrase, ‘Jacob I have chosen, but Esau I have rejected’” (58).

We see something very important in St. Paul’s quotation of the prophet.  If one examines the immediate context of Malachi 1:2-3, one sees that the prophet is not speaking of Jacob and Esau as individuals.  Rather, he is using them as symbols for the nations which they bore — Israel and Edom.  Thus, St. Paul is speaking of the covenant election of corporate bodies for the purposes of God’s plan — not individual people unto salvation.  Furthermore, we see later in the book of Genesis that Esau is reconciled to his brother Jacob and forgiven.  Because we know that at least one Edomite (Esau) was saved, we know that St. Paul is not speaking about election unto salvation.  Edwards states likewise, “In the present context Paul is not discussing the eternal salvation of individuals, but God’s purposeful choices in history from Abraham to Christ” (231-2).  Witherington concurs, writing, “The discussion of election in chs. 9-11 is a discussion of corporate election, in the midst of which there are individual rejection by some and selection for historical purposes of others” (246).

In Romans 9:15, St. Paul quotes Exodus 33 in proving the justice of God, where God says that He will have mercy on whom He will have mercy.  While Calvinists have viewed this as explaining God’s lack of mercy for some, this does not fit with what God is actually saying in Exodus 33.  If one reads Exodus 33, God is actually discussing the abundance of His mercy, and that He will have mercy on people even if Moses would rather He not do so.  That is to say, St. Paul is demonstrating that God is free to have mercy on the Gentiles if He so wishes, despite the protests of the Jews.

In Romans 9:17, St. Paul draws our minds back to God’s dealings with Pharaoh in the book of Exodus.  He therefore concludes in verse eighteen that God is free to harden whomever He will.  This is a difficult passage, and we must therefore undertake a study of hardening in the Bible.  St. Paul right now is giving us an example of someone not part of God’s covenant people.  We note that, first, Pharaoh hardened his own heart first in Exodus 8:15, 32, and 9:34.  This is why St. Paul says in Romans 1:22-25 that, “Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.  Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever!  Amen.”

We see that God turned them over to their own sin in response to their continuous rebellion against Him.  The cause and effect is that the people rebel against God, and God says “Thy will be done” and turns them over.  This is precisely the relationship described between God and Pharaoh in the book of Exodus.

One must always remember the subject of Romans 9 is explaining the relationship of fleshly Israel to God in the present time.  They are not presently under the divine covenant, because they have rejected Christ.  St. Paul gives an example of one who was not in a covenant with God, paralleling the Jews who reject Christ.  We see that God has now turned fleshly Israel over to their own darkness and unbelief, for St. Paul writes in Romans 11:7-8, “What then?  Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking.  The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, as it is written, ‘God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day.’”

Israel has been hardened due to their unbelief.  If Reformed theology were true and this hardening refers to predestination unto reprobation, it is not going to be reversed.  On the contrary, St. Paul later says in Romans 11:26 that all Israel will be saved!  With that said, turn your eyes back to Romans 9 for a moment.  The chapter discusses God’s purposes in corporate elections.  He elects corporate bodies according to His own will and wisdom in order to bring about salvation for the maximum number of people.  Why, then, has God not elected fleshly Israel?  Why has He now elected the body of the Church?  St. Paul answers this question in Romans 11:11, saying, “So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall?  By no means!  Rather through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous.”

Yet, God still desires salvation for Israel, and thus their jealousy will ultimately lead to salvation, as it is written in Romans 11:26 and in the Prophet Zechariah.  The prophet writes in Zechariah 12:10, “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn.”  Thus, God has wisely elected the Church in this present day that salvation may flow to the Gentiles, making Israel jealous, leading to Israel’s rejoining of the olive tree.  How great is the wisdom of God!

In Romans 9:19-21, St. Paul analogizes God to a potter, molding things into whatever He wishes.  St. Paul is alluding to a passage from the Prophet Jeremiah, where the Lord says through the prophet, “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter has done? declares the Lord.  Behold, like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel.”  As we can see, this is still dealing with corporate groups, rather than specific individuals.

Some Protestant translations translate Romans 9:22 as saying, “What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction.”  However, Witherington notes in his commentary on Romans that 9:22 can be translated, “Although God desired to show his wrath and to make known his power, He endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction” (257).

This makes much more sense with verse twenty-three, which says, “in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory.”  That is, God endured the unfaithfulness of Old Israel in order to bring about salvation within the New Covenant Church.

How does one deal with the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?  This is not an example of God unconditionally predestining individuals to reprobation.  Actually, the vessels of wrath are preparing themselves for destruction.  According to Witherington, “Paul uses two different verbs when talking about the vessels of mercy and vessels of wrath….  Katertismena, used of the vessels of wrath, is a perfect passive participle.  Proetoimasen, used of the vessels of mercy, is an aorist active indicative.  This change cannot be accidental, and it suggests that Paul means that the vessels of wrath are ripe or fit for destruction.  Indeed, one could follow the translation of John Chrysostom here and understand it in the middle voice: “‘have made themselves fit for’ destruction” (258).

With this point made, St. Paul’s quotation of Jeremiah makes perfect sense.  Jeremiah is discussing God’s relationship to the house of Israel, those descended from Jacob according to the flesh.  He has a right to do with them what He wishes.  Then St. Paul explains that God endured the wickedness of the people of Israel as long as He did because it enabled Him to make known His mercy within the New Covenant Church, composed of both Jews and Gentiles.

We have seen thus far two very important things.  First, St. Paul is not speaking about salvation.  Second, St. Paul is not speaking about individuals, but covenant groups.  With these things proven, St. Paul’s argument is this: God’s covenant was never with a fleshly body.  Rather, he elected covenant nations according to His own wisdom and purpose.  Who can question the will and wisdom of God?   He has a right to mold His covenant people into whatever He wishes.  He has never broken His promise to true Israel, for true Israel is now all who are faithful to Jesus the Messiah, that is, the people of the Church.  God has elected the Church rather than fleshly Israel in order to save Gentiles, and eventually to bring salvation full circle so that all Israel may be saved as well.  Gentiles are now a part of true covenant Israel, and hence St. Paul quotes the prophet in verse twenty-five, saying “As indeed he says in Hosea, ‘Those who were not my people I will call my people, and her who was not beloved I will call beloved.’”

Works Cited

Edwards, James. Romans: New International Bible Commentary. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991.

Hart, David Bentley. The Story of Christianity. London: Quercus Books, 2007.

Moo, Douglas. Romans. Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary, Vol. 3: Romans to Philemon. Clinton E. Arnold, Gen. Ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002.

Witherington, Ben. A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004.

Play Me My Song — Nursery Cryme: Gabriel’s Genesis Retrospective, pt. 3

Christopher Rush

The Classic Lineup, The Classic Albums

By 1971, Genesis had secured its now-classic five-person lineup: Peter Gabriel, Tony Banks, Mike Rutherford, Phil Collins, and Steve Hackett.  Over the next five years, Genesis would release five albums (four studio albums and one live album) and establish itself as the dominant progressive rock band of all time.  The band mates had honed their musical talents both within the studio and in early live performances, and the arrival of more-skilled musicians (Collins and Hackett) as well as new instruments and technical recording proficiencies all allowed the band to finally create the diverse and unique sounds and songs it had desired to do since its inception.

The first of the five classic lineup albums, Nursery Cryme, is still considered by some the culmination of the band’s maturation process, with its next album, Foxtrot, the real first fruits of its developmental stage.  Such a view does not give Nursery Cryme its just appraisal as a quality album in its own right.  Admittedly, the album does build upon the musical ideas hinted at in their earlier work, and as we found out recently with the previously unreleased demo material finally available in the box sets, many of the songs on this album had definite origins in the band’s earlier musical stages with Anthony Phillips.  Even so, to consider Nursery Cryme only as another development on the way to Foxtrot as the ultimate goal misses the point of the album: it has different songs that are not trying to do what Foxtrot and later albums offer.  It is a worthy and enjoyable album by itself, and it begins with one of the best (and most bizarrely creative) Genesis songs in their entire canon.

“The Musical Box”

The story behind this Victorian fairy story/epic song is included in the liner notes and depicted on the Paul Whitehead cover:

While Henry Hamilton-Smythe minor (8) was playing croquet with Cynthia Jane De Blaise-William (9), sweet-smiling Cynthia raised her mallet high and gracefully removed Henry’s head.  Two weeks later, in Henry’s nursery, she discovered his treasured musical box.  Eagerly she opened it and as “Old King Cole” began to play a small spirit-figure appeared.  Henry had returned — but not for long, for as he stood in the room his body began aging rapidly, leaving a child’s mind inside.  A lifetime’s desires surged through him.  Unfortunately the attempt to persuade Cynthia Jane to fulfill his romantic desire, led his nurse to the nursery to investigate the noise.  Instinctively Nanny hurled the musical box at the bearded child, destroying both.

The song takes place, fortunately, at the climactic moment of the scene described above.  Henry is hovering, apparently, etherealized around or in the nursery, caught between this life and the next — similarly, he is caught between his lust for Cynthia and a bourgeoning apathy toward existence itself (“It hardly seems to matter now” repeated throughout the song).  The opening strums recall us to the idyllic timbres of Trespass, but the audience has not long to wait before the maturity of the band and its aesthetic development shifts our focus away from the simplicity of the earlier album’s tonality to the wider range of sound and emotion, especially by the musical break and pounding section after “And I want / And I feel / And I know / And I touch / The wall” at the end of the opening ethereal section.

Cynthia discovers the musical box, and incorporeal Henry urges her on to open it.  The story in the liner notes (and Peter Gabriel’s introduction of the song in certain live performances) indicates that Henry returns to life with his eight-year-old mind, though his body begins to age rapidly when “Old King Cole” is played.  The supernatural is, as is obvious by now, a key element of Genesis’s lyrics.  Briefly, Henry indicates that the good news of a future afterlife Paradise (“a kingdom beyond the skies” — very Cosette-like) is all a lie.  Instead, he is “lost within this half-world,” neither fully dead nor fully alive, but he is initially unburdened by that (“It hardly seems to matter now”).  The confusing aspect of the lyrics (aside from the entire supernatural events themselves) is that Henry seems to know before his resurrection that his time is short; perhaps that is why he is so insistent that he and Cynthia (despite her age) consummate their relationship — despite the fact as well that she willfully killed him with a croquet mallet two weeks before.  If he knows his time is short, how does he know that, especially since his mind is still that of an eight-year-old?  Despite (or perhaps because of) his prescience, Henry’s lust overpowers his ethereal apathy like the poetic contributions of Andrew Marvell and Robert Herrick: “Just a little bit / Just a little bit more time / Time left to live out my life.”  The remaining time Henry has he wants to spend (in a manner of speaking) with Cynthia.  She opens the box, “Old King Cole” rings out, and Henry is embodied (and embearded) and starts to age physically.

After the pounding musical interlude, the first example of the band’s musical maturity, rapidly-aged Henry confronts the apparently motionless Cynthia (her reactions and attitudes are never mentioned during the song, since it is all from Henry’s point of view).  This half of the song demonstrates undoubtedly Genesis’s maturity as a band that combined provocative lyrics (admittedly sometimes abstrusely) with impressively skillful and aesthetically engaging instrumentality.  Now an old man with an eight-year-old mind, Henry voices his lust for the first (and last) time.  The tension and paradox of his love/lust comes out clearly: “She’s a lady, she’s got time. / Brush back your hair, and let me get to know your face.”  At first respectfully and Victorianly distant, Henry quickly shifts into Marvell-mode: “She’s a lady, she is mine!”  If Cynthia were a lady, even at nine-years-old, she probably would not have assassinated Henry with a croquet mallet in the first place.  If she were a lady, in the second place, she would not “belong” to Henry, young or old.  His lust is winning out: “Brush back your hair, and let me get to know your flesh” — an uncomfortable thought from an eight-year-old, especially toward a nine-year-old, made even more awkward by Peter Gabriel’s mask and movements during the live renditions of the song.  Fortunately, Genesis is in no way condoning such an attitude or behavior, since Henry ultimately receives his just reward.  We should remember, too, that Cynthia did slaughter Henry as well, and he still loves her, which makes the song thoroughly bizarre but archetypically Genesis, in the Gabriel era.

Soon Henry’s unslaked lust (as is often the case) turns into anger, though still tinged by a hint of apathy: “I’ve been waiting here for so long / And all this time has passed me by / It doesn’t seem to matter now” — apathy, or at least willingness to forgive the heretofore unrequited aspect of his lust, if only Cynthia will requite him now…which she won’t.  “You stand there with your fixed expression / Casting doubt on all I have to say.”  Now Henry’s anger and lust are full-boil and inseparable: “Why don’t you touch me, touch me / Why don’t you touch me, touch me, touch me / Touch me now, now, now, now, now / Now, now, now, now, now, now, now, now, now / Now, now, now, now, now, now!”  They are all there — listen carefully.  The nurse comes in, flings the music box at the wrinkled Henry, and both are destroyed.  “The Musical Box” signals quite well the maturity of Genesis as a prog rock band with finely- (and finally-) honed lyrical and musical talent to support the epic narrative visions that launched the band five years earlier.

“For Absent Friends”

In stark contrast to the William Blake-like bizarre maturity of “The Musical Box” (though no one does William Blake-like bizarreness like early Rush), “For Absent Friends” highlights the band’s softer and sweeter side.  The only thing discordant about this song is the delayed resolution at the very end, as Phil Collins’s first vocal contribution ends before the return of the dominant tonal chords provided by Hackett and Rutherford.  The song has a very folksong feel to it, but the impressive part is that it does not remind one of Trespass — it is its own song while thoroughly Genesis material.  Though the song is about a Sunday evening, it has all the atmosphere of a Saturday afternoon, or perhaps a Saturday late-morning, after one sleeps in with nothing much to do that day, perhaps having Welsh rabbit for lunch while still in one’s jim-jams.  The song concerns an elderly couple who misses and prays for those loved ones who are no longer present in their lives, and while the song has the slow pacing to match their slow gait, it also reflects a time of youth and late-morning sunshine.  Sometimes Genesis songs produce that antithetical feeling.  The lyrics are straightforward, certainly among the most translucent lyrics in the band’s Gabriel-era canon, and thus need no detailed discussion here.  Listen to the song with the words in front of you and enjoy a quiet, too-brief moment.  Though, part of its charm is that it is so short, since if it went on longer it would spoil the mood.  Sit back and enjoy the just-right song evoking both ends of life’s spectrum.

“The Return of the Giant Hogweed”

Nursery Cryme is a loosely-unified concept album in that most of the songs are nursery rhyme-like songs (the overt use of “Old King Cole” is evidence of that) dealing with children, myths, and Romance- and Victorian-atmospheric tunes; some of the songs are even loosely connected to each other.  “The Musical Box” is a Victorian fairytale (of a sort), and “Giant Hogweed” is an apocalyptic vision begun by a Victorian explorer.  Rooted, if you will, in the actual Heracleum mantegazzianum, the phototoxic hogweed plant that originates fairly close to where the eponymous version comes from, “Giant Hogweed” is another epic song beginning in medias res with the Giant Hogweed plants already waging their militaristic campaign.

The obvious connection is to “The Knife” from Trespass (and “The Battle of Epping Forest” in Selling England By the Pound), though “The Knife” is a lot more politically-minded and serious in tone.  That may sound strange, especially since the end of “The Knife” is a tyrant’s conquering of a police force (admittedly an unfortunate thing) and the end of “Giant Hogweed” sees the end of humankind altogether, overcome by rampaging mutant personified human-killer plants.

Musically, “Giant Hogweed” demonstrates Genesis’s ability to tell a story with its musical diversity as well as its lyrical maturity.  The speedy rhythms of the present scenes of the hogweed battle complement the frenetic chaos of the story.  The past tense backstory verses change the musical pace well, mirroring the sounds with the words as the moods change frequently.  In this diversity, the progression from “The Knife” is clear: instead of just post-production vocal manipulation, “Giant Hogweed” changes musical aspects as well as Gabriel’s vocal offerings.  The band is more mature, using their instruments as contributions of the overall song and its message.  Though it uses gimmicks aplenty (especially in Gabriel’s on-stage personae), the band has more to offer than simply gimmicks.

The backstory of the Victorian explorer in the Russian hills finding and transplanting the Giant Hogweed comes in agitated music-box-like verses.  The melody is pleasant like a music box melody should be, but the lyrics and the pace (as if a child were cranking the music box gears too quickly) betray the simplicity of the tune with the danger of the invincible plants.  The hubris of the Victorian “fashionable country gentlemen” who valued exotic botany over safety results in the gentlemen getting their due.  The parallel to the destructive nature of Victorian Imperialism is there, but I wouldn’t press the connection too firmly.  The effects of nineteenth-century imperialism, one could say, resulted in the world-wide destructions of World War I, but I doubt WWI is what Genesis had in mind as a parallel to the genocidal victory of the Giant Hogweed.  The characterization of the Hogweed itself (or themselves) by Gabriel and the other vocal contributors is a further oddity in this lyrical story, especially in the final stanza.  The line “Human bodies soon will know our anger,” were one to just read it without hearing or knowing the tune, might direct the reader to suppose Gabriel’s voice is loud and full of such anger, yet the contrary is true.  The Hogweed sings this line with a music box-like mellifluousness, betraying the aggressive nature of the campaign.  Instead, it is the voice of the humans in the chorus-like sections of the song that Gabriel sings with a hardened edge to his timbre.  The humans exclaim, “Stamp them out / We must destroy them” and “Strike by night / They are defenseless.”  Though both sides are guilty and both sides angry, Gabriel vocalizes the human race as the oppressors and the Giant Hogweed as the self-protecting and righteous combatants (“Mighty Hogweed is avenged”).

In the end, the Hogweed is victorious, but we are never told why it is the “return” of the Giant Hogweed.  The Hogweed bide their time over the years, seeking to avenge their uprooting from their Russian home, but that’s not a “return”; in contrast, once the attack has begun, the humans decide they must “[w]aste no time.”  The impatient reactors to the long-meditated counter-insurgency lose to the royal beast who never forgot what was done to him long ago by the Victorian explorer, and humanity pays the price.  The final musical sounds utilize this call-back to earlier times, with a kind of classical- or baroque-style ending and repeated final chord — definite growth from the Trespass days only months before.

“Seven Stones”

Like “For Absent Friends,” “Seven Stones” presents a soft ballad-like break between musically harder and more driving numbers, almost to the extent the album goes back-and-forth demonstrating Genesis’s developed soft/ballad and hard/mythic narrative facets.  It is possible that “Seven Stones” is the best song on the album that shows their musical and lyrical cohesion, though the time periods the lyrics and musical sounds indicate I believe are different — I am open to correction, of course.  Listening to this song is very much like listening to a Victorian sea shanty about times gone by, connecting it in a roundabout way to the overall theme of the album.  In contrast to the Victorian (perhaps even Edwardian) atmosphere, the lyrics are similar to a Romantic poem.  The opening line, “I heard an old man tell his tale,” reminds us of the opening of Percy Shelley’s poem “Ozymandias” — in both instances, it is not the narrator’s tale that the reader proceeds to read, it is layered by the narrator recalling what he heard from another source (akin to Thomas More’s Utopia, as well).  From this Romantic allusion of multi-layered narration, “Seven Stones” progresses to a parallel of Coleridge’s “Rime of the Ancient Mariner” set within an Irish heather or Scottish highland “seventh son, seventh stone” magical fairy-tale background.

The first tale the old man tells is of a “Tinker, alone within a storm,” who is “losing hope” and “clears the leaves beneath a tree” under which he discovers the eponymous seven stones.  We are not told if the tinker takes these stones with him or if he leaves them, only that he later finds a friend in the seventh house he seeks out: apparently the stones (either magically or placebo-like) gave him hope to press on and his friend relieves him from the dangers of the storm — he was not as alone as he thought he was.  The shift from this story to the next is the most ambiguous line in the entire album: “And the changes of no consequence will pick up the reigns from nowhere” — superior to the ambiguous lines from the From Genesis to Revelation days, this line is a Coleridgean/Blakean bizarreness that seems to fit quite well.  The tinker’s change from hopeless isolation to befriended succor is certainly not of “no consequence,” so what the inconsequential changes are we are not told (perhaps because of their very inconsequential nature) — but then they take up the reigns from nowhere, as if what we thought were inconsequential then become the most consequential because they are now in control (holding the reigns — perhaps of destiny or Nature itself, perhaps by the power of the seven stones themselves).

The second story is the definite “Rime of the Ancient Mariner” parallel: sailors are imperiled on the sea about to strike a rock (though this did not happen in Coleridge’s poem) until a gull flies by and the Captain is moved by an unknown force to change course (similar to the supernatural effect the albatross and its slaying has in Coleridge’s poem, but it is admittedly distinct and thus a parallel, not an exact copy).  Whatever the inconsequential changes are in this story, they likewise take the reins from nowhere.

At this point, the old man takes a break (as evidenced both by the lyrics and the vocal change in Gabriel’s sound) and we learn some surprising things about this old narrator and his ambiguously supernatural tales from yet another narrator layer, this time an angelic-like omniscient chorus: “Despair that tires the world brings the old man laughter, / The laughter of the world only grieves him, believe him, / The old man’s guide is chance.”  It is difficult to accept why we should believe the stories of someone so contrary to the fabric of reality, who laughs at what brings most of us despair, who grieves at what brings most of us happiness and relief, and who is ultimately guided not by an absolute standard of morality or destiny but by that most fickle of masters: chance.  Perhaps, though, that is the point.  The things that we laugh at are truly trivial and inconsequential.  The things that we are afraid of should be what we laugh about (the seriousness of human affairs, for example?).  If chance is the reliable guide, does chance have a connection to the seven stones and the natural/supernatural influence of the gull?  If the old man believes in chance and human action and not divine structure, perhaps the stones had no intrinsic power after all, and superstition alone led the tinker to safety; similarly, the Captain who turned his boat to safety, instead of rationally asking why the gull was there, intuitively changed course because of chance.

The old man’s third tale (or second, if the tinker and sailors are two parts of the first tale) features the old man himself and gives further support for his Romantic philosophy couched in a Victorian/Edwardian song.  A farmer, who is apparently a very bad farmer, since he “knows not when to sow,” which is an essential skill for farming, approaches the old man for assistance rather desperately, since he is “clutching money in his hand.”  The old man shrugs, smiles, takes the money, and leaves “the farmer wild.”  Not much (if anything) should be read into the fact the old man with a Romantic/cavalier attitude steals money from a farmer, a man who works closely with the land and thus nature, which a Romantic should value — especially since the farmer is not very good at knowing the land.  With the old man’s thievery, the changes of no consequence pick up the reigns from nowhere, and soon the song comes to a close.  Nothing more is learned about the old man, the ethereal chorus, or the original narrator who is listening to the old man’s tales.

“Harold the Barrel”

Another Phil Collins cymbal roll heralds (I apologize) the shift from the “slow, melodic Genesis” to the “quirky, eclectic sounds and stories Genesis.”  “Harold the Barrel” is certainly one of their quirkier songs in the Gabriel era.  The song is a send-up of inane news reporting about topics of “local interest,” which, if relevant in 1971 England, is certainly relevant to today’s even crazier “news”-saturated, media-driven culture.  Like with most “news” stories, the veracity of the content is questionable at best.  Genesis does a trenchant job of clouding the issues, obscuring the perspectives, and rejecting any satisfactory conclusion to the episode.

Harold’s “mouse-brown overcoat” tells us that he is himself mousy, and thus weak and ineffective.  The next tidbit we learn is he is a father of three and has done something disgusting, apparently cutting off his own toes and serving “them all for tea,” though we are not told if they are served to his sons or if the entire thing is just community gossip, since Harold is a “well-known Bognor restaurant owner,” which means no one knows him at all.  The community soon revolts against him, and the train he took early this morning to escape will not take him far.  That Harold “hasn’t got a leg to stand on” is a remarkable line of Gabriel’s developed dark humor and lyrical skill: not only has Harold supposedly cut off his toes, he has no leg, either.

Before too long we infer that the information of Harold catching a train to escape early that morning is not true (either that he didn’t take a train at all, or just that he took a train not to escape but to get to the town hall where Harold is actually standing out on a ledge, perhaps ready to jump and end it all in a “Richard Cory”-like fashion except jumping from a ledge, not shooting himself with a gun, of course).  The reporter on the scene describes the gathering crowd at the town hall as “a restless crowd of angry people” — so restless that the city council has “to tighten up security.”  Why are they so angry?  Are the rumors about his teatime snack accurate?  It is never mentioned again, nor does the rest of the song give any tacit credence to such a tale.  Genesis could be ridiculing not only the nature of news reporting but also the mob mentality of onlookers — with no facts to ground their emotions upon, anger becomes the easiest communal response.

Even the Lord Mayor gives no leniency to Harold: “Man of suspicion,” he calls Harold, “you can’t last long, / when the British Public is on our side.”  What are the sides?  What is the issue?  Poor Harold is standing on a ledge, obviously discontent over something, and not only is the mindless citizenry against him for no apparent (or rational) reason, but also the elected officials are against him.  Mob mentality is king, here, since the Mayor himself appeals to general consensus: if the Public believes this ledge-hanger is guilty of something despicable, he must be, regardless of who he is, what he has done, or why he is even there.  Their communal antipathy increases in appetite, as they chant menacingly that “he can’t last long” (they clearly don’t want him to) and that supposedly this mindless mass earlier indicated that Harold couldn’t be trusted, “his brother was just the same.”  Why bring his brother into this?  Of course no one earlier voiced any concern about Harold; certainly we should place no credence in their filial associative gossip.

The sweetest moment of the song is the brief interlude from Harold’s perspective, as he looks out over the enraged citizenry and imagines where he would like to be instead: “If I was many miles from here, / I’d be sailing in an open boat on the sea / Instead I’m on this window ledge, / With the whole world below.”  The music accompanying this brief reverie is very enjoyable, especially as it is a break from the frantic cymbal-splashing highlights of the mob mentality and gossip-laced reporting.

Another shift occurs as the mob takes on a patina of Good Samaritan behavior: Mr. Plod (most likely the Lord Mayor, no doubt a pertinent name for his character and approach to his work and life in general) tells Harold “We can help you,” which the drones in the crowd repeat.  “We’re all your friends / if you come on down and talk to us son,” he continues.  Harold and we know this is a hollow lie.  “You must be joking,” is Harold’s appropriate and impassioned response.  “Take a running jump!”

The Samaritan shift in attitude seems to increase, as the crowd, once glad that Harold was out there ready to jump, is now concerned that he is getting weaker, so much so that they send for his mother, which does not help at all (it is difficult to ascertain if the crowd brings in his mother to further his decision to jump or not, since it is highly doubtful they knew anything accurate about the family anyway).  Were it not for the fact Harold’s mother is called Mrs. Barrel, the title calling Harold “the” Barrel might indicate that he is nothing more than a receptacle for other’s emotions, plans, and manipulations (this still may be the case, since, even if Harold’s last name is actually Barrel, the title calling him “the” Barrel may just highlight his prior nature up to the point he steps on to the ledge).  Mrs. Barrel gives Harold very poor reasons to come back inside: if his father were alive, he’d be upset with Harold’s actions; and his shirt is all dirty and thus he is embarrassing her, especially since a man from the BBC is there to capture his disgraceful appearance on film.  Meanwhile, the crowd resorts to content-less social acceptability: “just can’t jump” they say over and over.  Why not?  Because it’s not what people do, apparently.  No one is concerned for Harold, no one bothers to inquire why he is there at all.  Mr. Plod and his chorus repeat their earlier pleas to Harold that since they are friends, he should just come down and talk to them, which Harold rejects as before.  And suddenly, the song is over.  The music does not tell us if Harold jumped or returned inside.  Like all “news” stories of today, the result is irrelevant.  The connection to our lives and why it should matter to us is ignored completely.  The motivation behind Harold’s actions is never sought.  The song ends; the “news” cycle continues on to something else.

“Harlequin”

I have posited that Nursery Cryme is a loose concept album, primarily in the moods of the diverse songs generated, as well as the (admittedly thin at times) lyrical connection to nursery tales of myths, magic, and medieval wonderments.  “Harlequin” furthers the tonal mood aspect of the album, especially since Gabriel’s vocal work on this song is dominantly falsetto.  This song feels like a Harlequin is singing it; it also evokes a pinwheel being blown by the breeze — this song is a pinwheel, and all the simplicity of youth and pre-Econ class joy we once had.  (Not that Economics class is bad, just that it usually occurs at the end of our high school days when we are about to fully embark upon maturity and college, and the days of playing in the dirt with action figures and pinwheels are mostly lost to us.)  Little needs to be said here about this song; it is too lovely to dissect.  In closing, though, it is a very hopeful song, as clearly indicated by the final chorus.  The words and music paint a very enjoyable (and again almost unfortunately brief) aural painting.

“The Fountain of Salmacis”

A final Collins cymbal roll brings the final song of this Wonder Book-like collection of tales and fancies.  The story of Hermaphroditus and Salmacis is even older than Ovid, but his version in Metamorphoses is probably the best known.  The liner notes recap the story for those less literate consumers of prog rock:

Hermaphrodite: a flower containing both male and female organs; a person or animal of both sexes.  The child Hermaphroditus was the son of Hermes and Aphrodite, the result of a secret love affair.  For this reason he was entrusted to the nymphs of the isolated Mount Ida, who allowed him to grow up as a wild creature of the woods.  After his encounter with the water-nymph Salmacis, he laid a curse upon the water.  According to fable, all persons who bathed in the water became hermaphrodites.

Little needs to be said as well about the lyrical content, since it is mostly a straight re-telling of the story, without the complex narrative layering of “Seven Stones” or limited narrative focus of “The Musical Box.”  This song, though, fits well with them and completes this diverse but connected album.  The variations in musical texture at various narrative points in the song are reminiscent of and superior to similar attempts from Trespass, and as has been said so often about this album, the music helps tell the story very well.  The most interesting (and unique) aspect of this song could also be its most frustrating for some: at the end of most verses, either Salmacis or Hermaphroditus says something cogent about her or his feelings or reactions in first person, and usually the omniscient narrator of the song makes a similar comment in third person — at the same time.  This overlapping of words/perspectives is challenging to comprehend the first time or two through the song (especially if one listens without the words in front of him), but it is a unique element that adds to the fast-paced confusion and immediacy of the events in the confrontation of Salmacis and Hermaphroditus.  After setting the blissful scene at the beginning of the song, the rapid action of Salmacis waking up, falling for Hermaphroditus, and their conjunction (against Hermaphroditus’ will) needs a confused, perplexing cacophony to express the moment accurately — and this overlapping of narrative presentation succeeds in that unusual task (concerning such unusual characters).  As an aside, Hermaphroditus’ line, “Away from me cold-blooded woman / Your thirst is not mine” is a sharp indicator of Gabriel’s mature lyricism, combining the emotion of a moment with the irony of the situation, as Hermaphroditus was there to slake his physical thirst for water, but the waken Salmacis has a different kind of thirst when seeing Hermaphroditus.

With Hermaphroditus’ curse, the music winds down to its initial calmness, as the two (and a half) beings descend to their eternal condition: “Both had given everything they had. / A lover’s dream had been fulfilled at last, / Forever still beneath the lake.”  The musical conclusion is similar to the ends of other songs on this album, though the sounds are in line with the tenor of this particular song and the somber mood at the end of the lyrics.  In another sense, the final musical exchange fits with the album as a whole in that the diverse presentation of tones, stories, and emotional energies climaxes with the lovers’ (after a fashion) embrace and resolution — everyone is worn out and almost resigned by the end, including the musicians.  It is time for peace.  The album is a triumph, both for Genesis and for the progression of music itself, but the impressive creativity and emotional energy from everyone has been exhausted, and so it is not so much a victory that is being celebrated (not even for Salmacis) as it is a cathartic completion with the understanding that now even more will be expected and even more must be done (similar to John Adams’s “It’s done! … It’s done,” at the end of 1776).

“Some Creature Has Been Stirred”

I have said throughout that those who see Nursery Cryme as the last of the developmental albums before the heyday of Genesis’s Gabriel era are missing the point.  That is not to say that with this album Genesis peaks and remains static for the next four albums or so, nor is it an implication that the Collins era (or even the short-lived Ray Wilson era) is ultimately inferior — they are all different entities, with different emphases and different highlights (and lowlights).  I suspect that most who argue for Foxtrot’s superiority to Nursery Cryme base their argument solely on personal enjoyment: they like listening to Foxtrot more, probably because of “Watcher of the Skies” and “Supper’s Ready.”  I have already admitted that I enjoy Foxtrot more than I enjoy Nursery Cryme, but that is not because I think it is a better album — they are similar, yes, in several ways obvious to even a cursory appraisal, but they are different albums, and the band members display their lyrical and musical skill extremely well on both.  Let us not let the mighty penumbra of “Supper’s Ready” take away from our appreciation and enjoyment of “The Musical Box” and “The Fountain of Salmacis.”  Neither should we let the perfection of “Horizons” diminish our capacity to revel in “For Absent Friends” and “Harlequin.”  Nursery Cryme is the beginning of the great golden age of Genesis in the Peter Gabriel era, and it should be listened to and enjoyed because of its own merit.

How to Interpret the Constitution

Tanner Rotering

Essentially, there are two prominent ideologies on how to interpret the Constitution.  One such ideology is called “Strict Constructionism.”  This technique for Constitutional “interpretation” is based on the idea that the Constitution should be “interpreted” based on what the Constitution actually says and on what the founders intended those words to actually mean.  (Though the strict definition does not actually include the considerations of the original intent of the Founding Fathers, the term “Strict Constructionism” is often used to include this “originalism.”)  The second method of interpretation for the Constitution is based on the idea that the Constitution is a “Living Constitution.”  Proponents of this view state that the Constitution should be interpreted based on the needs and ideas of the day since the Constitution was simply an embodiment of certain principles to be applied.  Of these two views, the ideology of “Strict Constructionism” is the only theory that is legally sound and beneficial to the United States of America.

The purpose of a constitution is to establish certain rules and principles for a civilization and for its government.  These rules are intended to establish a certain foundation upon which a nation is to be built and run.  This foundation is intended to preserve order and to protect the rights of citizens.  If these rules and principles are able to be “interpreted” differently than how they were originally written or intended, like the proponents of the “Living Constitution” claim they are, then there is essentially no purpose to having a set of rules in the first place.  But because there obviously was a purpose of having a definitive set of rules in the Constitution, we can conclude that they were not intended to be loosely interpreted in various ways.

If the Constitution was intended to merely be an embodiment of certain principles to follow, why would it be so specific in how those principles were to be carried out?  Clearly the Constitution was intended not only to promote certain ideals, but also to propose a specific way in which to implement such ideals in order to optimally achieve them.  If government officials think that they can achieve such ideals differently, good for them, but they have no authority to implement these alternative techniques without the Constitution.

The fact that the Constitution does list a specific procedure for altering itself further discounts the claims of the Living Constitutionalists.  That procedure is the amendment process.  If the Constitution was intended to be altered through interpretations by Supreme Court Justices, then the Constitution would say so, but because the Constitution specifically lists only one such process (the amendment process), we must assume this is the only intended way to change the Constitution.

The Supreme Court should not be considered the ultimate authority on “interpreting” the Constitution, as if the Constitution was not clear in its intent.  Instead, the Supreme Court should be considered the ultimate authority on applying the Constitution, as in deciding how the clearly written rules of the Constitution are to be applied to specific situations.  This distinction could be considered a trivial point, but it is key to expressing what exactly the purpose of the Constitution is: a binding contract.  Binding contracts are not intended to be “interpreted” based off of changing conditions, but rather they are intended to be definite and unchanging unless a legally sound mutual agreement is made to dissolve the contract.  In politics, this technique is the constitutional amendment.

In addition to being legally unsound, the idea of a Living Constitution is also a potentially catastrophic philosophy for the well-being of the United States.  If the Constitution could be changed (because that is essentially what is happening when the Supreme Court misinterprets it) simply based upon the judgment of nine individuals, then our “democratic republic” would actually be an oligarchy.  In fact, our nation has already experienced many such instances in which these nine individuals have made decisions that completely ignore the intended meaning of the Constitution.  Because the idea of a Living Constitution has gone largely unchallenged in the political arena, there is a risk that this trend will continue, leaving the possibility of further unlawful alterations of the Constitution.

With this risk of what is essentially a Constitutional violation comes the risk that many of the rights protected within the Constitution will also be violated.  If the Constitution has no binding authority over the officials of the United States of America, then these officials could essentially do whatever they want.  Already laws have been made that restrict the right to bear arms within certain cities like San Francisco because officials have “interpreted” the Second Amendment not to mean that each individual has the right to own a gun.  That is clearly not an accurate interpretation of the Second Amendment which says, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  The decision that one cannot own a gun in San Francisco clearly was one based on the philosophy of a living Constitution since a strict literal interpretation based on what the intent of the Constitution is would not lead to such a decision.  The Second Amendment says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  Under governments where gun rights are restricted, it is much easier for the government to oppress the people or for a military coup to occur since the citizens have no access to weaponry.  This was a major concern for the American colonies due to the recent oppression by the British government.  Thus, a violation of our Second Amendment rights further weakens our ability to protect ourselves.  But under the “Living Constitution” view, these concerns are supposedly no longer applicable since that “could never happen in America!”  Why not?  The natural trend for a government to try to take more and more power should be proof enough that this threat is possible in America as well.  After all, power corrupts.  Clearly, the “Living Constitution” is a dangerous philosophy due to its potential to lead to the violation of citizens’ rights and not just the right to bear arms.

Whenever there is any question concerning the meaning of the Constitution, the most probable intended meaning should be used since the meaning of a work is best known by the author himself.  Thus, when in doubt, Supreme Court Judges should look to the Founding Fathers.  Though there was some disagreement about the meaning of the Constitution even amongst the Founding Fathers, the meaning of most of the Constitution was well understood, and for the parts that weren’t, the Supreme Court should refer to the general consensus among the Founding Fathers concerning what that specific passage means, if available.  If the meaning is still not clear after all of this, then the Supreme Court should then use its own judgment based upon what it thinks would be the most just decision.  Only after the intentions of the Founding Fathers are considered should the Supreme Court ever use its own opinions since the Constitution is a set of principles which ultimately drew their meaning and origin from the men who gave them life.

Clearly, the Constitution should be applied through “Strict Constructionism,” since this is the most legally sound way to do so, and because without this method the rights of American citizens are at risk.

Works Referenced

“Constitution for the United States of America.” Constitution.org. 10 and 12 May 2010. Internet.

Linder, Douglas. “Theories of Constitutional Interpretation.” Exploring Constitutional Law. 10 and 12 May 2010. Internet.

“Strict Constructionism.” AllExperts. About, Inc. 12 May 2010. Internet.

“Strict Constructionism.” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation. 10 and 12 May 2010. Internet.

“The United States Constitution.” U.S. Constitution Online. 10 and 12 May 2010. Internet.

TRON

Emily Grant Privett

The once perfect creation of the God of this universe somewhat compares to the once perfect creation of Kevin Flynn, the central character of the Tron movie series.

Kevin Flynn created the world of Tron, a world in which everything is flawless.  It was entirely composed of what Flynn wanted it to be composed of, made from scratch, flawless.  Those residing in it were only those who Flynn designed to be in it.  When this world was first created, all who were in it adored their creator, Flynn.  He was the king of their universe, much like God is the King of our universe.  Flynn felt proud of his accomplishment.  He desired to create and control a perfect world.  Every night he would enter his creation and work more to complete his task.

Also much like the creation of this world, the world inside the Tron game became fallen.  His supposedly perfect creation had become less than perfect.  In order to help continue creating other aspects of this world, even while Flynn was away, he created CLU.  This creation was a replica of Flynn and worked alongside of him, supplementing the creator’s designs with other designs.  Quickly, because CLU spent so much time inside the world, and Flynn spent so much time outside of his creation, CLU gained an unexpected power, something that Flynn was unaware of.  His seemingly perfect creation, one that he had begun to grow very proud of, became corrupted.

The Frankenstein-like creation of Kevin Flynn compares to Satan, the cause of the universe’s corruption.  The world Flynn created changed into something it was never meant to become.  By the actions of this one being, the entire world was different.  It no longer had such a respect for Flynn but began to worship the replica of its creator, a deceiver.  CLU gained power, and eventually he was controlling all in that world, leaving the true creator Flynn with neither recognition nor respect.  The focus on its creator was lost.  Now everyone’s focus was fixed upon CLU, the “sinful” one.  He had his grasp on everyone in this world, using his own army working against the Users.

Having his hand on us, Satan is constantly trying to pull us away from our focus.  Obviously, many have been pulled away from their true and rightful view.  This was all because of the CLU-like figure in our universe.  Having once been good and eventually fallen away, Satan is of similar character to CLU.  He was once working on the side of the Creator.  As time went on, he fell away.  Living as the antithesis to the creator, Satan tugs at us “users” in order to pull us away from what we were brought in to do, often convincing us to follow his commands and not those of our maker.

Sam Flynn is the son of the fantasy world’s creator, Kevin Flynn.  This character enters the world long after it had been created.  When he entered the world, he had no idea what was going on.  In a way, he was in an infant stage of his existence in this fictional world.  As he begins to find his purpose in this world, he realizes that he is there to save his father from this world.  He entered this world to rescue those in the world from the evil of CLU.  It was his self-made duty to protect what his father had created and redeem it from the corruption of the man-made world.  This is seen when he takes Quorra, a discovery of his father, out of the world with him.  He protected her and saved her from the evilness of the creation.

Sam shares a connection between Christ.  Christ is the son of the creator.  He came into our world to redeem us for what we’ve done wrong.  Similar to this, Sam enters the world of Tron to save it from the corruption that it had experienced.  Christ entered this world as a baby, as Sam practically did, as he had to learn and adjust to the world around him.  Sam and Christ both entered their respective worlds in order to redeem the worlds from error.  They went in to help protect and save the creations of their fathers.  Christ overcame the destruction of Satan as Sam overcame the destruction of CLU.  Also, as Sam saved Quorra, a symbol of Christians, taking her out of the corrupted world, Christ saved us, saving a spot for us in heaven.

Quorra is another symbol for Christians.  She doesn’t fall away from the power of Kevin Flynn.  She feels protected around him, as all others of her kind were destroyed by CLU.  She finds it necessary to stay near him and serve him, as he is responsible for her existence.  Quorra leaves the world with Sam, the son of Flynn.

Her escape from this fictional world is similar to the death of us as Christians and entering heaven.  This is not to say that the “real world” in the Tron movie is flawless, or anywhere near perfect, but it is a valid comparison to what happens to us after death.  She is resaved by the son of the creator.  At the end of the movie, she follows him out of the corrupted fantasy world into another realm.  In a way, her world perished, and she had no part of it anymore.  She progressed into her afterlife, the heaven-comparable land.  One major difference though, is that the fantasy land in Tron is similar to the physical world in reality, as the physical land in the movie is comparable to the spiritual world of reality.

The creation of Flynn, Tron, was the hero of this self-created world.  He fought on the side of Flynn, until the power of CLU overcame him.  Created to protect this man-made creation, Tron “fights for the users,” protecting those inside this fantasyland.  As time passes on and Flynn loses his influence to CLU, Tron begins to follow CLU instead of the creator of this universe.  Throughout the second film, Tron follows the commands of CLU, paying no attention to the desires of Flynn.  The movie comes to a redemptive end when Tron finally discovers that he is fighting for evil.  He realizes that he is not acting in the way he was created to act.  Instead of following the one who stole his existence, only using him for evil, Tron follows the one he was intended to follow.  He “fought for the users,” overcoming the source of evil in that world.

The actions of Tron are similar to those of humans.  We constantly live under negative influence, the influence of our CLU-like tempter.  The power of Satan is irresistible for humans.  We are incessantly under his “spell,” as Tron was caught under the “spell” of CLU.  Through our walk, there will be times that we struggle and begin to follow our CLU-like tempter.  We often don’t realize the wrongness of our ways.  Tron, unlike Quorra, fell away from his creator.  He paid no attention to his purpose in that world and turned to the side of darkness.  This always happens to humans, as we are fallen.  Our view changes.  Unlike Tron, man does not often discover his true purpose.  Instead man does not find himself “fighting for the users” but dying to sin without looking for redemption.  Christians are symbolized by Tron while in the fantasyland, as we struggle and fall.  But outside of the world, we become Quorra, redeemed and saved by our Sam-like savior.

Another character similar to one in the Christ story is Zeus.  This character is one who acted once as a friend.  He worked alongside Flynn’s discoveries and wanted to help those that Flynn was trying to protect.  But as time progressed, Zeus fell and gave himself to the enemy.  He became a betrayer.  This man that once worked with Flynn turned against him, attempting to turn him in to CLU, the enemy.  Zeus even attempted to kill Flynn and thought that he had succeeded.

CLU gave Zeus an offer he couldn’t resist.  Because of this Zeus gave himself over to the bad guys.  The offer was that Zeus would receive control over the city for the exchange of Flynn, or the death of Flynn.  This is very similar to the exchange Judas gave for Christ.  They both were responsible for the exchange of a physical thing for the death of another.  Zeus, though, did not succeed in killing Flynn, accidentally letting him escape.  In turn, they both were responsible for or contributed to the death of those, at one time, they looked up to, Judas being more directly responsible for the death of Christ than Zeus for the death of Flynn.

From the Christ-like savior to the Judas-like tempter and betrayer, the world inside the movie Tron and reality carry many similarities.  The Christ story is easily comparable to the story within the movie.  The father of the creator came to save a corrupted world.  Inside it was a perfect world, now overcome with evil.  The story is the same.  Whether one would be willing to admit it or not, the similarities between the two stories are very noticeable.  It is evident that the Christ story of redemption and struggle was an impact on the writers of the second Tron film, Tron: Legacy.

A Moment of Perspective: Happiness

Alice Minium

Her skin was sickly gray like that of a corpse, but I knew that once upon a time it had been porcelain white.  Her eyes were a dim, muddied steel color, with cataracts of pessimism from the world she had seen.  I knew that, once upon a time, those eyes had been vividly blue.  Her hair was a metallic orange, but I knew that it had once been a vibrant and flaming red.  She wore a floral print jumper and an oversized cowboy vest that did not match.  Her fingernails were caked with dirt and her knuckles were deathly pale and chapped.  She was frail and slight in form, but she was shoveling food like a WWE Superstar.  Every few bites she would pause with awkward anxiety before the fork met her lips, as if she were embarrassed to accept the nourishment, but her animal hunger was more pressing than her human pride.

Her name was Amy, and I remember her photograph vividly.  She might as well just be a photograph, for all I know of her.  In the documentary that I sometimes imagine my life to be, Amy was a still frame.  During the summer I spent in Philadelphia working with the homeless, she was distinctive in the sea of faces.  Her image was the one ingrained permanently into my mind.

It was free spaghetti night when I met her.  The evening itself was unusual.  As I looked around the room, I saw everyone shoveling their food like Amy.  People reeked of garbage.  People glared at one another with hostility, because trust had always been synonymous with betrayal.  People did not make casual conversation with their neighbors.  People had tired eyes and prematurely wrinkled skin.  People did not smile.  Seeing these people, I realized that, being raised in middle-class suburbia, I did not know the true meaning of poverty.  As I looked around the room, the face of poverty stared back at me, mangled, gruesome, and bold in its ugliness.  I saw the face of poverty, and it was shame.

I was drawn to Amy because in some way I saw myself.  Minus the rough wear of the streets, I knew she could have been about my age.  All I could think was, this could have been me without a home, car, money, family, and love.  This could have been me.  This could have been me.  I decided to undress my fear.

“Hi, what’s your name?” I smiled generously and without pretense.

“I’m Amy,” she croaked.  She met my eyes cautiously.

“Hi Amy, I’m Alice.  I think you have really pretty hair.”

The still-frame moment struck when Amy smiled.  I literally felt a rush of warmth wash over me that awoke my inner humanity like the awakening rays of the mid-summer sun.  People smile all the time, but rarely do they glow with the elation of a small child and the inner peace of an angel when they do.  Rarely does a smile express joy.  I knew from the newborn light behind her eyes that I had just made Amy’s day worthwhile.  I knew that nobody had told Amy she was pretty in a long, long time.  I knew she did not feel pretty on most days.  I knew that she had needed that compliment as badly as she had needed that free spaghetti, and maybe a little bit more.  I swear her eyes glistened a more vibrant blue as serenity filled them like tears.

“Thank you.”

I will always remember that fleeting yet infinite moment.  Through an encounter that would have been meaningless in any other time or place, Amy and I tapped into a connection.  She was my equal, and we shared the cosmic, unbreakable bond that all humans share but scarcely acknowledge.  We were one and the same.  I gave her kindness, because kindness was all I had to give, and I had seen by her smile that that was enough.  One kind word that cost me nothing had borne enough fruit to feed someone’s hungry soul.  “All you need is love” has become a cliché, but I was struck dumb by the truth that simple acts of love are enough to make a difference.  I could not give Amy the life she deserved, but I could give her a moment of happiness by treating her like a person again.

After that night, I started smiling at strangers all the time.  Everywhere I went in Philadelphia, I made eye contact with as many harried, frantic people that I could, and I smiled with warmth behind my eyes.  I told the cashier to have a wonderful day.  I waited to hold the door for the rugged-looking man.  I loved to walk around the city simply to smile at lonely-looking people as they walked by.  I knew there was grief, exhaustion, despair, and unimaginable pain in the hearts of the people I passed on the sidewalk.  I had always been too wrapped up in myself to consider what the man who works the hot dog stand might be feeling that day.  When I stopped to meet that man’s eyes, I felt what he was feeling.  When I shared light with my smile, I felt myself make his day a little bit brighter.  The more I smiled, the more I wanted to, and joy, compassion, and goodwill blossomed within my heart.  That joy, compassion, and goodwill enriched my understanding of what it is to be human and what it is every human needs — that which I so often take for granted: kindness and love.  I gave food, clothes, handwritten letters, and hours of service work to the homeless that summer, but I feel like I gave them the most with my smile.

What Amy taught me was remarkable.  Without her calm yet childlike joy in that moment we shared, I would not have the wisdom and perspective I do today.  I still always smile at strangers.  It is almost laughable how years are wasted and billions are spent collaborating to discover the magical equation that will finally bring us world peace.  Imagine what the world would be if we were to smile at everyone we meet.  Imagine what the world would be if we saw every stranger as equally human, our brothers and sisters who feel as alone as we do on this crowded planet.  Imagine if we said, “Thank you.”  Imagine if we told somebody that they were beautiful every day.  It is embarrassing to the human race that our timeless problem of pain has such an obvious solution — smile at every stranger, and love a little more.

A Few of My Favorite Christmas Things

Christopher Rush

This issue has sprinkled the occasional Christmas topic throughout, including a few gift ideas for people you love: Genesis albums, quality video games, and books you should get and enjoy (and one you shouldn’t).  We’ve looked at Shakespeare’s Christmas play and even explored other aspects of the Incarnation.  As we conclude this issue, we’d like to examine some of the delightful aspects that make this holiday season so enjoyable.  True, we all have far too many reasons to be sorrowful this time of the year, too many heartaches, and too many painful memories that will never go away — I, too, have had more than my share.  But Christmas is about Life: the gift of abundant life God gave freely to us, whom He loves, incarnate in a Bethlehem manger so long ago.  And we want to celebrate that life and the gift of living this holiday season.  Though it may not seem like the things below have much to do with this gift, believe me — they do.  On behalf of the Scholarly Journal staff, I wish you all a joy-filled Christmas season.

Christmas Tunes

We can all agree on the importance of singing at Christmas time: certainly the birth of baby Jesus was heralded with songs (Mary’s song, the angels’ song, and many more).  Singing the songs we sing only this time of year is an obvious tradition and a key aspect to the season and holiday feel, but are we enjoying the best of what’s available?  I hope so.

Christmas time does not officially begin until you hear Mannheim Steamroller’s “Deck the Halls.”  The entire Mannheim Steamroller Christmas is must-listening several times each season.  Their second Christmas-related release, A Fresh Aire Christmas, is also quite good; their successive albums are good though none of them reach the superlative brilliance of the first album.  Their live album, Mannheim Steamroller Christmas Live, is good, especially for the unsurpassable ending: the one-two combination of “God Rest Ye, Merry Gentlemen” and “Stille Nacht” is the best pairing of Christmas song versions of all time, and the finale of “Going to Another Place” is a great emotional experience, especially if enjoyed in the right setting.

Further essential listening is The Time-Life Treasury of Christmas (especially volume one; volume two is good, though not as good).  It has a great sampling of diverse artists and versions from days gone by.  The best are there: Bing Crosby’s “White Christmas” (of course), Dolly Parton’s “Medley: Winter Wonderland/Sleigh Ride” (a personal favorite), “Home for the Holidays” by Perry Como, “Feliz Navidad,” and Burl Ives’ quintessential “A Holly Jolly Christmas.”  The collection also has a fine selection of Roger Whittaker numbers, another “those were the days” voice of Christmases long ago when times were easier and life was simpler.  There isn’t much Julie Andrews, though her “Joy to the World” is on the second volume.  Admittedly, “Joy to the World” is not about Christ’s first advent and has nothing to do with Christmas, but neither does “The Hallelujah Chorus” or “My Favorite Things” from The Sound of Music, though many radio stations think it does (which makes the allusion of the title of this piece ironic, yes).  It might be interesting also to know that “Jingle Bells” is about Thanksgiving time, despite common usage and perception today.

Other important Christmas listening includes the Beach Boys tunes, especially “The Man with All the Toys” (Beach Boys’ harmony at its finest), “Merry Christmas, Baby,” and “Little Saint Nick” (all of which and more are available on their Ultimate Christmas release).  John Denver and the Muppets: A Christmas Together is good family fun, as with everything Muppet, pretty much (seriously, Muppet Babies — time to come out on dvd).  The Trans-Siberian Orchestra releases are fine, though not as mandatory as Mannheim Steamroller.  They have some fine songs, though their lyrical numbers are sometimes pretentious — their instrumental numbers are better, though you have to be ready for lots of electric guitar.  Christmas with the Chipmunks, volumes one and two are more family favorites (and another show that needs to be released on dvd) — definitely get the classic Chipmunks, not the recent releases, at least at first.

Boston Pops Christmas albums are important, the Arthur Fiedler and John Williams releases, like “Sleigh Ride.”  The Robert Shaw Chorale is standard listening, though perhaps in smaller increments than the Boston Pops.  The standards of Bing Crosby (beyond “White Christmas”), Nat King Cole, Perry Como, Sinatra, Mel Tormé, Doris Day, Rosemary Clooney, and the gang are certainly worth your time — especially if you want to add nostalgia and sentimentality to your holiday.  I’m probably alone on this one, but I think Judy Garland’s “Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas” is the saddest Christmas song of all time.  There’s just something about her voice in it that does not make me believe we will all be together again next year and that we will be doing more muddling than merrying for a long time.

Probably the best compilations of the recent artists doing Christmas tunes of old and new (still no AC/DC Christmas album? still?) are the Very Special Christmas albums created to benefit Special Olympics.  The first album has a lot of good songs, including U2’s “Christmas (Baby Please Come Home)” and Run DMC’s “Christmas in Hollis,” but Christmas 3 has some of the best of the recent Christmas releases: “Christmastime” from The Smashing Pumpkins, Natalie Merchant’s bluesy “Children, Go Where I Send Thee,” Dave Matthews’s sweet “Christmas Song,” Tracy Chapman’s soulful “O Holy Night,” and probably the best new Christmas tune of the last century (yes, even better than “White Christmas”), Blues Traveler’s “Christmas.”  If you haven’t heard that, you need to go get it right now.  Finally, if you can also get ahold of “Do They Know It’s Christmas?” from Band Aid, do it.

Christmas Films and Episodes

I’ll just come out and say it: A Christmas Story is a stupid movie.  It’s not funny, it’s not clever, it’s not witty, it’s not insightful, it’s not charming.  Moving on.

Of course we have the standards: Miracle on 34th Street, The Bishop’s Wife, White Christmas, and Santa Claus Conquers the Martians (MST3K edition).  I’m not a huge fan of It’s a Wonderful Life, but I’m willing to watch it every other year or so.  My personal favorite used to be Die Hard, but now that I’ve matured it’s definitely The Lion in Winter, with Peter O’Toole and Katharine Hepburn.  I haven’t seen Holiday Inn yet, but maybe someday.  Mixed Nuts is a forgotten gem.  Love Actually is fairly good, though it has a generous dose of sauciness that certainly earns its R-rating.  The Liam Neeson and Colin Firth storylines are great; the Alan Rickman storyline is the most upset I’ve gotten at a movie probably ever.  Laurel and Hardy’s Babes in Toyland is probably the scariest Christmas movie ever.  Lethal Weapon is also technically a Christmas movie, using the same standards as the rest of these movies, none of which have anything to do with celebrating the birth of Jesus, which probably occurred in the springtime anyway.  The ’80s were big on goofy Christmas movies: Scrooged and National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation, for examples.

I’m not as big a fan of The Muppet Christmas Carol as others, mainly because I prefer the Muppet movies in which the Muppets are themselves not literary characters.  Similarly, The Nightmare Before Christmas is not for everyone.  What truly is for everyone is A Charlie Brown Christmas, probably the only Christmas special that bothers to identify what Christmas is really about.  Mr. Magoo’s Christmas Carol is a good version of Dickens’s story.  The Christmas Toy can be very upsetting to young children, seeing their favorite toys “die,” but the resolution is a great relief.  The classic Rankin/Bass specials are hard to argue against: Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer, Frosty the Snowman, The Little Drummer Boy, and The Year Without Santa ClausHow the Grinch Stole Christmas! is fine, too.  What the world really needs is the return to popularity of Will Vinton’s classic A Claymation Christmas Celebration.  Rex and Herb’s quest to find out the true meaning of wassail, with special appearances by the California Raisins, should never have gone out of style.

Most of our favorite television shows have Christmas specials that sort of make sense if viewed at Christmas time of out chronological sequence.  The best are, of course, the M*A*S*H episodes “Dear Dad” (season one), “Dear Sis” (season seven), and “Death Takes a Holiday” (season nine).  The Newsradio, Monk and Psych episodes are good, along with the X-Files’ “How the Ghosts Stole Christmas” in (season six).  The ’70s had a lot of Christmas episodes: from Mary Tyler Moore, The Bob Newhart Show, and Barney Miller, for examples.  These short episodes are nice ways to spend Christmas Eve, if you aren’t up for a long movie and need something to do before pretending to fall asleep (especially if your brother is playing Final Fantasy VI on the only video game system in the house).

Christmas Traditions

You don’t need me to tell you about your family Christmas traditions.  Growing up in a part of the country that has four seasons, an annual tradition back home was shoveling snow on a regular basis.  One slightly more enjoyable thing we started doing somewhere along the line was to start going to a movie (in the theater) on Christmas Eve.  When young, you don’t appreciate watching Perry Como or Andy Williams’s Christmas specials on TV as much as you should, so we started going to movies.  Usually the movies we saw had nothing to do with Christmas, and the theater was never too crowded.  When the snow got bad one Christmas, we stopped doing it — and, like all traditions that come to a sudden halt, it never really returned, until that one time in 2002, many years later when everything had changed and was to change some more.  After the movie we would come home and get to open one Christmas present — it took us too long to realize that the Christmas presents we opened on Christmas Eve were always ornaments for the tree.

Like most trees, ours bore an eclectic collection of Avon Nutcracker ornaments, miscellaneous Disney cartoon movie fuzzy ornaments (Oliver and Co., Cinderella, and Little Mermaid, mostly), as well as a few American Tail, Star Trek, and other Hallmark™-related decorations here and there.  Of course there were the hand-made public school ornaments, the photos-of-church-nativity-play ornaments, the nice and classy glass bulbs and figurines, and tinsel.  We weren’t big on lights, but my wife enjoys putting strings of lights on our tree now.  We used to have real trees, back in the day, and my wife and I had a real tree our first Christmas together, but when we moved to Virginia, it became simpler to have a plastic tree: fir trees have nothing really inherent to do with Christmas anyway, people — it’s just one of those things, no sense in fighting over it.  Our tree now is dominated by snowmen, miniature wooden sleds, lighthouse figurines, and the typical family-oriented ornaments.  Most of the ornaments near the bottom now are soft and unbreakable.

Another tradition, one that many of you probably already enjoy, is driving around town looking at lights on peoples’ homes and in their yards — it is a little cheaper than going to botanical gardens and arboreta that charge entrance fees, and it also gives you strong feelings of relief that at least you don’t live there and have to put all that stuff up and take it all down (and pay that electricity bill).  We haven’t  put many lights around our house lately, but there’s always a chance we will again.

One of the great ironies of the Christian life in contemporary America is that while we don’t often mind too much “going to church,” when Christmas day falls on a Sunday it is one of the most unbearable burdens this world affords (like having to do laundry or going to school on your birthday).  Thus, most likely, the birth of the “Christmas Eve service,” often advertised as a “candle light” service — which means that you pick up a cheap candle when you go in, wait through thirty-eight minutes of extra-special music and preaching, then the ushers come light the candles and you sing “Silent Night,” blow out your candle after eighty-five seconds, and then go home.  Strange the patterns we fall into.

Following this Christmas Eve service, for our family in recent years as well as some of yours, apparently, comes the other tradition of going out for Chinese food, since that is one of the few kinds of places open on Christmas Eve.  In recent years this tradition morphed into picking up Chinese food and bringing it home, still as a family, to then relax with hot cocoa, Chinese food, and a Christmas movie or series of Christmas episodes.  Accompanying this tradition in my new family is the annual “opening of the See’s® boxes,” the west-coast chocolatier that has recently worked its way to mall kiosks out east.  Not being a west-coast guy, I prefer chocolates (mostly milk chocolate-covered caramels) from Dubuque’s own Betty Jane Candies (Home of the Gremlins).  If you have never had any chocolate from Betty Jane Candies, you are missing out on some of the fine confectionary treats that help make life worth living during these troubled times.  Accompanying Betty Jane Candies in our house back in the day was the never-ending magical jar of M&M’s® that  never ran out, no matter how many times you would walk by and take out a handful or three of M&M’s®.  I miss that jar.

As intimated above, we always open our presents on Christmas morning (except for the ornament the night before).  I don’t have anything to say to or about the families that open their presents on Christmas Eve.  Nothing can be said to or for them, really.  True, my wife does enjoy opening Christmas cards from family and friends as they arrive — that is acceptable; if they have gift cards or other pecuniary treasurelets within, well, so be it.  Such is the price of filial devotion.  Back in the day, we opened our stockings first (my brother and I, that is — mainly to keep us occupied long enough for our parents to wake up and come down for presents; I never understood why they didn’t wake up as quickly and eagerly as we did, though I do now).  Our stockings were stuffed with various things and usually had one “major” present as well, which was nice.  My wife’s family always opened their stockings last, though they were usually filled with small, miscellaneous goodies like candies, toothbrushes, maybe a gift card, or other mostly consumable delights.  Now, we compromise.  We open our stockings last, but they also have at least one major present in or next to them, a win-win situation all around.  My family used to open all our presents simultaneously, finishing in a very short amount of time.  My wife’s family went around in a circle, one at a time, after reading the Christmas story and drinking cocoa and eating delicious bacon and caramel rolls.  We now do the same as they used to, as my wife has continued the tradition of Christmas breakfast.

How to Enjoy Christmas

The Scholarly Journal provides a variety of didactic and pragmatic articles for your edification.  As such, were you to copy your Christmas habits along the practices and events described above, you will undoubtedly enjoy a delightful, joy-filled Christmas.  Other ways to enjoy Christmas break include staying in your jim-jams as many days in a row as possible, never leaving the house; playing various high-quality video games for at least twelve hours a day (preferably in the Final Fantasy or ChronoTrigger families or other RPGs — no offense, Tanner); watching episode after episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000; listening to Mannheim Steamroller; emptying boxes upon boxes of Wheat Thins with Hickory Farms cheese balls; imbibing dozens of hot cocoa packets; popping endless bags of microwave popcorn with generous portions of parmesan cheese on top; and generally doing genuine leisure rightly with those you love.  There are the keys to enjoying Christmas.  From the Scholarly Journal to you, we wish you a merry Christmas and a happy new year.

Book Review: “On Fairy-Stories,” J. R. R. Tolkien. The Tolkien Reader. New York: Ballantine Books, 1966.

Christopher Rush

Content Summary and Author’s Perspective

J.R.R. Tolkien’s early essay “On Fairy-Stories” summarizes (in seventy pages) Tolkien’s conception of the nature of fairy-stories, their connection to myths, their audience, and their three main functions of recovery, escape, and consolation.  Fairy-stories, according to Tolkien, are not the safest of places, since they contain “beauty that is an enchantment, and an ever-present peril; both joy and sorrow as sharp as swords” (33).  Tolkien creates a unique definition of fairy-stories, furthering his distinction from lesser tellers of tales: “fairy-stories are not … about fairies or elves, but stories about Fairy, that is Faërie, the realm or state in which fairies have their being.…  Most good ‘fairy-stories’ are about the adventures of men in the Perilous Realm or upon its shadowy marches” (38).  Throughout the essay, which is an apologia sans remorse, Tolkien defends fairy-stories as if they are important literature, as valuable and life-relevant as the poems of Homer or the novels of Proust and Stendahl.

Early in the essay, Tolkien describes various elements of fairy-stories, as just mentioned, such as their danger and characters.  Tolkien also contrasts them with other kinds of stories for clarification: a genuine fairy-tale is always presented as “true,” never as a dream or with similar machinery (42).  Beast fables, like the Three Little Pigs or The Wind in the Willows, while good stories, are not fairy-tales (42-3) according to Tolkien.  Myths and fairy-tales are similar, but Tolkien ascribes to myths an element of divinity and worship in the tales that are lacking in fairy-tales (49-51).  Similarly, contrasting Joseph Campbell’s monomyth conception, Tolkien doesn’t compartmentalize fairy-tales by a standard pattern of events, but instead a “colouring, the atmosphere, the unclassifiable individual details of a story” (46) is what make a fairy-story what it is:

An essential power of Faërie is thus the power of making immediately effective by the will the visions of “fantasy.”  Not all are beautiful or even wholesome, not at any rate the fantasies of fallen Man.…  This aspect of “mythology” — sub-creation, rather than either representation or symbolic interpretation of the beauties and terrors of the world — is, I think, too little considered (49).

Tolkien denigrates the pervasive attitude that fairy-stories are the domain of children.  If a story has quality, it is a good story regardless of who is reading it and why.  The main reason most people think fairy-stories belong to children is because that is the only kind of story available to them in the nursery.  If young ones appreciate fairy-stories, it is because the stories are intrinsically good, not because they are fit only for children.  Similar to that is the notion of “suspension of disbelief” — if a story is told as “real,” like good fairy-stories need to be, according to Tolkien, audiences won’t need to suspend any belief or disbelief: “if [adults] really liked it (the fairy-story), for itself, they would not have to suspend disbelief: they would believe — in this sense” (61).  A fairy-story, if it is a good story regardless of its genre, is good enough for any reader regardless of age.  If it is a good story, it can be analyzed as well as appreciated.

The pattern of “recovery, escape, and consolation” is as close to Campbell’s monomyth as Tolkien gets.  “Recovery” assumes some conflict has beset the community of the story as well as “a re-gaining — regaining of a clear view.…  I might venture to say ‘seeing things as we are (or were) meant to see them’ — as things apart from ourselves” (77).  Escape “is one of the main functions of fairy-stories, and since I do not disapprove of them, it is plain that I do not accept the tone of scorn or pity with which ‘Escape’ is now often used.…  In what the misusers are fond of calling Real Life, Escape is evidently as a rule very practical, and may even be heroic” (79).  The consolation “of fairy-tales has another aspect than the imaginative satisfaction of ancient desires.  Far more important is the Consolation of the Happy Ending” (85), what Tolkien coined “eucatastrophe.”  The purpose of all this is, for Tolkien, to emphasize the importance of a happy ending, or eucatastrophe, after much believable and serious conflict: what makes a good fairy-story worthwhile is because real life has its own eucatastrophe, Jesus Christ.

Critical Response and Evaluation

“On Fairy-stories” is almost as important to studying Tolkien’s world as reading The Silmarillion and The Lord of the Rings.  It provides great insight to his thinking about the nature of stories, and why he wrote fantasy; it closely resembles fairy-story, especially since his definition of Faërie is beyond the silly supernatural creatures found in poorer-written stories.  Even though the essay never mentions hobbits or dwarves, and only briefly mentions elves and dragons, it is an important place to begin any examination of the world of Middle-earth.

Mentioned above, Tolkien gives a fair amount of freedom to what constitutes fairy-stories.  Joseph Campbell did give a fair amount of leeway in what is a hero, but his focus in The Hero with a Thousand Faces is on what the hero does, not who he is.  Tolkien’s fairy-stories follow the basic “recovery, escape, and consolation,” but they have more variety than mythic heroes according to Campbell, since the authors can change whatever else happens, and to what degree mythic, fantasy, and magical elements appear in the tales.

Tolkien’s conclusion, that mankind has had its universal eucatastrophe in the work of Jesus, overtly betrays his Christian perspective.  I wonder if Tolkien’s declaration in “On Fairy-stories” is in part responsible for so many critics (of diverse skill) finding Christian symbolism throughout The Lord of the Rings that really isn’t there.  It is possibly the best defense of the “happy ending,” in contrast to the last few decades of critics who posit tragedy and destruction as superior and “more real” than happiness and true love.

In addition to Tolkien’s interesting concept of the “eucatastrophe,” his general defense of the worth and value of fairy-stories and their like is very refreshing.  He does not apologize for enjoying this kind of narrative, nor does he try to make a case for it being as valuable as other kinds of literature; instead he just analyzes and summarizes as if he is clarifying the misconceptions of the confused.  Like C.S. Lewis, he enjoys what he enjoys and has no qualms about it, but when he tries to convince others to enjoy it, he reasons his arguments lucidly and respectfully to the opposition (unlike the critics who denigrate Tolkien and Lewis).

“On Fairy-stories” provides an important beginning for understanding Tolkien’s creative processes when reading The Silmarillion and The Lord of the Rings.  We can understand these tales through formalist criticism, but this essay gives a deeper perspective behind Tolkien’s motivation and intention.  The Silmarillion and The Lord of the Rings are not “fairy-tales” exactly, even by Tolkien’s definition of them, but they are close cousins, like the fantasy genre of which he speaks highly in this essay.  His eucatrastophe concept explains why, after much loss and suffering, The Return of the King has a “happy” ending, one that fulfills the expectations of the heroes and sees evil conquered: life is like that because of Jesus, according to Tolkien.  Non-Christian critics and audiences might disagree with him theologically, but it would be difficult to fault the coherence and believability of the trilogy because of external religious differences.  The trilogy’s end is not forced or through an unbelievable deus ex machina (it is a slight deus ex machine, but is consistent within the reality of Middle-earth), fulfilling Tolkien’s ideas of great stories (whether or not they are fairy-tales) found in this essay.

Book Review: “The Quest as Legend: The Lord of the Rings.” Modern Critical Interpretations – J.R.R. Tolkien: The Lord of the Rings, Katharyn W. Crabbe. ed. Harold Bloom. Philadelphia: Chelsea House, 2000.

Christopher Rush

Content Summary

Crabbe’s essay analyzes Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings from the perspective that its mythic/epic qualities can be accurately interpreted as a connection to the past.  Obviously, the concept of “myth” is greatly past-centered, and for Crabbe, the success of characters and themes in Lord of the Rings depends in part on how well those characters and themes adhere to the “legends” of the past.  Highlights of ideas presented by Crabbe include the nature of a hero, especially in the hero’s connection to the past; the nature of creation; and the natures of good and evil within the framework of Lord of the Rings, again related to how the “good” and the “evil” maintains its connection to and appreciation for the past.  Crabbe’s overall emphasis, though, under which she uses the aforementioned subtopics for support, is what the title of her essay implies: The Lord of the Rings is a quest story with semi-archetypal quest-like heroes, and the plotted quest of the novels and the character quests of the heroes are connected to the legends of Middle-earth’s past, especially how language distinguishes the “good” from the “evil.”  Crabbe apparently approaches her analysis simply as formalist textual criticism, observing the text itself and understanding it from the perspective mentioned above, focusing on the elements in their connection to Middle-earth’s past.  Though not strictly formalist, in that she does demonstrate an understanding of previous ages of Middle-earth’s history not strictly recounted within the text of The Lord of the Rings proper, her analyses do not extend beyond Middle-earth, except in the application of broad, universal concepts of myths, heroes, quests, legends, and the like.

Author’s Perspective and Purpose

Crabbe does not present any overt biases within this essay, other than her apparent affinity for Tolkien’s sub-created world.  By connecting The Lord of the Rings to “classical” things that matter (myths, heroes, quests), she places a fairly high importance on the story and text itself.  She treats it all seriously, unlike other Tolkien critics who only want to ridicule and denigrate Middle-earth and its inhabitants (especially in Bloom’s collection).  As mentioned above, Crabbe seems to apply only a formalist textual criticism; she does not describe heroes in how they treat or mistreat female characters as a feminist critic might do, nor does she draw parallels to real-life overtones or symbols, as a Christian critic or an eco-friendly critic might do.  She is concerned with what is presented in the text and how that text can be understood in its own relation to Middle-earth’s past.  I have never heard of Katharyn W. Crabbe outside of this essay (though that doesn’t necessarily mean anything), but the edition notes she “has been the Associate Dean of Undergraduate Studies at the State University College in Geneseo, New York” and has some other publishing credits, so she does have an academic and critical background and is not just a Tolkien “fan.”

Since Ms. Crabbe analyzes The Lord of the Rings from the perspective of language and its relation to quests, myths, and heroes, she probably has some background in linguistics, if not just on a personal-interest level: she does not use within the essay any technical terminology in linguistics or mythology, but that could just be her intention of allowing for a wide readership of her essay.  She does demonstrate quite well, though, through the essay a clear understanding of the unity of Tolkien’s work, and her ideas about language, mythic quests, and heroes are very lucid and helpful.  Her other points about the natures of heroes and how they relate to the past of Middle-earth are very well done.  She clearly connects her ideas about language and the (legendary) past and how they are important throughout The Lord of the Rings, both as distinguishing the races of characters broadly, as well as distinguishing elements in heroes and villains within those races finely.

Critical Response and Evaluation

Ms. Crabbe’s overall thesis of language as a unifier of peoples and past in Middle-earth is insightful, if not thoroughly helpful, though I do find many of her other insights very helpful.  Her thirty-page essay was one of the longest and most cohesive essays I have read recently.  Many other essays from, perhaps, more scholarly sources, seem to pad the length through digression or bald topic changes without much relevance to the guiding thesis; Ms. Crabbe’s essay, however, is unified throughout.  Her essay is well-written enough that the ideas most helpful, especially concerning the nature of heroes in The Lord of the Rings, are inherently meaningful and consistent even if separated from her thesis of language’s importance in the legendary past and culturally distinctive present in Middle-earth.

When reading The Lord of the Rings, it is possible (especially in the post-movie version era) to focus only the plot, as it is with any novel.  Crabbe’s essay helps remind us that Tolkien’s purpose is not just to spin an exciting yarn about days gone by, but that he was recalling an extended episode of a place that had a beginning, a middle, and an end, and so did its peoples.  Her idea, “the trustworthiness of traditional and intuitive knowledge is a part of the larger value of respect for the past,” is very helpful in seeing this.  Many other critics have noted Tolkien’s penchant for nature and opposition to technology (in fairly heavy-handed arguments), but Tolkien’s Middle-earth is not just a yearning for a return to Rousseauean/Wordsworthian Natural idolatry — it is, as Crabbe says, a world that values and respect its past.  The most successful, most internally unified heroes in The Lord of the Rings are those who are attuned to that past.  Another good example is her comments about Faramir: “The difference between Boromir and Faramir is an expression of the difference in what they have inherited from their Númenórean past….  It is not only knowledge of the past but reverence for it and understanding of it that set Faramir apart, and that knowledge, reverence, and understanding are his links to the golden age….  By exemplifying a hero who values the spiritual life of a culture as well as its physical life, Faramir links the Rohirrim to Aragorn, King of the Númenóreans.”  Aragorn is obviously one of the main heroes of the novel, but Faramir, according to Crabbe, has similar heroic qualities, in that he, too, understands and reveres his past.  This, more than his father’s love according to Peter Jackson’s movies, is what truly sets him above his brother Boromir, who, unfortunately, has a limited perspective concerning his people and his role in Middle-earth.

Katharyn Crabbe’s essay is a very useful examination of Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings.  Even though she has a seemingly-narrow focus for her thesis, how language relates to people groups of Middle-earth and their connection to its legendary past, Crabbe has enough examples well-explicated that make it worth reading for a variety of purposes.  I found many of her insights useful to me almost despite her perspective of the role of language.  Her ideas on heroism and the mythical past of Middle-earth are helpful, even beyond the pair of specific quotations referenced above.  Though other essays I’ve read that describe the heroes of Lord of the Rings in more detail provide more ideas, the wide range of examples from Katharyn Crabbe distinguish her essay as useful to all Tolkien enthusiasts or critics, regardless of their linguistic backgrounds.

Book Review: Tolkien: New Critical Perspectives, eds. Neil D. Isaacs and Rose A. Zimbardo. Lexington: UP Kentucky, 1981.

Christopher Rush

Content Summary and Author’s Perspective

Isaacs and Zimbardo’s collection of Tolkien criticism, their second compilation since the completion of Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, offers a variety of essays about diverse issues and themes of Tolkien’s trilogy.  Because of the variety and wealth of critical possibility in Tolkien’s Middle-earth, I will concentrate here on three of the more important and useful essays.  Since the essays were brief, I will summarize their content and discuss the author’s perspective together.  All three of these essays were recollected in the editors’ more recent Tolkien collection Understanding The Lord of the Rings: The Best of Tolkien Criticism from 2004, but the page references are to the 1981 collection.

Lionel Basney’s “Myth, History and Time in The Lord of the Rings” presents in twelve brief pages a look at three crucial though often neglected aspects to Tolkien’s Middle-earth.  Basney is quite literate concerning mythological structure, teleology, and social progression, which becomes clear quickly in his brief essay; however, Basney subsumes his knowledge for the less-educated reader well, allowing the lay reader (who, though, should be more than a passing Tolkien fan) to get a sort of beginning look at applying teleological analysis to Tolkien’s Middle-earth.  Basney is also conscious throughout that a design in the Middle-earth universe, with a consistent and coherent cosmogony, might lead certain readers to posit a Christian/Biblical worldview or design upon Middle-earth, but Basney cautions against such a reading.  To Basney, Tolkien has explicit, coherent design and natural progression from age to age and people to people but also a “causal vagueness” (16) that should warn readers away from reading too much into it as a work of God or divine providence.  (Certainly The Silmarillion is more explicit about the supernatural powers at work in and around Middle-earth, but that is beyond Basney’s focus; The Lord of the Rings is much less explicit or dependent on Tolkien’s “God” Eru/Ilúvatar or “angels” the Valar.)

Verlyn Flieger’s essay “Frodo and Aragorn: The Concept of the Hero” does what its title implies, in that it examines the two major (obvious) heroes of The Lord of the Rings, from both their characters and actions.  Flieger draws on medieval and fairy-tale criticism to distinguish these two heroes, implying more than declaring that Tolkien did the same when he created them.  Aragorn is the typical medieval and mythical hero, the lost/forgotten king on his quest to restore his throne and marry his princess.  Frodo is the typical fairy-tale hero, an unusual creature who becomes embroiled in gargantuan tasks but survives and succeeds through cunning, luck, and magic.  Flieger’s key insight, though, is noticing that Tolkien inverts the culmination of both of these heroes’ quests: Frodo, the fairy-tale hero, suffers the loss of his finger and estrangement from the world he once loved; Aragorn, the medieval/mythic warrior who travels through the underworld and reunites the nations against the evil one gains the more typical fairy-tale ending of the restored kingdom and happily-ever-after marriage to the princess.

Third is Patrick Grant’s essay “Tolkien: Archetype and Word.”  Obviously Grant uses archetypal criticism: “Frodo moves through a process equivalent to Jung’s individuation, which is charted by the main action of the book” (93).  Grant also looks to Jung when analyzing Gollum’s role as Frodo’s shadow.  Throughout Grant’s analysis, he finds Tolkien’s counterpoint of light and darkness symbolic of identity: “Saruman’s multicolor, like the facelessness of the riders, indicates a dissolution of identity.  White is whole; fragmented, it is also dissipated” (98-9).  Grant’s conclusion relates somewhat to the “Word” component of the title, finding, like Basney, design in the archetypes of the story: “Tolkien plainly indicates throughout The Lord of the Rings that on some profound level a traditional Providence is at work in the unfolding of events.  And in a world where men must die, where there are no havens, where the tragedy of exile is an enduring truth, the sense, never full, always intermittent, of a providential design, is also a glimpse of joy” (103); the archetypes and design lead through the darkness into a saving light.

Critical Response and Evaluation

It is not surprising that these three essays were reprinted in the editors’ “best of” collection, since they were the cream of the crop from 1981’s collection.  Basney’s essay has great potential, given his obvious understanding of the interpretive framework by which he analyzed The Lord of the Rings.  I would have appreciated a longer, more advanced analysis from him; as it was, the essay provides only a few useful ideas — very useful, definitely, but not as many as the title suggested before I read it.  I appreciate Basney’s underlying perspective that, despite the pervasive teleology of Tolkien’s world, Tolkien was not creating an allegory of the Biblical story of creation nor was the “God” of Tolkien’s sub-creation, Eru/Ilúvatar, causing everything to happen, but instead was allowing growth and choices.  Basney’s insights, few though they were, are helpful: “One of Middle-earth’s governing cosmic conditions is the growth of legend into history” (16).  Structural repetition is essential in demonstrating how heroes in The Lord of the Rings, especially Aragorn, are types of the heroes that came before them discussed in The Silmarillion.  Another of his good quotations, “It is through the transformation of certain myths into experience that the free peoples recognize each other, and their common destiny and enemy” (13), helps us understand the mythical foundation of The Lord of the Rings.

From what we know of Tolkien’s reading habits, Verlyn Flieger is almost undoubtedly correct, at least in her analysis, if not the implications that Tolkien consciously created two discrete heroes both necessary to the completion of his tale.  Perhaps he was not consciously utilizing a medieval and fairy-tale hero, but Flieger’s analysis fits well.  She is, after all, probably the leading voice in Tolkien criticism, especially concerning the History of Middle-Earth series.  One somewhat lengthy quotation from her is worth the entire essay, and worth more than most of the essays in the collection:

Aragorn’s is a true quest to win a kingdom and a princess.  Frodo’s is rather an anti-quest.  He goes not to win something but to throw something away.…  Aragorn’s is a journey from darkness into light, while Frodo’s is a journey from light into darkness — and out again.…  To Frodo come defeat and disillusionment — the stark, bitter ending typical of the Iliad, Beowulf, and Morte d’Arthur (42).

She develops those ideas very well.  Like Patrick Grant, she highlights the importance of Gollum, with his role in the story more psychological than physical even though he leads Frodo and Sam through Mordor.  He is what Frodo could become, and Frodo must fight the psychological battle against the call of the Ring as well as fending off his own devolution into another Gollum.

Grant seems to discuss his archetypal approach to the trilogy more than the “Word” component, but at other times “Word … is a primary archetype” (88) throughout Tolkien’s work, so it gets a bit confusing.  Other than that, Grant’s Jungian archetypal analysis is quite interesting — were one to focus more on the archetypes of Tolkien, one would definitely need to read more Jung, but Grant’s introduction here is helpful — elaborating more than Flieger on Gollum’s role in the book.  Frodo and Gollum are opposites, but Sam is the stalwart center.  Another opposite crucial to Grant’s Jungian approach is Galadriel and Shelob, a connection I had never thought of before.  In addition to the generalized opposites, Grant emphasizes that characters aren’t really either good or evil but have components of both, and, as Galadriel’s scene by the mirror and Frodo’s entire journey illustrate, must choose to be either good or evil.  His comments and viewpoint are different from how I’ve read the books before and are quite useful even to Tolkien fans who are not interested in psychological or archetypal criticism.

Two Kinds of Wisdom: James 3:13-18

Christopher Rush

This year, during our consecrated times together, we will be exploring the cardinal virtues: wisdom, courage, justice, moderation, as well as the three foundational Christian virtues of faith, hope, and love.  While it might appear to a cursory examination that these will be disparate messages relating in no way to one another, that is certainly not true.  When I say that this message concludes the subject of wisdom and that next week we will discuss courage, do not think that you will be allowed to forget about wisdom.  As Mr. Moon said earlier, wisdom is the foundation of all the virtues we will examine throughout the year.

In math class, when you have advanced so far as to leave even numbers behind, regardless of the complexity of the calculations you and your calculator will be computing, you will never leave the basic principles of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division.  In English class, when you have advanced so far that you can analyze patterns and themes from any literary era or movement, interpreting metaphors, ironies, and symbols with the ease of an Inkling, you will never leave the basic principles of grammar, mechanics, and usage.

Wisdom is the goal, as well as the commencement.  Last week Mr. Moon exegeted for us the Beatitudes from the Sermon on the Mount.  Perhaps the most interesting aspect of that list is the fact that the first and last categories of people both receive the same reward.  “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven” (Matthew 5:3).  “Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:10).  Eternal life is the beginning of the Christian experience; it is also its end.  Even so, wisdom is the beginning of these virtues and will also be their end.  So do not think that while we are talking about courage or justice or faith that we aren’t talking about wisdom — we are always talking about wisdom.

As we sort-of-but-not-really conclude our time with wisdom, it occurred to me that a practical passage on wisdom would be of great benefit to all of us.  This is an odd occurrence, since I usually despise practical sermons.  In my day I have visited a diverse panoply of church bodies and heard a variety of speakers.  Often, in my experience (which, if it differs from yours, good for you), practical sermons and series do not require the church attendee to open a Bible.  An odd thing, isn’t that, for a gathering of Christians in an official “body of Christ” situation to neglect?  If I had to pick one thing that I hoped of all graduates of Summit Christian Academy after they leave my humble tutelage — just one thing — it would not, I must admit, be the chiastic structure of The Iliad, or great symbols of the Mississippi River in Huck Finn, or even that they purposed to commit the Shakespearean canon to memory.  The one thing, if I must choose only one thing, that I hope for all students of Summit, is that you love the Word of God (both written and incarnate), and cling to it desperately as you go out to a world that passionately hates you.  So today, without apology, we will be reading from the Word of God.  And, conveniently enough, it is both doctrinal (my personal favorite) and practical.  Bonus.

The Book of James is a superbly practical book.  Last year, the Men’s Ministry Team spent much quality time reading this book, and we examined its dozens of explicit commands on how to live the Christian life.  Throughout his letter, James makes many of his points using a great literary device known as juxtaposition.

Juxtaposition places two opposite ideas or characters next to each other to compare and contrast their attributes.  This technique has been used throughout time in many areas, from literature to music to general entertainment.  Homer places the greatest warrior of Greece sulking in his tent; next to him, Homer places Hector, Troy’s last, best hope for victory.  Taking both of his works together, we see the warrior mentality of Achilles contrasted with the strategic guile of Odysseus.  When opposite characters aren’t enemies but friends, they are sometimes called “foils.”  Hamlet has his Horatio, Darcy has his Bingley, and Holmes has his Watson.  I didn’t realize it when I first thought of these three examples, but upon further reflection it occurred to me that Hamlet, Darcy, and Holmes are all silent, brooding thinkers, while Horatio, Bingley, and Watson are all resolutely loyal to their often-sullen friends.

Many songwriters have also employed juxtaposition to get across their points, usually within about three minutes:

Well I would walk a million miles

To give her all that she needs

She would walk a million more

To do well as she pleased

Once upon a time I was fallin’ in love

Now I’m only fallin’ apart

So, so you think you can tell Heaven from Hell,
blue skies from pain.
Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
A smile from a veil?
Do you think you can tell?
And did they get you to trade your heroes for ghosts?
Hot ashes for trees?
Hot air for a cool breeze?
Cold comfort for change?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage?

Back in the day when comedians were funny because they were funny and not because they were vulgar, some of the greatest comedians of the 20th-century came in pairs — not pairs of comedians, but pairs of entertainers.  One was the comedian; the other was the straight man, often, but not always, a singer.  If you don’t know Abbott and Costello, Martin and Lewis, or Hope and Crosby, then you probably don’t actually know what comedy is.  No offense.

Though many of the previous examples of juxtaposition were opposites, they were complementary opposites (except for the music — funny how that happens).  Holmes and Watson and Abbott and Costello needed each other for success.  The juxtapositions James puts forth in his letter, however, are not complementary.  Most of his juxtapositions are either one choice or the other.  One choice is for life, the other for death.  And, like Romeo and Juliet, life and death can’t really spend a whole lot of time together.

In chapter 3, James gives the classic exhortation on taming the tongue.  He concludes by pointing out the inconceivability of the same water source producing both salt and fresh water and the unimaginable situation of a fig tree producing olives or a grapevine producing figs.  From those logical impossibilities James turns to the subject of wisdom.  And, as his wont, he juxtaposes two kinds of wisdom in James 3, verses 13-18:

13Who is wise and understanding among you?  By his good conduct let him show his works in the meekness of wisdom. 14But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth.  15This is not the wisdom that comes down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic.  16For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice.  17But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere.  18And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.

(English Standard Version)

As we have seen throughout this month, wisdom, according to the Bible, has nothing to do with self-aggrandizement.  Pride, boasting, and self-serving behavior are not acceptable by-products of wisdom.  In his classic commentary, Matthew Henry says, “[t]hese verses show the difference between man’s pretending to be wise, and their being really so.  He who thinks well, or he who talks well, is not wise in the sense of the Scripture, if he does not live and act well.  True wisdom may be known by the meekness of the spirit and temper.”  People who boast about their knowledge may in fact know a great deal of information.  Wisdom, however, they lack.  Wisdom is meek and allows the wise to live well.  Of the two kinds of wisdom, let us focus on the negative then turn to the positive.

Earthly wisdom is, in fact, no wisdom at all.  We may think we are being wise or intelligent when we plan and perhaps even succeed under our own strength or ability.  When we focus on ourselves, though, we can’t but help to think that all people are focusing on themselves.  So when we succeed, as James intimates, on our own power we boast and brag since it is something we have done by ourselves — no one helped us, not even God.  “Look at what great things I have done,” we say, perhaps only to ourselves.  Maybe our boasting is internal, and the world around sees nothing but a smug smile on our faces.  But James warns us that we have not in any way actually succeeding at anything.  We are, in fact, “being false to the truth.”  When we are consumed by selfish ambition and boasting about our accomplishments, we completely fail to see who has done the actual work or given us the ability to accomplish anything.

Also, as I mentioned earlier, when we are so wrapped up in selfish ambition, leaving no room for thoughts about others, not even God, we are forced to assume that all people around us are succeeding on their own merits and abilities.  This does not allow us to be glad for other people when they succeed, especially if it is against us.  If we are trying to win even something so inconsequential as a game with our selfish ambition and we lose, do we feel glad for our conqueror?  Of course not!  Our skills and abilities fell short, so we are deficient.  James readily acknowledges that a mind of selfish ambition cannot think positively about others.  Instead, as he says, we regard others with bitter jealousy.

Too many churches and too many Christians despise each other not because of doctrinal error or truly abhorrent practices, but because we are ensconced in selfish ambition and so are bitterly jealous of others when they succeed.  “Oh, well, if we lived in California and had Rick Warren as our head pastor, of course we’d have a huge, growing church!  Obviously if we had Chris Tomlin as our worship leader no doubt our worship times would be alive and meaningful — but we don’t have them!”  Utter preposterousness, as if God made a mistake when placing you here and now and not then and there!  Envying other churches because they have a success outreach campaign and we don’t?  This is certainly not admirable.  We aren’t to be jealous of Christians as if their success came from their strengths and abilities.

Selfish ambition is not new to the church.  Moments after Jesus restores Peter three times, according to the rule of three, Peter has the supreme dullness to look back at John and ask the Christ about what is going to happen to him.  Based on Jesus’ emphatic response, we can believe that Peter was not asking out of genuine concern for his fellow believer.  He was asking out of selfish ambition.  Jesus, knowing that could only lead to bitter jealousy, responded wonderfully.  “What is that to you?!  Don’t you concern yourself with what I have appointed for him.  YOU FOLLOW ME.”  Selfish ambition is lost in its focus and has no possibility of success or glorifying God.  The cure is to change our focus.  Follow Christ and His purposes.  Realize that we can do nothing on our own for good.  Any intelligence, any physical ability, any skill or talent we have did not originate within us!  Sure, we may have practiced and honed those skills and talents, but we did not endow them into ourselves when we were born.  All these things — our reasoning abilities, our strength, our very life — have come from above.  When we think we have done something we are mistaken and are being “false to the truth.”

Verse fifteen helps to clarify the nature of this selfish ambition.  When we believe that we are capable of success or goodness on our own, we are not truly employing wisdom.  The “wisdom” that enables bitter jealousy, boasting, and falsehood is not a heavenly wisdom; it is of this sinful earth — perhaps James is making the point that this kind of thinking is akin to the level of thinking done by a rock or a tree (not very complimentary).  Matthew Henry says of this verse

Those who live in malice, envy, and contention, live in confusion; and are liable to be provoked and hurried to any evil work.  Such wisdom comes not down from above, but springs up from earthly principles, acts on earthly motives, and is intent on serving earthly purposes.

Not only is it of this world, but James continues to describe its true origin: it is an unspiritual kind of thought process.  I would doubt that he is arguing for Monism, as if thoughts are merely chemical reactions to external stimuli and are simply mechanical functions of a material brain.  Instead, I believe he is trying to say that this kind of thinking is as far from God’s thinking as can be, a point he drives home in the last of his list of three: this thinking is demonic.  Now we get to the source of this “wisdom.”

Most people I’ve met, at one time or another, tend to get confused.  Well, about many things, but in particular, we all seem to believe that there is this thing that exists we like to call “what I want to do.”  Perhaps we phrase it like, “when I graduate and move out I’m going to start doing what I want to do, and my parents can’t do anything about it.”  “As soon as I get to college, boy, I’m going to do what I want to do.”  Unfortunately, though, and while I may be mistaken, I’ve come to believe that this thing we like to call “what I want to do” doesn’t actually exist.  There are really only two choices: what God wants me to do and what Satan wants me to do.

Now, please don’t misunderstand.  I am not in any way arguing, and I don’t believe James is arguing, for aggregate Dualism.  There are not, as some faiths posit, two eternal superpowers one we call “Good” the other “Bad” or “God” and the “Devil” (or both called “Lazarus”) constantly at war and neither is stronger than the other, but they are both equal and locked in mortal combat and we sometimes get caught in the crossfire.  That’s not what I’m saying: Satan and God are not equal in power or authority.  I’m saying that those are the only two alternatives we have by which to live our lives: God’s way or Satan’s way.  James, as mentioned before, does not give us a third option, usually.  We have a dilemma: whom will we follow?  What kind of wisdom will we employ?  There is no “my wisdom” or “what I want to do.”  Perhaps seeing the outcomes of both wisdoms will aid our choice.

Verse sixteen shows us the end of demonic wisdom: if we wrap ourselves in selfish ambition and jealousy, what do we find at the end?  Happiness?  Prosperity?  Never-ceasing fountains of root beer and skittles?  No.  We find “disorder and every vile practice.”  Selfish ambition and bitter jealousy are not easily sated.  In fact, I doubt they ever are.  Has Satan grown tired of doing what is evil yet?  I don’t think so.  And he’s very adept at it, too.  Jealousy can’t wish well-being on others and is not content to watch others succeed.  Selfish ambition does not promote harmony and cooperation but disorder and every vile practice.  I think we have all had enough experience at being alive that we need not go into detail about that phrase.  James, too, knows it is enough to say it before he moves on.  And so shall we.

The only other option before us is “the wisdom from above,” in verse seventeen.  This wisdom is “first pure.”  Have you ever had a cold glass of filtered water?  It is remarkable: no color, no taste, no additives — simply unadulterated refreshment.  It is no wonder that the best food and drinks that enable us to live a salubrious life are those that are pure.  Purity is essential.

Wisdom is peaceable.  Opposed to the disorder of selfish ambition and bitter jealousy, genuine wisdom is calm, quiet, serene, and harmonious.  The purity of a single glass of water expands to the tranquility of a placid lake in the cool of the late afternoon, sitting in a chair sipping fresh water reading Ivanhoe.  Peaceable wisdom acknowledges that God is the author of ability, intelligence, and success and needs not be jealous of others, since God is doing His work through others.  Peaceable wisdom knows that any achievements we do are because He has allowed and enabled them, not because we are self-sufficient.

Wisdom is gentle.  Certainly there is the time for righteous indignation accompanied by swift and concentrated justice.  Yet, wisdom is habitually gentle.  There is no boasting or bragging with wisdom.  College professors who bludgeon you with their lectures and ignore queries do so because they do not have wisdom.  They merely have a repository of knowledge and have no idea what to do with it.  Wisdom is calm and tender.  Jesus is the Lamb who was slain, silent before His shearers, benevolently taking the malevolence of sin upon Himself for us all.  Wisdom is honey to the lips, sweet and soothing.

Wisdom is open to reason.  Unlike the professors who allow for no argument or diverging opinions, wisdom from above seeks rational, intelligent discourse.  “Come, let us reason together,” calls the Lord.  We were created by and in the image of a rational Being who desires reasonable responses and interactions.  We could have been made mindless automatons who know of nothing but worshipping God, yet we have the choice and ability as Christians to reason with Him, to understand Him and His ways as much as we can.  God desires that.  Your teachers desire rational discussions and interactions with you because wisdom is open to reason.

Wisdom is full of mercy and good fruits.  Not Fruit Snacks, but real, pure fruit.  A pure, peaceable, gentle, reasonable attitude might be good enough from our perspective but not for the wisdom from above.  A bounty of mercy is almost too good to be true.  Wisdom from above understands the nature of fallen beings and the being-sanctified-but-not-yet-glorified nature of justified beings.  We need mercy, not just at the cross, but frequently, yea, daily.  Moment by moment, in fact.  Mercy does not obviate justice.  Just as the gentleness of wisdom allows for anger in its time, mercy does not let things go just to let things go.  Mercy has already paid the penalty for our transgressions, and mercy rebukes the Accuser when he tries to bring up forgiven debts.

Wisdom’s “good fruits” are the subjects of the remainder of our chapels this year, in the remaining cardinal virtues and the Christian virtues.  No doubt, too, they are the “fruit of the Spirit” Paul recites in Galatians.  James possibly also has in mind what he said in verse thirteen, that wisdom is shown in action.  Wisdom, some have said, is the right application of knowledge.  Having previously discussed earlier in chapter three that the same water source cannot produce both salt and fresh water, neither can the wisdom from above produce anything but good fruits.  The actions of the wise are good fruit.  Have you ever picked fruit from trees or vines?  It doesn’t take much effort to collect ripe fruit.  Actions done from wisdom are no struggle to perform and only benefit those who receive them.  Matthew Henry says this: “Those who are lifted up with such wisdom, described by the apostle James, is near to the Christian love, described by the apostle Paul; and both are so described that every man may fully prove the reality of his attainments in them.”

Wisdom is impartial and sincere.  According to Matthew Henry, “It has no disguise or deceit.  It cannot fall in with those managements the world counts wise, which are crafty and guileful; but it is sincere, and open, and steady, and uniform, and consistent with itself.”  Wisdom pays no attention to nationalities or gender.  It is consistent regardless of who needs it because it is pure.  In sincerity, wisdom never does anything “because it has to,” because it was assigned as homework, or “if it feels like it.”  Wisdom does what is right fully and whole-heartedly every time — all the time.

Then the good fruits of wisdom become an entire harvest of righteousness, and the peace that passes all understanding sows a bountiful reward for those who are blessed by the wisdom from above.  Genuine wisdom makes peace — how could it not?  It is pure, peaceable, gentle, reasonable, merciful, impartial, and sincere.  It does not “keep” the peace, placating tempers and symptoms while ignoring the sin and contention.  Wisdom solves conflict by bringing resolution, often by exposing sin and leading one to repentance and then, ultimately, peace.

How do we know which of the two kinds of wisdom we follow?  Our deeds will show us.  It is that simple.  If we are sowing a harvest of righteousness in peace, if we are pure, gentle, reasonable, merciful, impartial, sincere — we are wise with the wisdom from above.  If we are selfishly ambitious, bitterly jealous of others, always looking down and thinking about the things of this world, we are suffocating in the wisdom of this world, which is, in truth, a demonic distortion of wisdom.

The goal is wisdom, yet it is also the beginning.  I am reminded of the words of a not too-old spiritual, perhaps you may have heard it before.  This version I’m thinking of, though, is not the original, but the occasional live rendition performed years after its initial composition, done by the same artists, perhaps modified to reflect the growth and introspection after several years of performance and life:

You broke the bonds and

You loosed the chains

You carried the cross

You took my shame

You took the pain

You know I believe it

But I still haven’t found what I’m looking for.

Just as in the Beatitudes with the kingdom of Heaven being the initial and final reward, just as eternal life is something we can have now and can have in greater fullness in the next life, so, too, is wisdom the beginning as well as the goal.  While it may seem like we are done talking about wisdom and that we are moving on to another topic, we will find throughout this year that the more we talk about courage, justice, moderation, faith, hope, and love, we are really talking about the “good fruits” of wisdom.  It is always what we are looking for, no matter how much we may find it, no matter how well we experience it and live it out.

As a benediction, I will close with one final quotation from Matthew Henry’s insightful commentary on James chapter 3:

May the purity, peace, gentleness, teachableness, and mercy shown in all our actions, and the fruits of righteousness abounding in our lives, prove that God has bestowed upon us this excellent gift [of wisdom].

This essay is adapted from a chapel address given September 28, 2007.