Gadfly's Muse

A True Scotsman: The Boundaries of Evangelicalism

(click on image for larger version)

It is interesting that in his 1927 lecture "Why I Am Not A Christian", Bertrand Russell felt that he must first define what he meant by the term "Christian" before he could proceed to argue the grounds for not being one. (Link Here)  Even in his day the onslaught of liberalism within the Christian camp had so dramatically obscured the term that common use failed to distinguish the sheep from the goats.

Russell did not do a very good job in his definition, in my opinion.  He opened the definition to include any who believed in God, immortality and that Jesus was, at least, the best and wisest of men.  This last is far removed from orthodoxy and thus Russell's definition is not nearly precise enough.  However, in his day, the definition and the exclusiveness which it had, weak though it was, seemed reasonable enough to his audience.  There was no particular resistance to the idea that one can deny the legitimacy of a label to a person or group who adopt it.  Russell was in effect holding forth that some who called themselves Christians, were, in fact, not.

A Darwinian Nightmare

(This is a re-pub from a couple of years ago)

Originally they were intended to establish the first dependent colony in the new  frontier of Mars.  There was not much which would have recommended their sophisticated and complex ship to the original Conestoga wagons, but the concept was the same.  Go to Mars, carve out the first steps of an envisioned future space port, a way point for further galactic or even inter-galactic travel.  Settle down, have children, become the space-age equivalent of the Mayflower.  Even the title of their mission, Plymouth Venture, pointed back to those nearly forgotten years when the promise of a new land, new beginnings and the opportunity to be involved in a dream of enormous potential claimed the imaginations of so many.

Reflections on The Devil & The Fashion Industry

The Devil Wears Pravda is a pretty good movie though the terms "cliched" and "predictable" are pretty apt. The acting is quite good and Meryl Streep is absolutely perfect for her role as the consumed business woman whose ambitious dream has become nightmare for herself as well all who fall under her rule.

There are some genuinely funny moments in the movie, mostly by Stanley Tucci's character. His ascerbic wit and resigned nobility under fire is, perhaps, the best character study in the whole work. Without revealing too much for those who may not have seen it, his short speech when he receives the worst disappointment of his life, is absolutely superb, both in delivery and content. It sums up the whole relationship that a person has to have in order to work with, live with and be consumed by, a high achieving, powerful creature such as Miranda Priestly (Streep). For all those who contemplate the world of power and recognition, whatever the industry, note well from Tucci what such life entails.

There were a couple of instances in the movie which causes one to chuckle about things that the director probably didn't intend.

Reflections: Virginia Tech & The Culture of Violence

Matthew 5:22  "But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, 'Raca!' shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be in danger of hell fire.

The shrill voices are already at work.  "Ban gun sales!", "Tighten security!", "Psychological profiling!".  As the nation grieves, recoils and with a morbid voyeurism stares endlessly at our TV sets; as we  listen to more mindless drivel rehearsing the same story in breathless and subdued voices; nothing approaching sober analysis comes through.  We are a nation who reacts, we rear our heads in passion and clutch at straws with our hands, but the passion passes and we ease back into the tepid waters that surround us, oblivious to the very currents in the stream which kill our soul and make such events as happened this week probable.

The most grievous lesson that we should learn from the massacre at Virigina Tech is: it takes something like this to shock us!

Delight In The Labor Of Our Hands

Ecclesiastes 3:22   So I perceived that nothing is better than that a man should rejoice in his own works, for that is his heritage. For who can bring him to see what will happen after him?

Follow the converging lines in Vermeer's  The Milkmaid ( use the link for an interactive presentation that is quite helpful).  Note the line from the wall through the basket and lamp down to the milk pouring from the pitcher.  Now start up from the pitcher and note the line that corresponds to the girls right arm and continues with her inclined head.  The two lines are a perfect "v".  Note how the converging lines of the table and the food sitting on it, the left side with the edge of the bread basket extending through the top of the jug converges at the same point and then completing a downward "v" on the right side there are the edges of the bread crusts and the side of the bowl into which the milk is being poured extended down through the exact line of the woman's blue apron.  Completing the task is a horizontal line through the woman's left arm to the elbow that extends through the pouring milk to the top of the jug.  What we see are two "v's" intersecting on a level plane. These  lines draw us into the action of the picture:  it is what the woman is doing rather than her person which is the artist's object.

Note the magnificent interplay of light and shadow, contrasting textures and delicate colors - of milk being poured!  The honor in the painting, as with the focal point, is not accorded to the milkmaid; her beauty is plain and her face is somewhat shadowed.  The honor in the painting is extended to the table set with food.  It  has the brightest lighting, it has the most lustrous detail, the bread and the milk are wondrously rendered.  The honor and the glory in this painting is on the table, it is the completed task, a table prepared and ready for the family or the guests, which communicates to us a certain sense of satisfaction and contentment.  Vermeer is showing us the nobility of honest labor and the joy and beauty which can accrue to even the simplest of tasks.
 

Oh My God, What If Pluralism Is Not A Good Idea?

You cannot expect continuity and coherence in politics, you cannot expect reliable behaviour on fixed principles persisting through changed situations, unless there is an underlying political philosophy: not of a party, but of the nation. You cannot expect continuity and coherence in literature and the arts, unless you have a certain uniformity of culture, expressed in education by a settled, though not rigid agreement as to what everyone should know to some degree, and a positive distinction --however undemocratic it may sound -between the educated and the uneducated.

The Idea of a Christian Society. T. S. Eliot - author. Publisher: Harcourt, Brace. Place of Publication: New York. Publication Year: 1940. Page Number: 40.

Yeah, I know, T. S. Eliot probably isn't on everyone's list of people to read.  He probably hasn't made the cut in many of today's universities.  There is that nagging problem of anti-Semitism, proven or not.  But what if some of the stuff he says is true?

The Way Of All Flesh

With the passing of Dennis Doherty back in Jan the group is down to only Michelle.  There is a great sadness.

Thought For Today

“What it comes to is that your conception of human nature may be not merely wrong, but impolite. If you think God or nature had a purpose in making two sexes, so that sodomy isn’t quite on a par with making babies, please—keep it to yourself! In Washington, sodomy isn’t disapproved; but the word sodomy is, and you can damage your career by using it in public. You are expected to let on that you’d be horrified to learn that your son smokes Camels, but proud to learn that he’s gay. Would these be the reactions of any parent you know? What hypocrisy! But such is sophistication. We display our refinement by pretending not to have natural feelings. In the space of a few years, the tradition of millennia is repudiated. What’s more, the repudiation is mandatory for everyone. You might think that a liberal, tolerant society would leave a little room for what, until recently, everyone assumed, but no!—no trace of the old attitude is permitted. The one thing liberalism has ‘zero tolerance’ for is the past. We live in a pluralistic society now, where everyone must think and talk alike, in keeping with the latest federal diversity guidelines. Needless to say, there is precious little diversity about all this.” —Joseph Sobran

Quoted in http://archive.patriotpost.us/pub/07-15_Brief/page-2.php

The Limits of Reason

Proverbs 4:23   Keep your heart with all diligence, For out of it spring the issues of life.

Perhaps no fallacy is so widespread as that which identifies man as an essentially rational animal, who guides himself by reason and whose choices in life are disciplined by logic. 

I grant that some individuals come closer to this standard than others, but those that do are generally viewed with suspicion if not down right distaste by their neighbors.  Where individuals are most often able to order things according to a strict rationalism is when the sphere of action is confined within the limits of disinterest; when it doesn't affect that individual 's core of existence, whether lifestyle, personal consideration, or other such elemental issues.

When it comes to the core, more often than not, and as a general description of humanity, it is not the rational mind that rules, but rather as Proverbs says - it is the heart.

Required Reading For Adults

The Death of Adam, by Marilynne Robinson
Copy of posted review on Amazon.com, 4 Mar 07
(NYT Review is posted here )

"The Death of Adam" is unapologetically written for folks who actually value the activity of thinking.  Robinson's writing style, as with her novels, requires some adjusting.  She actually expects us to hold a thought in our head as she rambles a bit as the muse of reflection gathers her thoughts, but  her penetration is exquisite.

I am a Christian of conservative persuasion, though Robinson is not.  There are points of departure in her thought that run counter to my own inclination.  But Robinson's iron sharpened mine in distinct areas and I greatly profited by her thought.  I have not found a better debunking of Darwinism (in contrast to evolution) written anywhere.  Her insistence that people ought to actually read Calvin and Darwin and others before they ridicule or embrace them is refreshing in the extreme.  Her winsome insistence that intellectual courage begins by standing against the "Petty Coercion" of faddish opinion takes the best thought that could be gleaned from Jean Paul Sartre (though she does not trace her thought there) and firmly takes it captive under a Christian banner.  These essays are a reminder that people can think and a moral admonition that it is an activity we ought to undertake more often.

Warning: Robinson warns you up front that she will not stoop to using simplistic language when nuanced thought demands complex phrasing.  If you are looking for "bumper sticker" philosophy you will not find it here.  If you are up to the challenge of pondering what she says and why she says it as she does, the fruit is well worth the effort.