My acceptance of the universe is not optimism, it is more like patriotism. it is a matter of primary loyalty. The world is not a lodging-house at Brighton, which we are to leave because it is miserable. It is the fortress of our family, with the flag flying on the turret, and the more miserable it is the less we should leave it.
–G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (p. 59)
God has given to mankind affections…that they might be subservient to man’s chief end, and the great business for which God has created him…And yet how common is it among mankind, that their affections are much more exercised and engaged in other matters than in religion! In things which concern men’s worldly interest, their outward delights, their honour and reputation, and their natural relations, they have their desires eager, their appetites vehement, their love warm and affectionate, their zeal ardent; in these things their hearts are tender and sensible, easily moved, deeply impressed, much concerned, very sensibly affected, and greatly engaged; much depressed with grief at losses, and highly raised with joy at worldly successes and prosperity. But how insensible and unmoved are most men about the great things of another world!
–Jonathan Edwards, Religious Affections (pp. 40-50)
Here‘s some background for this post. In a nutshell, Paul wrote the book of Romans (including Romans 13) around 57 A.D. The persecution under Nero did not begin until the mid-60′s A.D. Prior to this persecution, the bulk of the violence against Christians was perpetuated by Jews. In fact, Christians often sought refuge from the Jews by appealing to the Romans (see the book of Acts).
Here’s the question:
If the above information is true, how should it affect the way that we interpret and apply Romans 13? Specifically, does Romans 13 require the full obedience of Christians to civil authorities that are “a terror to good conduct” (13:3)? And if not, what circumstances would warrant resistance to the authorities?
In short, I had always believed that the world involved magic: now I thought that perhaps it involved a magician. And this pointed a profound emotion always present and subconscious; that this world of ours had some purpose; and if there is a purpose, there is a person. I had always felt life first as a story: and if there is a story there is a storyteller.
–G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (p. 52)
Bear with me and try a little experiment: Imagine 10 M&M’s laying on a table. Got it? Now imagine 100 M&M’s on the same table.
Now, if someone asked, could you explain the difference in relative size between the 10 and the 100? My guess is that you could.
Now imagine 1 billion M&M’s. Got it? Okay, now imagine 100 billion M&M’s. Now explain the difference in relative size.
Trickier, isn’t it?
I used this illustration in my class today to make a point that C.S. Lewis made in his book The Discarded Image. He’s discussing the size of the cosmos in the medieval perspective as opposed to our modern perspective.
For thought and imagination, ten million miles and a thousand million miles are much the same. Both can be conceived (that is, we can do sums with both) and neither can be imagined; and the more imagination we have the better we shall know this. The really important difference is that the medieval universe, while unimaginably large, was also unambiguously finite.
See the point? While it’s possible to explain the difference between 1 billion M&M’s and 100 billion (we can do the math), we can’t imagine it. The number is just too large. Talking about and imagining the difference between traveling 30 miles or 300 miles is meaningful. One is the distance from my house to Wisconsin. The other is the distance to Canada. And if I use Google Maps, I know about how long it will take me to get to either one.
But as soon as we get up into the really big numbers, the kind that end with “-illions,” we cease to have any sense of proportion. This has certain results on our thinking about “big” and “small.” Lewis continues:
[O]ne unexpected result of this [the difference between the modern conception of the universe as being unimaginably and inconceivably large and the medieval conception of a spectacularly large but finite space] is to make the smallness of the Earth more vividly felt. In our universe she is small, no doubt; but so are the galaxies, so is everything–and so what? But in theirs there was an absolute standard of comparison.
The result of this is that for us moderns to talk about the distance from here to the moon as compared to the distance to the sun is about as meaningful as two kids betting which one is going to flinch first in bloody knuckles (“I bet you a bazillion dollars.” “Oh yeah. I bet you a gazillion trillion dollars.” “Oh yeah, I bet you a billion trillion banana-fanana bobillion, fee-fi-mo-million dollars…”)
[PAUSE for random joke]
Since I will, Lord willing, be spotlighting the insanity of our current president over the next four years, I might as well use this one while it is still fresh in everyone’s mind:
One of President Bush’s advisors was updating him on casualty reports from the war. The advisor said, “Mr. President, I have some bad news. There was a firefight in Baghdad today and 3 Brazilian soldiers died.”
President Bush’s face went white. He stumbled to his desk and leaned on it for support. Finally, with trembling voice, he asked, “How many is a brazillion?”
[RESUMING NORMAL POST]
The point is that the problem of unfathomably large numbers is a distinctly modern one, and that it is, in fact, a problem. And, in case we needed another reminder, our duly elected officials just passed an 819 billion dollar “stimulus” package. For those keeping track, that’s $819,000,000,000. When interest over the next four years is factored in, it’s more like 1.1 trillion ($1,100,000,000,000).
This isn’t money that they actually have. They will either borrow it from someone stupid enough to trust them, or they will fire up the trusty printing presses and create it from nothing. What could go wrong?
A year ago, Congress was debating whether to expand a certain healthcare program by $30 billion. There was enough opposition that the proposed spending didn’t make it through. That’s a drop in the bucket compared to the new spending. And this is on top of the already huge government debt.
I seriously wonder if, when they’re putting these bills together, they have a competition to see who can name the biggest number. I guess if they ever pass a bill to spend “infinity dollars,” we’ll know.
It is possible that God says every morning, “Do it again” to the sun; and every evening “Do it again” to the moon. It may not be automatic necessity that makes all daisies alike; it may be that God makes every daisy separately, but has never got tired of making them. It may be that He has the eternal appetite of infancy; for we have sinned and grown old, and our Father is younger than we.
–G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (p. 51)
Not sure if anyone who reads this blog has been following the confirmation of Barack Obama’s Cabinet, but I thought this comment from Peter Kirsanow was pretty funny:
So . . . we’re going to have a tax cheat in charge of the IRS, a man instrumental in the pardoning of terrorists as top terrorism watchdog, and a woman whose husband gets tens of millions from foreign governments in charge of implementing foreign policy.
Hope and Change!
So apparently there is a new ad campaign in Britain sponsored by a bunch of atheists. In the grand tradition of the defiant skeptic, they have committed to remind their fellow Englishmen, “There’s Probably No God. Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Your Life.” It’s up on like 800 buses in England.
It’s just like when the French revolutionaries stormed the Bastille.
I mean, it’s not like the British don’t have “real” atheists. They do. In fact, many of them are best-selling authors here in America. Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett. All atheists, the kind that really don’t believe in God and aren’t afraid to tell you in the sharpest terms possible. The kind that write books with titles like: The God Delusion and God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. None of this namby-pamby “Probably No God” stuff.
So I wasn’t sure what to make of this new atheist slogan until I read about what their Dutch counterparts are planning. Soon Dutch buses will be graced (hah!) with the same fiery slogans that those English Double-Deckers don. But someone asked the Dutch atheists a very important question:
Which “god” doesn’t exist? And in talking about God, are you deliberately avoiding specific “gods” (like Jesus or Allah)? By using the term “God,” aren’t you really just going after the Christians?
“The term God is also a sort of container-concept. But if the campaign goes well, more will follow. The second reason why we start with this expression is because Christians are more accustomed to it. Muslims are more likely to react fiercely. I am therefore also more afraid of angry Muslims than angry Christians.”
Got it. If we thunder against the god of the Christians, they’ll probably shrug (or laugh) and keep walking. If we thunder against Allah, we might have to change our names, hire round-the-clock security, and move to America (!).
Atheism: The New Face of Courage (HT: Femina and Islam In Europe)
POST-SCRIPT: This story reminds me of a Table Talk we had with Pastor John after he returned from his sabbatical in England. He told us about a certain t-shirt shop that had shirts proclaiming “Bush Is a Terrorist!” and other such slogans. He said that he wanted to walk in and ask the proprietor a question. He imagined the conversation going something like this:
“Excuse me, I just noticed your ‘Bush = Murderer’ t-shirts and was wondering if you could answer me a question: Why don’t you have any ‘Osama bin Laden Is a Terrorist’ t-shirts?”
“Uh, I dunno.”
“I do. BECAUSE YOU’RE A COWARD!
Now that would have been entertaining.
A while back I noted a recent law that was going to place a huge burden on thrift stores, consignment stores, and sellers of specialty toys. In the comments, Kassie happily noted that some sort of sanity had returned and that, while everyone has to comply with the law, not everyone has to certify that all of their products have been tested, a small but important step in the right direction.
Now a friend has alerted me that the American Library Association believes that the law as written requires them to either remove all books for children under 12 or remove all children under 12. Got that? Either get rid of the books or don’t allow the kids in. To the library.
The article also notes that schools may be up next. I can see the headline now:
Kids Banned From Schools For Their Own Safety
And don’t forget the key point: the people who actually drafted this regulation didn’t see this coming.
I feel safer already.
Because children have abounding vitality, because they are in spirit fierce and free, therefore they want things repeated and unchanged. They always say, “Do it again”; and the grown-up person does it again until he is nearly dead. For grown-up people are not strong enough to exult in monotony. But perhaps God is strong enough to exult in monotony.
–G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (p. 51)
Now, to put the matter in a popular phrase, it might be true that the sun rises regularly because he never gets tired of rising. His routine may be due, not to a lifelessness, but to a rush of life.
–G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (p. 51)
But the repetition in Nature seemed sometimes to be an excited repetition, like that of an angry schoolmaster saying the same thing over and over again. The grass seemed signaling to me with all its fingers at once; the crowded stars seemed bent on being understood. The sun would make me see him if he rose a thousand times. The recurrences of the universe rose to the maddening rhythm of an incantation, and I began to see an idea.
–G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (p. 50)
Today Jenny and I went to see the movie “Defiance”, starring Daniel Craig and Liev Schreiber. It is the story of Russian Jews who escape to the woods during the Nazi invasion of Belorussia. While many of their friends and families are murdered by the Nazis, the survivors seek to rebuild their lives under the protection of three brothers. The acting was very good and the battle scenes were great (there’s even some romance for all the ladies in the house).
Both Jenny and I really enjoyed it.
The trailer can be found here.
The mere repetition made the things to me rather more weird than more rational. It was as if, having seen a curiously shaped nose in the street and dismissed it as an accident, I had then seen six other noses of the same astonishing shape. I should have fancied for a moment that it must be some local secret society. So one elephant having a trunk was odd; but all elephants having trunks looked like a plot.
G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (p. 50)
Once there were two robins who were married. We’ll call them Papa Bird and Mama Bird, for they had just received the happy news that chicks were on the way (Don’t ask me how they knew; they just did). Needless to say, they were both very excited, as this was their first time to have eggs of their own.
After the first few days, however, Papa Bird’s excitement turned to confusion as he began to notice some odd behavior around his house. At first it was small things: he would come home from worm-hunting and find that his favorite twig, the one he sat on every night, had been moved across the nest. Being a patient bird, he didn’t say anything, but just adapted to the new view.
But his confusion continued when, a few days later, his twig was again moved to a third part of the nest. And then a fourth. Having heard that this sort of thing was “normal” (if that’s the right word) in expectant females, he again kept his mouth shut.
Then one day he came home to discover that the red twine that held the inside of the nest together had been removed and discarded beneath the tree, along with the wallpaper and gum wrappers that had adorned the east side of the nest. Taking the twine in his beak, he flew to the nest to find out what the problem was. But before he could ask, he was greeted with a question from his wife.
“Could you fly down to the big parking lot and get me some new twine. Light green and yellow please. And pick up a couple of saplings on the way back?”
“What’s wrong with this twine?” Papa Bird said, motioning to his beak. “And do you mean the big parking lot that’s three miles down the road?”
“Yes, that’s the one. And nothing’s wrong with that twine.”
“If nothing’s wrong with it, why are we replacing it?”
“Because the green one is prettier. And it’s just time for a change.”
“Well if it’s time for a change, why can’t we just use some of the twine that we’ve stored in the hole over there?”
“It’s called basic sanitation. Do you really think I’m going to have that filthy and dirty old stuff anywhere near our new chicks?”
“But I don’t understand. You’ve been moving stuff around around in this place for weeks. It’s like a totally new nest. Why do you all of a sudden feel this need to rearrange everything?”
“For the same reason that you feel the need to get up, puff out your bright red chest, and sing the same song every morning.”
