Author

By In Politics

The Fallacy of Corporate Sponsorship of Planned Parenthood in a Capitalistic Economy

Guest post by Chad Poorman

Abortion! We’ve been fighting this battle openly since the 70’s. We have prayed fervently in our churches, protested lovingly, sought counsel and economic relief for those considering “the way out.”  Recently, we won victories with the Center For Medical Progress videos clearly showing the brazen evil of Planned Parenthood.  As a result of these videos the Daily Signal posted a list of companies that contribute to PP. Our friend and regular Kuyperian contributor Andrew Isker wrote a piece for Kuyperian on July 23rd encouraging the Body of Christ to contact the corporate sponsors that donate to PP and ask for their stance on the viral videos.  I read Pastor Isker’s article and began to contemplate how to get involved and which companies I should contact (read it and get involved).

As I muddled through my day in and out of prayer and contemplation, it occurred to me that these companies that donate to PP are companies that are all about profit, “making coin,” generating revenue.  Why would these companies support the murder of babies? PP is a non-profit (wink wink nudge nudge), or at least is categorized as one.  Being overly gracious I chalked it up to a tax break.  When these corporations give to PP they receive a tax break and it is written off as charity.  Do you see the fallacy?  These companies give money to receive a tax break and the organization that they support is openly and legally killing their potential patrons.  Do these companies realize that a baby grows up, gets a job, and is able to consume their goods and services?  Surely no tax break could equal the about of money aborted babies could spend in our economy.  It does not make sense, there is no logic.

I became even more curious about the depth of this fallacy.  Taking the list from the Daily Signal, I picked a company that is all over my house, Bath and Body Works.  Their product is at every sink, in my showers, under cabinets, on my walls, this stuff is everywhere.  My wife and daughter use their soaps, shower gels, lotions, body butters (whatever that is), and lip balms.  How did all this get into my dwelling? My wife will often go to the mall with her mother, and they stop into Bath and Body Works and bring home gads of their various products.  I ask, “Don’t we have enough?” She responds, “They were buy one, get two.”  How can a company stay viable if they are giving so much product away.  They must have a large profit margin on their product, and if that is the case they are making cach hand over fist.

What are the statistics? Bath and Body Works is America’s largest mall beauty brand.  There are over 1,600 stores nationwide. They are owned by the L Brands Inc. (the L Brands also owns Victoria’s Secret).  They opened their first store in 1990.  Bath & Body Works does approximately $145,000,000 in sales every year.  One of their shower gels is priced at $12.50.

Planned Parenthood has been involved with abortion since Roe v. Wade in 1973 (I am suspicions they were doing abortions before 1973).  PP has committed approximately 6 million abortions in the last 42 years, which is an average of 142,857 lives per year.

Bath & Body Works is a large company that is in virtually every mall in America.  $75,000,000 is the amount of money Bath & Body Works would make if every aborted American baby never happened and was able at some point in their lives to purchase one retail priced shower gel.  The numbers are astounding.  Seventy-five million dollars! American corporations that sponsor PP, take a stand and look at the babies in the womb as potential lifelong patrons of your companies.

Christian, if bad publicity, and public pressure will not change the corporations’ minds, hopefully, prayerfully an understanding of potential earnings will.  I encourage you to read Andrew Isker’s article, it will help you as you get involved and fight this war.

Chad Poorman teaches 4th grade, Latin and Greek at Trinitas Christian School and is a member of Providence Church in Pensacola.  He is an avid bibliophile, and enjoys any conversation about books and Medieval history.  He enjoys cooking with his wife and daughter.

Read more

By In Scribblings

While It Is Still Called, “Today”

God is now calling all men everywhere to repent, which means he is not calling any men anywhere to wait until they’re certain they’ve been made alive before they repent. Seek Him while he may be found; call upon Him while He is near; drink from the living water He now offers, for He has not only secured life, He is life. Faith is the evidence of things unseen, and although you may not yet see evidence of new life, faith will repent, drink the living water, and trust that fruit will follow, that life will follow. When we see streams of living water flow from repentance, we know that it is God who works in us both to will and to do of His good pleasure, we know that the wind, the Spirit, has moved. Our heavenly Father always has a fatted calf ready to slaughter for the feast following repentance. The angels are ever itching for the party.

Our faith is not in our faith. Our hope is not in our fruit. Our sure and steadfast hope is that Jesus died to conquer death, and he ever lives to impart His own life to us, in us, and through us to the world.

Read more

By In Scribblings

Happiness is Eating God

In Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis proposes the Fall of Adam and Eve occurred when they tried to “invent some sort of happiness for themselves outside of God, apart from God.” From this has flowed all the sinful acts and all their ill effects throughout the course of human history. Our history is “the long terrible story of man trying to find something other than God which will make him happy.”

However, as a motor designed to run on fuel cannot run without it, so the human being, designed to feed on God, cannot be happy without him. Lewis goes so far as to say, “God cannot give us a happiness and peace apart from Himself, because it is not there. There is no such thing.”

Lewis wasn’t making this stuff up. Jesus said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.” (John 6:53-55)

It is no small coincidence that the first temptation revolved around food, the consummation of all things happens around a meal, and in the interim we commune with God around His table. God is the source of all pleasure and all fulfillment, but not a source producing things which, once imparted, make us happy. He gives us himself. He is the fuel. He is the food. He, himself, is the fulfillment. “God cannot give us a happiness and peace apart from Himself, because it is not there. There is no such thing.”

Read more

By In Scribblings

C. S. Lewis Comments on SCOTUS Decision

“For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious.”
–C. S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man

Read more

By In Scribblings

Evil, Lies, and Ugly: Thoughts on Privation

by Marc Hays

In The City of God, Augustine of Hippo wrestled with the problem of evil. Augustine summarized his thoughts with the now famous maxim: “Evil has no positive nature; but the loss of good has received the name ‘evil.’” Evil is not a thing; it is a privation—a lack of a thing, namely goodness.

The qualities of being have been aptly summarized in classical philosophy in the triad commonly referred to as the “transcendentals”—namely “goodness, truth, and beauty.”  Augustine has relegated the definition of evil to a privation of the good; the very existence of evil is ultimately contingent upon the existence of the good, for evil cannot describe any act except the one that does not attain unto goodness. Consider for a moment an extension of Augustine’s maxim to the other two of the three, ancient transcendentals: truth and beauty.

Truth is often considered under the realm of knowledge, and most of us hold to the notion the truth is “that which corresponds to reality.” We also know, however, that truth can be embodied, enfleshed, and incarnated for Jesus Christ said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” So truth is more than a logical correspondence with reality, but it is nothing less than that.

Continuing with Augustine’s idea of privation, a “lie,” would be a description of that which does not correspond with reality. There is no category for “lie” unless there is a “truth” to be misrepresented, twisted, corrupted. Borrowing Augustine’s axiom, a lie would be a privation of the truth. A lie stands between the knower and that which is to be known, casting a shadow.

Following this line of thought, the third of the transcendentals, “beauty,” ought to be considered within the same category of goodness and truth, while “ugliness” would fall into the category of evil and falsehood. Following Augustine again, that which is ugly is a description of that which does not attain unto the standard of beauty.

There is no apt description of ugly unless beauty is the canon, the standard, the rule. There is nothing easier than to believe with our culture that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” We have replaced “beauty” with “preference” and we sleep easy at night believing that the transcendental triad is fine as a duo. We fight for objective goodness, and we fight for objective truth, all the while affirming with the spirit of our age that beauty is up for grabs. The longer the church affirms that there is no such thing as objective beauty, the more ugliness will be preferred, both within the church and without.

Read more

By In Culture, Family and Children, Theology, Wisdom

God Is Not Enough: The Story of Christian Community

Guest post by Pastor Rich Lusk

God pic

The story of Christian community begins, as every Christian story does, in the Garden of Eden. Adam was created in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness. He was created in perfect covenantal fellowship with the Triune Lord. No sin stood in the way of their communion, as the Creator and creature loved one another in fullness. Moreover, Adam didn’t have to earn anything; God had freely and graciously blessed him. He had all the privileges of divine sonship. The Lord had, in the most intimate way, breathed life into Adam, imparting his own Spirit to the first man (Gen. 2; cf. Jn. 20). The Lord gave him access to the Tree of Life and a fatherly warning to avoid the Tree of the Knowledge of Good Evil until the time was right. The Lord gave him meaningful labor, as he was to serve and guard the garden the Lord had planted for him. He had abundant food and a beautiful environment in which to live, worship, and play. All of creation was his, as God’s vice-regent. And yet, the Lord evaluated the situation at the mid-point of the sixth creation day and said “It is not good that man should be alone” (Gen. 2:18).

Alone?! Adam was emphatically not alone at his creation. He enjoyed friendship with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He was the son of God. He was included in the Triune family. What more could he need? We’d expect the text to read, in harmony with the rest of Gen. 1-2, “And the Lord God said, ‘It is good for man to be with me, to have me as his friend.” But that’s not what the inspired narrative says.

Apparently Adam’s pre-fall communion with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit was not enough. God made man for more than fellowship with himself. To be complete, to be satisfied, to be fully realized as a creature made in God’s image, the man needed fellowship with other humans. He was not only created, as Augustine suggested, with a Trinity-shaped void in his heart that only the Father, Son, and Spirit could fill; he was also created with a human-shaped void that only other people could fill.

This is part of what it means to be made in God’s image. God is not a single individual. He is a community of three distinct persons, bound together in an absolute oneness of love and fellowship. For man to image this kind of God required a plurality of humans in fellowship with one another. An isolated individual is not a full image of the plural Godhead. Thus, God is not enough. People need other people to be complete. We were made for each other.

Because we are made in God’s image, God is the model for humanity. The Father, Son, and Spirit mutually indwell one another’s lives (Jn. 13-17). The theological term for this is “perichoresis.” “Peri” is Greek for “around.” We get the word “choreograph” from “choresis.” The idea is that the three persons of the Godhead “dance around” or “dance within” one another. Their lives are totally intertwined. They move in lockstep with one another because they abide within one another. But this is precisely how we are to live in Christian community. We are to open our lives to others so they can indwell us, but we are also to seek to “move into” the lives of others, abiding in them. In this kind of community, as we indwell one another and live “perichoretically,” we image the life of the Triune God.

Obviously, the claim “God is not enough” is hyperbolic. This should not be understood in an idolatrous fashion. Obviously, in an ultimate sense, God is enough for man. We can and must still speak of the absolute adequacy of God. It is God, after all, who provided all Adam’s needs. It is God who created Eve and gave her to Adam as the crown of his other gifts. God stands back of all Adam’s satisfaction and joy. It is God who ultimately completes Adam.

But our point here concerns God’s creation design. God designed humans to live in community with one another. This is part and parcel of what it means to be imago Dei. God made us in such a way that vertical fellowship with the divine would be insufficient; we also need horizontal fellowship with other humans. God did not just make us for himself, he made us for each other.

Or, to look at things from another angle, God made the world in such a way that his presence would be mediated from one human to another. God dealt directly with Adam, but for the most part God deals indirectly with us. He speaks to us, disciplines us, molds us, and so forth, though the agency of others. God works through means, especially the means of humans made in his image.

Community is inescapable. Each one of us comes into existence only because two other people “communed” (so to speak) in just the right way. After birth, we would perish in days, if not hours, if others did not care for us. We learn every social skill we possess (or don’t possess) from others – language, manners, games, proficiencies, etc. And this need for others is not something we outgrow. It is more obvious in the case of infants, but just as real in the case of adults. No man is an island and no man is self-sufficient.

Thus, the pessimistic dictum of existentialist philosopher Jean Paul Sartre, “Hell is other people,” is exactly backwards. Hell is the absence, not the presence, of other people. In fact, in hell, the wicked will be utterly alone, apart from an all-too-personal, all-too-close relationship with the God they utterly despise. Contrary to existentialism, other people do not stifle our freedom or get in the way of our self-actualization. Rather, it is precisely in community that we are free to find and be our true selves. We are not self-made, but God- and others-made.

Heaven and the new creation are precisely what Sartre dreaded, but in a form he could not imagine. Heaven is, as Jonathan Edwards put it, “a society of love.” It is not the absence of other people, but precisely their presence that makes heaven so heavenly. The saved community is marked out even in the present by this mutual love (Jn. 13). Our love for one another shows that the power of God’s new creation is already at work in the world. This love will be perfected in the resurrection.

Ultimately, salvation itself must be understood in communal terms. Just as sin wrecked our fellowship with God and with one another, so in redemption that fellowship is restored. Psalm 133 spells out the connection between salvation and community in beautiful, poetic terms. Brothers dwelling together in unity is likened to the precious anointing oil flowing down Aaron’s beard to the edge of his garment. The priest’s body and robe become symbolic of the oneness of the community. The body of the priest is now the body of Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 12). The oil – usually symbolic of the Spirit in Scripture – covers the body from head to toe. The psalmist goes on to compare fellowship among the redeemed to the refreshing dew of Hermon flowing down Mount Zion. This is an interesting picture, since Hermon was in northern Israel and Zion in the south. The Spirit, now symbolized by the dew, unites things disparate in space and even culture. The conclusion is remarkable: “For there the Lord commanded his blessing – life forevermore.” That is to say, eternal life takes the shape of community life. The structure of the psalm itself makes the point: Just as the inner sections of the psalm match (oil and dew, priests and mountains), so the outer sections match (brothers dwelling together in unity and eternal life).

The gospel, then, is irreducibly social. Liberals in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century used the label “social gospel” to refer to their program. They substituted salvation from poverty and ignorance through state-mandated welfare and educational programs for salvation from sin and damnation through the cross and Spirit. One theologian characterized the social gospel of liberalism as a God without wrath, bringing men without sin into a kingdom without judgment though a Christ without a cross. Obviously, that is a total distortion of the biblical teaching.

But in another sense, we could benefit from restoring and redeeming the label “social gospel.” The gospel is social through and through. Traditional Christian teaching claims that outside the church there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. That is to say, forgiveness from sin and incorporation into Christ’s body go hand in hand. Salvation includes a new status (justification) and a new community (the church).

Moreover, the whole Christian life can only be lived out in the context of the church community. The New Testament authors presuppose that followers of Christ will be discipled in the matrix of an ecclesial community (cf. Acts 2:42ff). Numerous apostolic commands only make sense in this light. For example, we are told to love one another, pray for one another, bear one another’s burdens, confess to one another, forgive one another, and so on. In other words, we’re to “one another one another.” But this can only happen in the environment of a church body. It can’t be done in isolation.

American Christians struggle with these things because of our heritage of individualism and dislike for authority (including church authority). Community means you give up some privacy, some of your rights. It means you sometimes have to accommodate yourself to things you wish could be done differently. You have to learn to “give a little,” and to be flexible. It means we have to learn that life together involves becoming vulnerable at times, admitting weaknesses and needs. It also means meeting needs and showing strength on behalf of others at times. Communal life means we are willing to submit to the brethren, especially those God has put in charge of us through ordained office.

But whatever the costs, it is imperative that we learn to live in community once again. We must learn to deal with our differences in a biblical manner (Phil. 2:1-11). We must learn to live under authority (Heb. 13:7, 17). We must learn work together on the common project of building God’s kingdom. We must learn to live as an organic body, in which every part of the community cares for every other part. We must learn what it means to be the communion of the saints, as we confess in the early church creeds. We must rediscover what it means to live shared lives of generosity, of mercy, of friendship, and of hospitality. Many of these virtues the ancient church excelled in have been lost on us.

American spirituality often treats church community as a “tacked on” extra to a personal relationship with Jesus. In other words, we often act as if God alone is enough, and other Christians were quite unnecessary. “Quiet times,” in which the individual gets alone with God, have replaced the church’s corporate gathering as the pinnacle of spiritual growth. But the Bible points us in a different direction. Remember Adam: life alone with God is not the divine plan for us. God alone is not enough, in a profound sense. We must live in fellowship as one body with other believers if we are to grow and mature as God’s people. As Augustine said, the essence of God’s plan for humanity is mutual fellowship with himself. We are called to share a common life with the Trinity and with one another.

So: Is God enough? Yes, we must insist that he is in an ultimate sense. God is our all in all. But how does God manifest his all-sufficiency towards us? Precisely through giving himself to us in one another. God meets our needs by giving us each other, and together we are called to mirror his life – the life of Triune, perichoretic community.

Rich Lusk has served as the Pastor of Trinity Presbyterian Church since December, 2004. Before that he served at Redeemer Presbyterian (PCA) in Austin, TX and Auburn Avenue Presbyterian (CREC) in Monroe, LA. He and his wife Jenny have four kids. Rich is a graduate of Auburn University (B. S. in Microbiology) and the University of Texas at Austin (M.A. in Philosophy). This article is used with permission, and originally appeared at the Trinity Presbyterian website.

Read more

By In Scribblings

Jenner Identity

A new era of acceptance for sexual relativism was inaugurated this week with the announcement of Vanity Fair’s upcoming issue, which will feature a cover story showcasing former Olympian Bruce Jenner’s official reveal as a “woman.”

Transgenderism—like egalitarianism—is ostensibly an emancipation from oppressive traditionalist categories. But it’s actually parasitically reliant upon traditional sexual conventions. Those who attempt to change sexes still feel the need to look and act masculine or feminine. Bruce Jenner’s transformation was not just a change of mind, it involved cosmetic surgery and hormone therapy. He also changed his name to something feminine (“Caitlyn”). Transgender rhetoric may be progressive, but its optics are confusingly traditional.

Witness the new Vanity Fair cover photo: Jenner is presented essentially as a supermodel. The wardrobe (or lack thereof) and composition intentionally accentuate the feminine characteristics Jenner is trying to assume. He is depicted as demure, voluptuous, even seductive (and thus objectified, take note). While this is the antithesis of manhood, it’s also the antithesis of androgyny or the rugged feminism of the modern age. Traditional ideals of beauty and sexuality are in the background here, albeit in twisted form. And far from being seen as objectionable, all this is deemed “heroic” and praiseworthy in the media.

The shape of Jenner’s “identity transformation” is an ironic revelation that human sexuality involves biological, aesthetic, and other natural givens that can’t be eradicated, even by those engaging in self-destructive revolt against divinely-created order. Though we may try to rebel against our Creator and fashion our own reality, we cannot transcend our created nature. We cannot escape living in God’s world and functioning according to the categories He has established.

Read more

By In Books

The Banishing Of Fear Through Poetry: When Knowledge Increases Comfort

Guest post by Jerry Stout

Note: Jerry Stout successfuly defended his thesis before the board and teachers at Trinitas Christian School in Pensacola, Fl. This is his paper.

The greatest stories give the reader a sense of the natural and real. The natural and the real are the bedrock on which a strange and foreign sub-creation is resting. J.R.R. Tolkien did not want to force the realities of his own world into the stories of the Middle Earth so that he could convert the reader to his personal view. Verlyn Flieger says in her book Splintered Light, “In showing us his fantasy world Tolkien has enabled us to recover our own, to know it and ourselves as we were and are so that we may get some glimpse, however dim, of what we yet may be,” (65).  The point of a sub-creation is to praise the creator of the primary world through imitation of the primary world. Tolkien uses his own primary world to create a secondary world of depth. One of the ways this depth is worked into his legendarium[1] is with the poetry in the Fellowship of the Ring. The poem of Beren and Luthien is a break in the flow of ordinary narrative. It is an escape of the primary story of the fellowship into the secondary story of Beren. The characters of the primary story are given a look into another in order to gain an understanding of what their own world can give them if they continue on their path. The forethought put into this double myth shows Tolkien’s genius in the art of sub-creation. The insertion of Beren and Luthien does not explicitly foretell how the Lord of the Rings ends, however the power of the Beren and Luthien story gives hope to the characters, and this hope is also transferred to the reader outside the story. Hope is the driving force of the Fellowship. Even though the poem does not come up again in the story, its song lingers in the memories and feeds the hope of the characters. Likewise, it points the reader toward the hope of a eucatastrophe[2] that is not evident within the story.  Three characters in particular are affected by the poem, and each of these characters also represents three types of reader. I will explain the relationship between characters and readers, and show how the story of Beren and Luthien instills hope in both.

Tolkien created an entirely new world when he brought Middle Earth into being. He not only created the characters and a narrative; but he created detailed and complex languages, beliefs, and histories that are all unique to Middle Earth. Given this creative impulse, one must delve into what Tolkien thought of the nature of a myth or as he names it, fairy-story. Tolkien believed in a complex world that could be unpacked by the reader. But he did not want it to be a simple or easy task to do so. And so he put his story, The Lord of the Rings, within a vast network of history and myths inside the greater myth. In the same way that the New Testament is not able to be fully understood without the backstory of the Old Testament and becomes a book of morals taught by a moral man who gives his life for what he believes, so the Lord of the Rings becomes a simple story of a group of disparate races coming together as one to destroy the evil lord Sauron. It is the nuances that give the story its true depth. It is captured in the life and breath of the world in which the story takes place. Tolkien did not write his books to provide an escape from the world for he modeled his work on the world he saw. To run into his story in order to retreat from what was his inspiration is counterintuitive. You would not look at a painting of a flower in order to forget about flowers, nor would you listen to a song about heartbreak to forget about your own heartbreak. The inspirations, beliefs, and customs that went into the making of Middle Earth necessarily become evident, which is why it is beneficial to understand what kind of man Tolkien was. In the book The Author of the Century, Shippey emphasizes that Tolkien was adamant that his works were not works of allegory. When an allegory is written, the goal of the author is to use imagery to portray a point. The Fairy-Story on the other hand is using the truth found in creation and remolding it, the fairy-story contains the truths that are in creation. If they resembled the world that Tolkien knew it was his action as a sub-creator working under the rules and examples that the creator of the cosmos left him.

The greatest of the tales within Tolkien’s Silmarillion, a history of Middle Earth as told by elves, is the tale of Beren and Luthien. This epic is a combination of history and narrative. This tale is recounted as a narrative so that those reading it could learn the history through a detailed account. It is telling a story of a great man who commits great deeds of courage for the love of his life, but it is also providing a pattern for the later story between Aragorn and Arwen. Chronologically the first time that Beren and Luthien appear is in a lay[3]; however, Tolkien later wrote a shorter account of the narrative published in the Silmarillion.

The story begins with an account of a man, Beren, entering the woods of Doriath where he sees the elf Luthien singing, whom he calls Tinuviel; which means nightingale. He immediately falls in love with her and swears to do anything to win her hand. Her father, Thingol, promises Beren Luthien’s hand in marriage if Beren can return to Thingol with a Silmaril from the iron helm of Morgoth in the pits of Angband. Thinking that it is an impossible task, Thingol is confident that he will not have to give up his daughter. Undaunted, Beren swears that he will not return without the Silmaril in hand. Beren leaves the forest of Doriath and seeks help from the elven king of Nargothrond, Finrod Felagund. On the way to Angband, they are captured and brought before the greatest servant of Morgoth, Sauron. Despite torturing them repeatedly in an attempt to discover what they are doing, but Sauron is not able to get anything from them. They are eventually rescued by Luthien and the greatest of hounds, Huan. They are not able to save Felagund; however, so they continue on to Angband, just the three of them. When in Angband they reach the stronghold of Morgoth dressed as his servants, but are discovered and brought before the throne of Morgoth. Luthien casts a sleeping spell over Morgoth and Beren digs out a Silmaril from the crown on Morgoth’s head. They then flee from the stronghold but at the gates of Angband they are confronted with the wolf Carcharoth, a servant of Morgoth. Huan attacks the beast but he is overpowered and mortally wounded. Carcharoth then bites off the hand of Beren that holds the Silmaril, but the greatness and purity of the Silmaril is too much for the filth and darkness of the beast and the pain drives him mad. Beren and Luthien then return to Thingol and Beren shows him the stump of his arm, the hand of which still holds the Silmaril in the belly of Carcharoth.  Thingol takes pity on Beren and gives him Luthien’s hand in marriage. Beren then hunts Carcharoth to retrieve the Silmaril and is killed by Carcharoth. Luthien too, having taken on the mortality of her husband, dies. In death, they plead with Mandros and return to life for a short while then they again pass away in peace.

The story of Beren and Luthien appears at a time in The Lord of the Rings where the road ahead looks nearly too dark to continue. However there is this moment in the trilogy where Aragorn starts to tell a portion of the story of Beren and Luthien to the Fellowship. Everyone present hears the tale differently based on their knowledge of the tale, but the idea and message of the lay is such that no matter what level of knowledge that each person has, the result is the same: the characters are given hope in the face of this looming catastrophe. This sudden glimpse of hope also transfers to the audience reading the book. However, the level of understanding that the characters have directly corresponds to the potency of the hope that is given.

Three arguments show that the story of Beren and Luthien gives hope to the characters within the story with different levels of potency. There are three different characters that are affected; and these three characters represent three different readers. The first character is Frodo whose small level of knowledge with the poem corresponds to the novice reader who has no knowledge of the background of The Lord of the Rings. The second is Sam who has a basic knowledge of the story. Sam corresponds to the more knowledgeable reader who knows the back story of Beren and Luthien. The last character is Aragorn who has grown up with the story of Beren and Luthien as part of his own history. He corresponds to the scholar of Tolkien who has read and studied Tolkien’s works.

“Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky, seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone, nine for Mortal Men doomed to die, one for the Dark Lord on his dark throne in the land of Mordor where the Shadows lie. One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, one ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them in the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.” These are the opening lines of The Lord of the Rings. This short piece of foreboding poetry is what sets the mood of the whole story. To the reader who has immersed himself in the reading of Tolkien’s legendarium the poem introduces gravity and darkness into the novel. It brings to mind the history of the Dark Lord who befriended the races of Middle Earth and then betrayed them all. This passage also brings a great urgency to the quest. There has been an injustice in the world that needs to be fixed. There does not need to be a great description of the deeds of the Dark Lord in order to set the stage for the book. Tolkien is able to do the same thing with the little bit of poetry. But this is not the only time Tolkien uses the art of poetry to make a point within the narrative. The Lay of Beren and Luthien that is told in brief by Aragorn when he and the hobbits are on Weathertop is another such instance. This too is grave but the effect is not the same as the other poem. By reciting the story of Beren and Luthien, Aragorn intended to bring the hobbits comfort in a time of darkness and uncertainty. Cheer works with different levels of potency upon those within the story. For Aragorn the story has the greatest impact. Because he lived for so long among the elves, he knows the significance of the poem to the elves and so it has similar significance to him as well. In addition to this, he also relates to the story on a personal level. Aragorn sees the relationship between Beren and Luthien played out in his own relationship with Arwen. He is a mortal man who has fallen in love with an immortal elf and she in return has loved him back. Because of this personal note to the story, the hope provided by the story is more personal as well; the hope extends not only to the quest but also to his relationship with Arwen. The similarities between the two stories go further than the relationship between Beren and Aragorn. When Aragorn seeks the hand of Arwen, her father’s answer was that he could only marry Arwen once he became the king of Gondor and of Anor. The reunion of the two kingdoms is the bride price given to Aragorn just like the returning of the Silmaril was the bride price given to Beren. The ending of Beren’s quest gives Aragorn hope for his own.

So how does the reader who is familiar with the legendarium of Tolkien react to the telling of Beren and Luthien’s story in a way similar to Aragon? In his essay On Fairy-Stories, Tolkien describes the reaction to reading a fairy-story as that of pleasure. As he says, “Far more important is the Consolation of the happy ending. Almost I would venture to assert that all complete fairy-stories must have them,” (153). If the end of the Fairy-story is a happy ending then when the reader sees this story of Beren and Luthien, which he knows well, he will recall the happy ending in their story and parallel that happy ending with the possible happy ending of Aragorn. The knowledge that the reader has enables him to appreciate both Aragorn’s story and the eucatastrophy of his own story. He knows that the story of Beren and Luthien will be carried out in a much greater victory.

The moments of greatest peace and contentment come after an event that causes terror within the company of the Fellowship. When the hobbits reach Rivendell, it is after they are attacked upon Weathertop. When the Fellowship seeks sanctuary in Lothorien, it is after the battle in the Mines of Moria. The Lay of Beren and Luthien is one of the moments of peace for the hobbits. Aragorn tells them of his ancestors after they have fled the town of Bree where the black riders almost caught them. In this example, unlike the others, it is not the place they are in that gives them peace; however it is the act of singing that gives them the comfort. Sam knew enough from his time with Bilbo, who like Aragorn was well learned in the histories of the elves, that this comfort was clearly known to Sam for he was the one who requested a story: “Then tell us some other tale of the old days,’ begged Sam, ‘a tale about the Elves before the fading time. I would dearly like to hear more about elves; the dark seems to press so close,’” (Fellowship of the Ring 187). So what is the response to the dark pressing in close? It is to tell, or in this case, sing a song of a time when the dark did not overcome, though it drew close, even unto death. It is not that the darkness has been banished. It is more that the light provided by the song overcomes and becomes more real than the darkness. This is the greatest quality that Tolkien attributes to the eucatastrophe,

 

It is a mark of a good fairy-story, of the higher of more complete kind, that however wild its events, however fantastic or terrible the adventures, it can give to child or man that hears it, when the ‘turn’ comes, a catch of the breath, a beat and lift of the heart, near to (or indeed accompanied by) tears, as keen as that given by any form of art, and having a peculiar quality (On Fairy Stories,144-5).

Here Tolkien’s views on the consolation of fairy-stories come into play with the reader who, like Sam, only has a diminished understanding of Beren and Luthien. Sam has experience with the fairy-stories of his own world and would be able to see the pattern of danger or death and the redemption that is the happy ending. So too the reader understands at least on a subconscious level. Knowing this pattern and hearing this story will combine together to bring hope to the reader just as it has done for Sam.

The final character I will talk of is Frodo, the character who knows the least about the history of the elves. He is the least knowledgeable and so the least affected by the lay. He is the only character who is described as feeling chilled after the story was told. While the story was being told Frodo was not affected by fear. Tolkien writes, “All seemed quiet and still, but Frodo felt a cold dread creeping over his heart, now that Strider was no longer speaking,” (Fellowship of the Ring 190). For Frodo the power of the Lay extended only so far as the words being spoken. But while the story was being told, he was being transported out of the darkness into the light of fairy. The poetry used by Tolkien is described this way by Carle Phelpstead: “Verse is similarly used to extend the emotional range of the narrative in The Lord of the Rings,” (32). Frodo has this emotional extension that is felt by all who hear Aragorn’s words. He joins with the all who have heard the tale of Tinuviel and draws strength from the pure light given to him by Aragorn and by extension the elves, just as the men around Éomer share not only Éomer’s grief and love for their fallen king, but the courage that Éomer pours into them through his verse. “Éomer turns to measured and archaic alliterative verse to mark the passing of Theoden King while rousing his men to continued valor: ‘Mourn not overmuch! Mighty was the fallen, meet was his ending. When his mound is raised, women then shall weep. War now calls us!’ Yet he himself wept as he spoke,” (32). Poetry drives out grief and replaces it with valor.

“It is the mark of a good Fairy-Story, of the Higher or more complete kind, that however wild its events, however fantastic or terrible that adventures, it can give to child or man that hears it, when the ’turn’ comes, a catch of the breathe, a beat and lifting of the heart,” (On Fairy-Stories 154-5). The novice Lord of the Rings reader, when he hears the “turn” that is the story of Beren and Luthien can, like Frodo, feel the power and light of the song and be transported out of darkness into hope, even hope that defies articulation.

Some may question how much credit I give to the Lay of Beren and Luthien. How much can one short instance affect a story that continues many events and pages without referencing it again? It does seem that it holds a small part of the narrative and as it is quickly overshadowed by the attack of the black riders, the effects seem to fall away from the hobbits. “Then the shapes advanced. Terror overcame Pippin and Merry, and they threw themselves flat on the ground. Sam shrank to Frodo’s side. Frodo was hardly less terrified than his companions; he was quaking as if he was bitter cold,” (The Fellowship of the Ring 191). However, it is crucial for the story. In the timeline of the Fellowship, the lay appears right after a moment of terror. The four hobbits and Strider have fled Bree where they were almost killed, and have made camp for the night. They know that they are not safe, and rather than shivering scared in silence, Sam asks for a story to quell the darkness. The poem is what banishes the darkness for the moment. Without this momentary burst of light in the midst of the terror, they may not have been able to make it to through their next encounter with terror.

The Hobbits feel the terror growing closer and huddle together. They see three dark shapes coming over the crest of the hills. The black riders charge the hobbits and terror fills their hearts. The effects of the poetry are not as forgotten as it seems on the surface. Frodo breaks through the terror he feels and calls on the strength and light of the elves. “At that moment Frodo threw himself forward on the ground, and he heard himself crying aloud: O Elbereth! Gilthoniel![4] At the same time he struck at the feet of his enemy,” (191). As if by instinct, Frodo recalls the elves that he and Sam had seen walking through the forest of the shire and singing to Elbereth; and he finds the strength and valor to attack the black riders. If the song in the shire can give him the strength to drive out the paralyzing darkness, then the Lay of Beren and Luthien can give the Hobbits strength in future times of darkness.

Throughout the journey of the ring, the moments of rest and safety are times when music makes an appearance. For example, when the hobbits reach Rivendell they are surrounded by the elves music and it revives them from their journey. When Merry and Pippin are almost killed by Old man Willow they are saved by the singing of Tom Bombadil. Each of these are necessary to keep the spirts of the company from falling deep into despair. When Frodo and Sam are in Shelob’s lair and Sam has nearly given up he remembers an Elvish poem he heard from back in the shire: “’Galadriel!’ he said faintly, and then he heard voices far off but clear: the crying of the Elves as they walked under the stars in the beloved shadows of the shire and the music of the Elves as it came through his sleep in the Hall of Fire in the house of Elrond… As if his indomitable spirit had set its potency in motion, the glass blazed suddenly like a white torch in his hand,” (The Two Towers 713). Others would say that the novice reader would not be affected at all by the Lay. But I would say that their reaction would be much like Frodo’s own after Strider finishes speaking danger, and dread creeps back over the heart. As familiarity with the Legendarium grows the length and strength of comfort produced by the lay also grows.

The thing that Sam hopes for as he drifts into unconsciousness is to have his story told alongside that of Beren one-hand. The hope that he receives from a poem like Beren and Luthien is how he wishes to be remembered. In Sam’s eyes, it is the greatest example of heroism that can be achieved. The immorality that is achieved within a song is the afterlife; the hope of a people, Hobbits, who have no sense of an afterlife. The relief that he feels as he recalls his adventures gives him peace. This peace is also going to be felt by the people who will hear the tale of the Frodo of the Nine Fingers. It will give them comfort to accept death when it seems inevitable. Just as a song created the world of Middle Earth it is song that ushers in the new age of peace and freedom for the races of the earth. Poetry time and time again brings the eucatastrophe of Tolkien before the reader. The hope that Sam sees in “The tale of Frodo of the nine fingers” is a floodgate out of which pours the hope and possibility of a time where the darkness has been banished from the land. The poetry that carries the characters of the secondary world into the future also carries the readers of the primary world into the hope of future eucatastrophes.

 

Works Cited

Flieger, Verlyn. Splintered Light. Kent: The Kent State University Press, 2002. Print.

Phelpstead, Carl. “”With chunks of poetry in between”: The Lord of the Rings and Saga Poetics.” Phelpstead, Carl. Tolkien Studies. Vol. Volume 5. Morgantown: West Virginia University Press, 2008. 23-38. PDF File.

Shippey, Tom. J. R. R. Tolkien Author of the Century. New York City: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000. Print.

Tolkien, J.R.R. “On Fairy-Stories”. The Monsters and the Critics. London: Collins Publishers, 2006. 109-161.

—. The Fellowship of the Ring. New York: Hought Mifflin Harcourt, 1994. 398. Print.

—. “The Return of the King. New York: Hougthon Mifflin Harcourt, 1994. 731-1008. print.

—. The Two Towers. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1994. 403-725. Print.

 



[1] Legendarium is the word that in his letters Tolkien uses to describe his entire works. (See letters 131,153, 154 163)

[2] Eucatastrophe is Tolkien’s own term, which he defines in his essay “On Fairy-Stories” as, “the good catastrophe, the sudden joyous “turn”. . .a sudden and miraculous grace: never to be counted on to recur” (153).

[3] The Story of Beren and Luthien as it appears in the Lays of Ballerina.

[4] Elbereth Gilthoniel was a Valië, one of the Aratar, the wife of Manwë and Queen of the Valar. Elves love and revere her most of all the Valar, and they call upon her in the hours of deepest darkness.

 

Read more

By In Theology

This Is My Body Broken For You

Guest post by Michael Hansen

One of my deepest concerns with the way many churches now operate is in their exclusion of the Lord’s Supper from their services of worship. The reason this concerns me is because the Lord’s Supper is a place where the church is forced to look itself in the mirror. When Christ welcomes the congregation to the table of fellowship, we are confronted with the reality that he is far more welcoming and hospitable than we are.

Look around the congregation.

How many people can you count that you would invite to your table? There are great sinners in the congregation. There are people you don’t like. But all of these people are welcomed to the Lord’s table at the Lord’s invitation.

Jesus once told his disciples that he will draw all men to himself when he is lifted up (John 12:32). What happened to Jesus when he was lifted up? He was broken. What happens to the bread when the minister lifts it up before the congregation? It is broken. The Lord’s Supper is much more than an act of remembrance for individual Christians. The Lord’s Supper is a participatory event where all men find themselves drawn to Christ’s broken body.

When Jesus’ body was broken, the walls of separation between Jew and gentile, male and female, slave and free, black and white were broken as well (Gal. 3:28). This happens in the Lord’s Supper.

Look around the congregation.

How many people look just like you? Are they all white (let’s hope not)? Are they all black (let’s hope not)? Are they all republicans or democrats (let’s hope they’re libertarians)? No, there are people from all walks of life, all races, all socioeconomic classes and ideologies, being drawn to the broken body of Christ.

The church is a body of many members. Further, God’s word serves as a two-edged sword cutting to the hearts of his people (Heb. 4:12), who have become living sacrifices (Rom. 12:1). Throughout the service, God’s word has cut His church into pieces just as the Levitical sacrifices were cut into pieces. But the service does not end here. The church must learn that we are only broken by God’s Word because the Word of God was broken for us: “This is my body broken for you.” Moreover, as the body of many members (the church) partakes of the broken body of Christ, we are made whole again by our participation in the one loaf (1 Cor. 10:17).

Perhaps the reason there is so much strife in the church nowadays is because we are not communing with one another as we ought. Our ultimate allegiances need to be formed not by who we would invite to our tables, but by whom Jesus, weekly, invites to his.

(Originally published on Torrey Gazette)

Read more

By In Politics

Turning America into a Battlefield: A Blueprint for Locking Down the Nation

Battlefield America: The War on the American People

Guest Post By John W. Whitehead

Americans now find themselves struggling to retain some semblance of freedom in the face of police and law enforcement agencies that look and act like the military and have just as little regard for the Fourth Amendment, laws such as the NDAA that allow the military to arrest and indefinitely detain American citizens, and military drills that acclimate the American people to the sight of armored tanks in the streets, military encampments in cities, and combat aircraft patrolling overhead.

Making matters worse, now we find out that the military plans to use southwestern states as staging grounds for guerilla warfare drills in which highly-trained military troops equipped with all manner of weapons turn American towns and cities in quasi-battlefields. Why? As they tell us, it’s so that special operations forces can get “realistic military training” in “hostile” territory.

They’ve even got a name for the exercise: Jade Helm 15.

Whether or not Americans have anything to fear from Jade Helm 15, a covert, multi-agency, multi-state, eight-week military training exercise set to take place this summer from July 15 through Sept. 15, remains to be seen.

Insisting that there’s nothing to be alarmed about, the Washington Post took great pains to point out that these military exercises on American soil are nothing new. Yet if Americans are uneasy about this summer’s planned Jade Helm 15 military exercises, they have every right to be.

After all, haven’t we been urged time and time again to just “trust” the government to respect our rights and abide by the rule of law only to find that, in fact, our rights were being plundered and the Constitution disregarded at every turn?

Let’s assume, for the moment, that Jade Helm 15 is not a thinly veiled military plot to take over the country lifted straight out of director John Frankenheimer’s 1964 political thriller Seven Days in May, as some fear, but is merely a “routine” exercise for troops, albeit a blatantly intimidating flexing of the military’s muscles.

The problem arises when you start to add Jade Helm onto the list of other troubling developments that have taken place over the past 30 years or more: the expansion of the military industrial complex and its influence in Washington DC, the rampant surveillance, the militarized police, the loss of our freedoms, the privatized prisons, the military drills on domestic soil, the fusion centers and the simultaneous fusing of every branch of law enforcement (federal, state and local), the stockpiling of ammunition by various government agencies, the active shooter drills that are indistinguishable from actual crises, etc.

Turning America into a Battlefield: A Blueprint for Locking Down the Nation

Turning America into a Battlefield: A Blueprint for Locking Down the Nation by John W. Whitehead

Suddenly, the overall picture seems that much more sinister. Clearly, as I point out in my new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, there’s a larger agenda at work here.

Seven years ago, the U.S. Army War College issued a report calling on the military to be prepared should they need to put down civil unrest within the country. Yet at what point will all of the government’s carefully drawn plans for dealing with civil unrest, “homegrown” terrorism and targeting pre-crime become a unified blueprint for locking down the nation?

For instance, what’s the rationale behind turning government agencies into military outposts? There has been a notable buildup in recent years of SWAT teams within non-security-related federal agencies such as Department of Agriculture, the Railroad Retirement Board, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Office of Personnel Management, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Education Department.

What’s with all of the government agencies stockpiling hollow point bullets? For example, why does the Department of Agriculture need .40 caliber semiautomatic submachine guns and 320,000 rounds of hollow point bullets?

Why does the Postal Service need “assorted small arms ammunition”? Why did the DHS purchase “1.6 billion rounds of hollow-point ammunition, along with 7,000 fully-automatic 5.56x45mm NATO ‘personal defense weapons’ plus a huge stash of 30-round high-capacity magazines”? That’s in addition to the FBI’s request for 100 million hollow-point rounds. The Department of EducationIRS, the Social Security Administration, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which oversees the National Weather Service, are also among the federal agencies which have taken to purchasing ammunition and weaponry in bulk.

Why is the federal government distributing obscene amounts of military equipment, weapons and ammunition to police departments around the country? And why is DHS acquiring more than 2,500 Mine-Resistant Armored Protection (MRAP) vehicles, only to pass them around to local police departments across the country?

Why is the military partnering with local police to conduct training drills around the country? And what exactly are they training for? The Army and DHS has been carrying out drills and maneuvers involving Black Hawk helicopters in Texas, Florida, and other locations throughout the U.S., ostensibly in order to provide local police with “realistic” urban training.

Why is FEMA stockpiling massive quantities of emergency supplies? And why does the TSA need $21,000 worth of potassium chlorate, a chemical compound often used in explosives?

Why is the Pentagon continuing to purchase mass amounts of ammunition while at the same time preparing to destroy more than $1 billion worth of bullets and missiles that are still viable?

Given the similarities between the government’s Live Active Shooter Drill training exercises, which can and do fool law enforcement officials and bystanders into thinking it’s a real crisis, how much of what is being passed off as real is, in fact, being staged by DHS for the “benefit” of training law enforcement, leaving us none the wiser?

Why is the DHS giving away millions of dollars’ worth of federal security grants to states that federal intelligence agencies ruled have “no specific foreign or domestic terrorism threat”?

Why is the government, without warrant or search order, amassing names and information on Americans considered to be threats to the nation, and what criteria is the government using for this database? It’s been suggested that this Main Core database could be used by military officials to locate and round up Americans seen as threats to national security, a program to be carried about by the Army and FEMA.

Taken individually, these questions are alarming enough. But when viewed collectively, they leave one wondering what exactly the U.S. government is preparing for and whether American citizens shouldn’t be preparing, as well, for that eventuality when our so-called “government of the people, by the people, for the people” is no longer answerable to “we the people.”

John W. Whitehead is an attorney and author who has written, debated and practiced widely in the area of constitutional law and human rights. Whitehead’s concern for the persecuted and oppressed led him, in 1982, to establish The Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit civil liberties and human rights organization whose international headquarters are located in Charlottesville, Virginia. He served as an officer in the United States Army from 1969 to 1971.

Read more