Thinking of Africa--"De Confidentia"

On July 18th, I will be flying to Africa with a PaulAnn team to do mission work in Mozambique, Africa, for about two weeks. 

To be totally honest, this was never the plan I had for my life. I grew up with stories of missionaries like Eric Liddell, David Livingstone, and Jim Elliot. (If you’ve ever seen the movie The End of the Spear, you know who Jim Elliot is—the guy who was killed by the tribe he went to preach the Gospel to. Not exactly my cup of tea.) As a guy who has always looked forward to being a husband and father and grandfather, with a nice life in the city surrounded by books and plumbing, the possibility of going to a foreign country and possibly dying doesn’t sound so great. So a few months ago, when I felt the Lord calling me to Africa—and potentially to a future there—needless to say I was just a bit shocked. (And more than a little scared.)

During one of the mission team meetings a few weeks ago, I mentioned to the group my fears and anxiety about the trip. Camping has never been my thing, I don’t sleep well in a tent, this is my first time overseas, public speaking has always been difficult for me, I’ve never shared my testimony before, a lion assassin could sneak into my tent and eat me—you know, the usual. It was at this point that a few trip veterans shared with me these two short but important reminders:

1) The safest place in the world is in the center of God’s will, and

2) It isn’t our job to convince others of the Gospel.

These were things I had heard maybe in passing before, but never really thought much about. So let’s do a little digging, and explore where they come from and what exactly they mean.

The Safest Place

“And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.” (Romans 8:28, ESV)

I’m sure most of you have heard this verse before. It’s probably one of the most-referenced verses in the Bible, often meant as an encouraging catchphrase in rough circumstances or particularly difficult times of life. But really, was it “good” for Jim Elliot to die? Was it “good” for for Stephen to be stoned, or for Peter to be crucified upside down? 

I think the context of this verse gives us some clues to what “good” here might mean. Verses 18-30 are all about “Present Suffering and Future Glory,” as the subheading in my Bible says. I don’t think Paul is saying that everything will be hunky-dory and pleasant for those who love God. He isn’t preaching a prosperity gospel. Rather, he is talking about the future good for Christians—eternal life in the presence of our God, King, and Father. On this earth, we’re told to expect persecution (John 15:19-21). But through these trials, we are being molded into a closer image of Christ, refined like gold in a fire. Our sanctification will ultimately be completed when we meet Him in the clouds. 

But maybe that’s not exactly encouraging. I mean, those people still died, leaving their loved ones behind, and maybe I don’t feel ready for that yet. Stonewall Jackson, Confederate general and devout Christian, once said, “My religious belief teaches me to feel as safe in battle as in bed. God has fixed the time for my death.” We serve an omniscient, all-knowing God. He knows when we are going to die, and that isn’t something we—or the powers of this world—can change. I don’t have to worry about bloodthirsty lions or rogue elephants or border guards with machine guns because my Daddy is protecting me. My time isn’t done until He says it’s done. Yes, it might get rough, and it might get dirty, but through it all I can run with perseverance for the joy set before me: the joy of knowing Christ.

It Ain’t Your Job

Whenever I felt the Lord putting it on my heart to go share the Gospel with someone, I always struggled with thoughts like, “What if I get tongue tied? I’m an idiot.” “My testimony is so lame, I mean I wasn’t exactly addicted to crack at the unregenerate young age of four.” “What if I can’t answer all their questions? I’ll look stupid.” And so on and so forth, until the opportunity passes and I feel like a failure. Wash, rinse, repeat.

 But you know what? Ultimately, it isn’t up to me to convince others that the Gospel is true. It isn’t my responsibility to speak clearly, or to use all the right words and the most watertight arguments. I can no more make someone believe in Jesus than I can control the weather. As Paul told the Corinthians, “I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth.” (1 Corinthians 3:6) It is the Holy Spirit who changes hearts and brings life. Our only responsibility is to plant the seed, to follow the Great Commission lined out in Matthew 28. The Lord tells us in Isaiah 55:11 that his word won’t return empty, but will accomplish the purpose He sent it out for. And in preaching the Gospel, we are acting as the mouth of God, and the Lord will be faithful to that. You may not see the fruit, but that’s okay. Some bamboo trees don’t even grow visibly for four years, and then they grow ninety feet in a few months. People can be the same way. Always remember, the power is in the proclamation, not the proclaimer.

God is faithful. He always fulfills his promises. He provides for his children, and he persuades the staunchest hearts. And therefore, we can be very bold. 

on Dreams

...wow.

So sorry, everyone! Things have been a bit quiet around here. End of school+final exams+thirty page theses+summer break+camps really took over my life a bit there. So here's a quick little essay on dreams I wrote for on of my omnibus final exams. It's rather rough, as I haven't edited it, but hopefully it's ok. Something to freshen up the blob. New posts hopefully coming soon. :)

______________________

  German psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud first published The Interpretation of Dreams in 1899. The main premise of his work is that dreams are far from meaningless; rather, “The interpretation of dreams is the royal road to a knowledge of the unconscious activities of the mind.” In the view of the more modern intellectual community, however, dreams simply arise from physiological causes and are consequently meaningless. But despite what progressivism says about the idea of “newer therefore better,” Freud was actually closer to the truth than these modern intellectuals. Dreams have a twofold purpose: one, to reveal things about ourselves, and two, to reveal things about God and his will for our lives. 

  In the first place, dreams are useful for self-examination. In The Interpretation of Dreams, Freud says, “It is only after seeing a man as his unconscious, revealed by his dreams, presented to us that we shall understand him fully.” Freud believed that when a man was sleeping, his natural defenses were lowered and his true nature could be more readily discerned. And while it is true that some dreams are nonsense, plain and simple, oftentimes dreams (especially recurring ones) give us glimpses into ourselves. For example, between the ages of eight and eleven, I had a recurring dream in which I was at a playground fighting some other children around my age. The twist here was that, instead of pretend weapons, we had lightsabers and knives. The dream ended when I dueled one of the kids and got decapitated. Every time, without fail, I lost my head. At first glance, this seems like one of those nonsensical dreams. But, after examining it, I discovered what caused it. The day before I had the dream for the first time, I was at a playground with a group of other homeschooled children and we got into a water fight. My mom was not very happy with this, and pulled me aside and scolded me about it. Comparing these two situations made me realize how much I abhor being rebuked. I hate it so much, in fact, that it was comparable in my eight-year-old mind to being decapitated. My dream showed that I desire the approval of others, especially those in authority. Freud was quite right when he said that dreams are “simply and undisguisedly realizations of wishes.”

  Secondly, dreams are a vehicle through which God speaks to humans. The Bible is full of stories in which a man receives a dream predicting the future. As the book of Job says:

For God speaks in one way,

and in two, though man does not perceive it.

In a dream, in a vision of the night, 

when deep sleep falls on men, 

while they slumber in their beds,

then he opens the ears of men 

and terrifies them with warnings, 

that he may turn man aside from his deed

and conceal pride from a man;

he keeps back his soul from the pit, 

his life from perishing by the sword. (Job 33:14-18)

These dreams are not limited to believers, either. King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon received two prophetic dreams in Daniel 2 and 4, respectively. The second dream, in particular, was a warning to Nebuchadnezzar that he was going to lose his kingdom and be driven out from mankind, and it was the fulfillment of this dream that ultimately brought Nebuchadnezzar to God. Also, in the New Testament, Paul dreams of a Macedonian man begging him to come to his people and share the Gospel. Paul’s obedience to this dream brought the Gospel to Europe, and from there (arguably) to the ends of the earth. 

  One of the deuteragonists of C.S. Lewis’ conclusion to his Space Trilogy, That Hideous Strength, is a woman who receives prophetic dreams: Jane Studdock. Over the course of the novel, realizes that she has been given the “gift” of clairvoyance, and that this gift came from Maleldil, or God. Her dreams help those at Logres overcome N.I.C.E. Nowadays, while it is uncommon for people to receive prophetic dreams, God does nevertheless still speak to people through them. In fact, God uses dreams to call Christians to ministry, much like he did with Paul.

  

  Far from meaningless products of physiological stimulation, dreams are mirrors into the human psyche and windows into the will of God. They should not be ignored. In the words of Hamlet,

                                                                "To die, to sleep,

                                      To sleep, perchance to Dream; Aye, there's the rub,

                                     For in that sleep of death, what dreams may come,

                                           When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,

                                                               Must give us pause."

"De Mortificatio Vitii"

or,
On the Mortification of Sin

My dear nephew,

    When we last spoke, you mentioned that you are striving to deepen your relationship with our Father, but keep falling into sin. My purpose in writing this letter is to assist you in the purpose of mortifying sin in your life by offering a few “tips” based on my own observations, lessons I have learned from the Bible, and examples given in CS Lewis’ Perelandra, which you and I have discussed previously.

    To begin, I’d like to define “sin,” lest there is any later confusion on the matter. In a broad sense, “to sin” means “to go against the will of God.” When you repent, you are drawing closer to God; when you sin, you are pulling away from him. Furthermore, there are two different kinds of sin. The first, and the one that most people tend to think of when they hear the word “sin,” is that of disobedience. When God has given a command to not do X, to do X would be to sin. On the other hand, if God gave a command to do Y, to not do Y for whatever reason would be sin. This is the second type of sin, the sin of omitted obedience. As the apostle James says in his letter, “So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.”

    The first step in mortifying sin in your life is recognizing it. I know this sounds ridiculous, but recognizing a particular action in your life as sinful and admitting it is one of the hardest parts of overcoming it. As humans, we are constantly justifying our actions to our consciences, saying that a particular action isn’t really wrong in light of our circumstances. The Holy Spirit, however, who lives inside you, has made you into a new creation and is working on changing your mind to recognize sin. Call upon him like David did in the Psalms: “Search me, O God, and know my heart...and see if there be any grievous way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting!”
    Secondly, you need to understand when and where temptation is the strongest. Is it when you are bored, with nothing to do? Or when you have had a stressful day and don’t want to deal with people, so you respond sharply? If you know when you are most prone to temptation, you can take ample precautionary measures in order to protect yourself. When we know what our “lures” are, they become easier to avoid. This is a simple example, but if you struggle with alcohol, don’t let yourself go to a bar. The Bible says to flee from temptation--you shouldn’t put yourself in a situation where you’re saying, “It’s ok, I’m strong enough to fight it off.”

    In fighting temptation, it is important to recognize that we are not supposed to deal with it on our own. Christ came to free us from sin by taking our sin upon himself. “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden,” he said, “and I shall give you rest.” I would even go so far as to argue that we are incapable of resisting temptation for any significant time if we have not surrendered ourselves to Christ. As Paul says in Romans, we were slaves to sin before being redeemed by Christ. We could do no good.  But now, “we have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God.”
    In addition, we were created to live in community with other believers, and to share our joys and struggles with each other. “Confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed.” The Church is one body. The Christian Journey is not a solo trek. In Perelandra, when the Un-Man is tempting the Green Lady, Dr. Ransom is with her, fighting the Un-Man’s cunning words with wise counsel. Oftentimes, during times of temptation, the thing that we need most is sound, Biblical advice from a fellow Christian. While he or she might not have all the answers, it is important to be able to come to a friend with your struggles and prayer requests. For an accountability partner, I would suggest choosing someone from among your peers, who is both of the same sex as you as well as a mature Christian who will take the responsibility seriously.
    You cannot gradually wean yourself from sin. If you allow yourself some leeway, like allowing yourself to commit the sin, say, once a week, you’ll never completely defeat it. That “once a week,” even though you promised yourself would eventually change to a “once a month” or “never again,” will always be there, ready to lure you in and entice you, and the next thing you know, you’re right back where you started. To repent of a sin is to ask forgiveness and do a complete 180° turn, never going back.
    The final preparation for temptation, and fundamentally the most important, is being “transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.” This renewal of your mind comes from constantly steeping yourself in the Word of God. Daily quiet times, even if they are only fifteen minutes, are vital in maintaining a healthy Christian walk. Nephew, the Enemy is cunning, and his words will often sound like wisdom. When he tempted our Lord, he even used Scripture. How, then, can we tell death from life? We must know the Scriptures even better than our enemy, so that we might discern what goes against God’s commands. If Frodo (and Sam) had never looked at Sting, they would have not been able to discern if there were any nearby dangers--namely, orcs and goblins. In the same way, if we never look at the Scriptures, how can we detect danger?

    Finally, when the temptation comes--for come it will--you have many tools at your disposal to fight against the temptation. The first and probably the most simple is to distract yourself with other things. One “distraction” that I have found particularly useful is praying for my accountability partner whenever temptation comes my way. Not only does this occupy me and prevent me from falling into the temptation, it also focuses my mind on God--continuing the renewal process--and benefits my partner.
    The second tool is outlined for us in Ephesians 6:10-20: the full armor of God. I know it may sound cliche and bring to your mind images of Sunday School coloring pages, but truly, this Armor is our best defense and offense against the Enemy. When we lack faith, we disobey. The Green Lady, when speaking of her previous desire to live on the Fixed Land, said, “It was to reject the wave--to draw my hands out of Maleldil’s, to say to Him, ‘Not thus, but thus’--to put in our own power what times should roll towards us...That would have been cold love and feeble trust.” But when our faith is strong, it is a Shield with which we can “extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one.” And when we use the Sword of the Spirit, the Word of God--“living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword”--we can engage the Tempter in combat as our Lord did in the wilderness.
   
    This won’t be easy. You will slip and fall many times, and you may feel like you let God down. But you know what the great thing is? You can’t let him down, because you were never holding him up in the first place. Rather, he is holding you up, and he will never let you go. No matter how many times you mess up, he’ll be there to catch you and forgive you. Don’t give up, even though times are difficult.
    “The splendour, the love, and the strength be upon you.”
   
    Your uncle,
    Alan Smith

*I do apologize, my footnotes are being difficult and refusing to carry over to the blogger post creator. If you'd like them for whatever reason, ask me and I'll send you the original doc.

My Mom is the Bomb

My mother is the best.

She's one of my best friends. I can talk to her about the book I'm reading. I can spazz out about how awesome such-and-such character from a movie or book is. I can tell her about any problems I'm having, and she understands because she's an introvert like me. And, one of my favorites, I can discuss theology with her.

She's my teacher. She's homeschooled me all of my life and I guess I've turned out all right so far, haha. That's a credit to her and my dad for raising me up in the way I should go. And she worked through all those math problems and memory verses and history lessons and science labs and essays with me. Even now, I give my papers to her to edit before I turn them in.

She's my encourager. All my life, no matter what I've been doing (save all the bad things, of course), be it sports, music, photography, school assignments, she's told me "Great job" and kept me going, even when I might not have wanted to. And, if I messed up, she'd tell me what I did wrong and how to make it better.

I could keep talking/writing/whatever, but the list might never end. So I'll end with this: my mother is awesome. (And see my earlier post on "Le Mot Juste." I really mean it.) I do love thee so very much, Momma.

You're the bomb. :)

A Sacramental Disquisition

I wrote this for my Omnibus class. It's a brief (well, about 1500 words) comparison/contrast of my beliefs, Calvin's beliefs, and my pastor's beliefs on the sacrament of baptism. 

_____________________________

Reformed theologian John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion was one of the most influential books of Western Culture. In this work, Calvin challenges many of the theological views of his contemporaries, including Luther, the Anabaptists, and the Roman Catholics. In Book 4 of his Institutes, Calvin deals with many issues, including the organization of the Church, civil government, and the Sacraments. 

Calvin defines a sacrament as “a testimony of the divine favor toward us, confirmed by an external sign, with a corresponding attestation of our faith towards Him.”[1] To Calvin, and to all Protestants, there are two sacraments: the Lord’s Supper and baptism. While most Protestants would agree with this definition of sacraments, many would disagree with Calvin’s view of baptism itself: its definition and purpose, who should baptize, and who should be baptized.

Calvin says, “Baptism is the initiatory sign by which we are admitted to the fellowship of the Church, that being ingrafted into Christ we may be accounted children of God.”[2] He doesn’t mean that baptism saves us—that he clarifies in the next paragraph. “[T]he only purification which baptism promises is by means of the sprinkling of the blood of Christ, who is figured by water from the resemblance to cleansing and washing.”[3] In other words, baptism is a picture of what Christ has done for us.

I recently interviewed my pastor, Kirt Dauphin, about Calvin’s ideas on baptism. He said that he disagreed with Calvin’s definition because, he said, “It is salvation that admits us into the Church, not baptism.” I would agree with Pastor Kirt. As soon as someone accepts Christ as Lord and Savior of his life, that person is “ingrafted into Christ.” He is not excluded from the Church until after he is baptized. Although it is a symbol of your salvation, baptism is not necessary for salvation, nor is it necessary for Church membership.

In the first few paragraphs of Institutes 4.15, Calvin outlines what he believes are the three purposes of baptism: 1) to be a sign and evidence of our purification, 2) to show us our death in Christ and new life in him, and 3) to assure us that we are united with Christ to be partakers of all his blessings. My pastor and I agree with Calvin on the first two points, that baptism is a sign of our purification and of our death to our old selves and new life. When a believer is baptized in our church, the phrase used is “Buried in the likeness of Christ’s death, raised to walk in newness of life.”

On the third point, however, Pastor Kirt slightly differed with Calvin. As it is possible to be baptized but not a Christian, he said, you cannot say that baptism assures us of unity with Christ. I would add that our assurance of salvation does not come through baptism, but through faith and the work of Christ. “Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith.”[4]

On the question of who could baptize, Calvin was very firm in his belief that it was only proper for ordained clergy to baptize. “It is improper for private individuals to take upon themselves the administration of baptism; for it… is part of the ministerial office.”[5] Because Christ didn’t command ordinary men and women to baptize, only the eleven disciples (Matthew 28:16-20), Calvin believed that the power to baptize passed through them to their successors, the ordained ministers of the Church. If a layman baptized, it would be a usurpation of the ministerial office’s duty.

Now, Calvin did not mean that ministers could baptize because they were holier than “normal” Christians. On the contrary, he says that the efficacy of baptism does not depend on the righteousness of the baptizer. Because it is really Christ who performs the baptism through the minister, and Christ is righteous, it matters not if the minister is unrighteous. Calvin uses the example of a messenger: “[W]hen a letter has been sent, if the hand and seal is recognized, it is not of the least consequence who or what the messenger was; so it ought to be sufficient for us to recognize the hand and seal of our Lord in his sacraments.”[6] Calvin’s objection to baptism by laymen was, as stated above, more to do with the fact that he believed Christ had given that task to the clergy alone. Like Paul says in 1 Corinthians 12, after giving the allegory of the body of Christ, “The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I have no need of you,’ nor again the head to the feet, ‘I have no need of you’” (v. 21). In other words, each member has his own job, and it is improper for the eye to feel, or the head to walk.

I don’t necessarily disagree with Calvin, but I would extend the term “ordained minister” to include fathers, at least in this case. For, are not the fathers responsible for the spiritual well-being of their family (see Deuteronomy 6:1-9, 20-25)? Like a pastor is the shepherd of his congregation, a father is (or, at least, is called to be) the shepherd of his family. But I would not go so far as to say that any father can baptize his children. As my pastor said in our interview, baptism should be done by someone who is recognized as a mature believer in the community or congregation. Therefore, as long as a father is doing his duty in regards to shepherding his family, I would say that it would be wholly proper for him to baptize his children.

Speaking of the baptism of children, Calvin was a staunch Paedobaptist. It was his opinion that, just like circumcision was a sign of the old covenant, baptism is a sign of the new covenant. And, as the Jews in the Old Testament circumcised their children, Christians should baptize their infant children.

When I asked my pastor about this, he brought up Romans 4:9-11: “Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.” Abraham’s circumcision set him apart from those around him; it showed that he was different. In the same way, baptism shows those around us that we are now different—a new creation. But circumcision was not given to Abraham until after he was credited righteous by faith. For this reason, I believe baptism should not be given until after a confession of faith has been made.

One may very well challenge this by saying that Abraham circumcised his children, even though they were not “counted as righteous,” so we should do the same to our children. I would respond to this by saying that  in the Old Testament, the infants had to be circumcised by others, because it is impossible for them to physically circumcise themselves. Under the new covenant, however, “circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter.”[7] A parent cannot “circumcise” the heart of their child; the Spirit must work in the child and renew his heart.

Calvin does give a counterargument in his Institutes. When Credobaptists deny paedobaptism on the grounds that it is never explicitly mentioned in the Bible, Calvin comes back and says that neither does the Bible explicitly give an account of women partaking of the Lord’s Supper. By the same reasoning, he says, ought not women be prohibited from taking Communion?

Though this may seem sound reasoning at first, it really is not. When the Bible says that entire households were baptized (Acts 16:33), it may very well have meant only the consenting adults. Or, there may not have been any infants at all in the household. On the other hand, there are very clearly women in the church of Corinth. In 1 Corinthians, Paul admonishes the Corinthians multiple times regarding the Lord’s Supper (see 1 Corinthians 11:17-34). In addition, he gives them several guidelines concerning women, including marriage and head coverings, showing that there were indeed women in the Corinthian church and, by association, they participated in the Lord’s Supper.

The topic of baptism has always been one of heavy debate among Christians, and I believe it will continue to be until Christ returns. Though we may disagree with some of John Calvin’s beliefs, we should not completely disregard his work, for it is still full of biblical truth. Without a doubt, Calvin is one of the greatest Christian theologians, and his Institutes of the Christian Religion is one of the greatest works of Christian theology ever written.

Works Cited

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. Good News Publishers, Wheaton, IL, 2001.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. 26 April 2013. PDF file.

---

[1] Institutes, 4.14.1

[2] Institutes, 4.15.1

[3] Institutes, 4.15.2

[4] Hebrews 10:19-22

[5] Institutes, 4.15.20

[6] Institutes, 4.15.16

[7] Romans 2:29

Wickham the Prince

Wickham the Prince

“If a prince wants to maintain his rule he must be prepared not to be virtuous, and to make use of this or not according to need.”[1]

This is a line from Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince, a sort of “How to Get and Maintain Your Principality” guide. As seen by the line above, Machiavelli’s tactics require a departure from morality based on Judeo-Christian values. Machiavelli says that while it is nice to have virtues like generosity, honesty, piety, compassion, and kindness, they are not necessary, and even detrimental. “I would even go so far as to say that if he has these qualities and always behaves accordingly he will find them harmful; if he only appears to have them they will render him service.”[2] To Machiavelli, the appearance of virtue was the essential thing.

In section 18 of his book, Machiavelli said, “[The prince] should have a flexible disposition, varying as fortune and circumstances dictate. As I said above, he should not deviate from what is good, if that is possible, but he should know how to do evil, if that is necessary.”[3] A prince should be virtuous and good if it is profitable for him to do so, but, if it is more profitable to be immoral, the prince should be the latter. Say, for example, that a prince makes a treaty with his neighbor. But then, another kingdom approaches the prince and offered him more gold or resources if he would help them start a war against the first, then the prince should assist the kingdom that would give him the most benefits. Or if a prince is relatively lenient with his subjects, but a group of malcontents stirs up a revolt in a town, Machiavelli would advise the prince to completely raze that town in order to secure his position. “There is no surer way of keeping possession than by devastation.”[4]

Additionally, “as a prince is forced to know how to act like a beast, he must learn from the fox and the lion; because the lion is defenseless against traps and a fox defenseless against wolves.”[5] Because a fox is clever and wary, it is a difficult animal to catch in a trap. As he is walking through the woods, he is cautious, constantly on his guard. A lion, on the other hand, can be trapped easily, because he thinks that he is the biggest kid on the playground. He struts around without caution, not able to fathom that anything could ever overpower him. He thinks he’s the best. “Those who simply act like lions are stupid.”[6]

But a fox, however clever, is still small and weak. This is why Machiavelli says the prince must be like a lion. A fox, when set upon by wolves, will not last very long. In the same way, a prince without a strong army will quickly be crushed by his enemies. But when a lion is set upon by wolves, he can fight them off and, instead of himself being crushed, crushes his enemies. Thus, a prince must have a strong army.

Machiavelli’s little book has become, in the words of the Penguin Classics version’s synopsis, “a bible of realpolitik,” or the use of force to secure political power. Machiavellian qualities are qualities like making one’s own laws; being shrewd and cunning; acquiring success through the conquering of fortune; believing it is better to be feared than to be loved; and acting for the good of the country. But the characteristics of Machiavelli’s prince have not only appeared in the real world, but also the world of fiction. One example in particular of this is the character of George Wickham from Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice.  

Wickham is a soldier who meets the protagonist, Elizabeth Bennet, through Lizzy’s soldier-crazy sisters Lydia and Kitty. He is well liked by the family, and almost everyone else, but his true character is that of a gambling womanizer. While George Wickham is not a prince in the general sense of the word, he is the prince of himself and, as such, exemplifies many Machiavellian qualities.

Even so, the first and fifth qualities mentioned above—making one’s own laws and acting for the good of the country—seem to pose a problem. How can Wickham make his own laws if he has no power to enforce them? How did he act for the good of England?

The answer to the first question is yes, he cannot make laws for those around him, but he can make laws for himself. Like the basic laws are essentially guidelines for morality and punishments for immorality, so, too are Wickham’s laws. They are a set of moral guidelines that he created for himself. For example, when he eloped with Georgiana Darcy in order to get money out of and to get back at Fitzwilliam Darcy, her brother, he was following the laws of the country of Wickham. The question of whether it would be moral in the eyes of others was of no consequence; it was what was for the good of Wickham. Whatever Wickham did, it was to help himself along in life, and therefore fulfills Machiavelli’s fifth quality as well.

Secondly, Machiavelli’s prince is shrewd and cunning. Wickham’s shrewdness is clearly shown throughout Pride and Prejudice. During his first “serious” discussion with Elizabeth at her aunt’s house, he starts by asking her if she knows Darcy very well. He was “probing the waters” to determine if she knew of his past actions and relationship with Darcy. But when Lizzy informs him of her utter dislike of the man, Wickham presses his advantage and presents himself as a poor victim of Darcy’s cruelty, ingratiating himself with Lizzy. “[Mr. Darcy’s] behavior to myself has been scandalous,” Wickham said, “but I verily believe I could forgive him anything and everything, rather than disappointing the hopes and disgracing the memory of [Darcy’s] father.”[7] Wickham had no intention of forgiving Darcy, but he played on Lizzy’s emotions to help establish himself as a respectable man.

In addition, Wickham beat out fortune to become successful. Though he was rather low-born, the son of Mr. Darcy Sr.’s steward, he rose to favor with who supported him financially until his death, and Fitzwilliam Darcy paid Wickham’s debts after his father’s death. Even when Darcy stopped Wickham’s affair with Georgiana, preventing Wickham from coming into Georgiana’s money, Wickham came back from it and eventually got what he wanted through Lydia Bennet. He used Darcy’s love for Lizzy to get back at him by eloping with Lydia, and, as a result, Darcy repaid all of Wickham’s debts and paid Wickham a presumably large sum on top of that.

Machiavelli’s fourth quality, that the prince believes it is better to be feared than to be loved, is a bit tricky. After all, Wickham is loved by everyone he meets. “Mr. Wickham was the happy man towards whom almost every female eye was turned.”[8] But Machiavelli says that it is best to be both loved and feared, but, since that is generally impossible, being feared is better.[9] Wickham’s character is such that, if he possessed the ability to be feared than loved, he would choose to be feared. But, due to his low station, he cannot make people fear him, and therefore turned his charm and wit towards making himself loved (particularly by women) and using that to get what he wanted.

In the closing paragraph of section 18 of The Prince, Machiavelli says of his prince, “To those seeing and hearing him, he should appear a man of compassion, a man of good faith, a man of integrity, a kind and religious man. And there is nothing so important as to seem to have the last quality.”[10] A prince must have the appearance of virtue, though his true character does not have to be one of virtue. Wickham certainly has this down. Everyone, even Elizabeth Bennet, who prided herself on being able to read people, was deceived by his charm.

But not only did Wickham appear to be kind and trustworthy, he also presented himself as a very religious man. He said to Lizzy, “The church ought to have been my profession—I was brought up for the church; and I should at this time have been in possession of a most valuable living, had it pleased the gentleman (Mr. Darcy) we were speaking of just now.”[11] Machiavelli, as quoted above, believed the appearance of piety to be the most important, and Wickham is the perfect example of this.

George Wickham is a prince. Not the heroic prince who saves the princess, but a different kind of Prince Charming, one lacking conventional morals and whose goal in all he did was to better himself. He is Machiavelli’s Prince.

Works Cited

Austen, Jane. Pride and Prejudice. Barnes and Noble Classics, New York, NY, 2003

Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. Translated by George Bull. Penguin Books, London, England, 2003

---

[1] The Prince, p. 50

[2] The Prince, p. 57

[3] The Prince, pp. 57-58

[4] The Prince, p. 18

[5] The Prince, p. 56

[6] The Prince, p. 57

[7] Pride and Prejudice, p. 76

[8] Pride and Prejudice, p. 74

[9] The Prince, p. 54

[10] The Prince, p. 58

[11] Pride and Prejudice, p. 77

Happy Valentine's Day!

Happy Valentine's Day, everyone!

Gracie and I spent all of yesterday afternoon baking and decorating cupcakes, and they are delicious. :D

Because today is in celebration of love and being romantic, I'd like to point you, my dear readers, back to the greatest example of love ever: the One and Only God, the God who is Love. 

First off, he made us. He didn't have to--he doesn't need us. But he did make us, and he said that we were good, and he loved us. Even when Adam and Eve disobeyed him, he didn't give up on us. The Bible is a narrative telling of God's plan to bring us back to him, his plan that is accomplished when Christ dies on the cross for us whom he loves, and when he rose again, crushing sin and death. By doing so, he allowed everyone--whether Jew or Gentile, slave or free, man or woman--to come to know him in a love relationship far greater than any other relationship we can have. 

So here's a few verses about his love for us. :)

"For God shows his love for us in this, that while we were still sinners Christ died for us." ~Romans 5:8

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life." ~John 3:16

"In all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creating will be able to separate us from the Love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord." ~Romans 8:37-39

Isn't that awesome?!

And now, here's some picture of the cupcakes we made. And some Les Mis to make your ears happy. :)

This one was an extra that got a little deformed in the oven...
so I got to have a little fun decorating it.  x]

A Speech!

I wrote this "speech" for part of my Rhetoric exam. Now, it was written to be spoken, so it may seem a bit formal, but...well. It was fun to write. :) 

___________________________________________________

Proposition: Chimpanzees are more practical pets than dogs are.

Thank you for having me here today. Hello, I am Seth Grant, and I’m here to tell you that monkeys are more practical pets than dogs. I’m not one to mince words—I’ve never even had a mince pie—so let’s jump in.

            Of course, before we can say that chimpanzees are more practical pets than dogs, we must first define what a practical pet is. A practical pet is 1) an effective servant, 2) can perform tasks and chores that would otherwise take up too much of your time, and 3) is a minimal-hassle animal. Before we go any further, however, let me clarify that yes, all these criteria for practical pets do necessitate a certain amount of training. This will be addressed later on.

            What do I mean by “effective servant”? Well, I mean that the animal can be your go-fer. Not the animal gopher, but a go-for, office slang for someone who can get things for you, such as the TV remote, coffee, a bagel, or a towel.

            Secondly, a practical pet can perform tasks and chores that would otherwise take up too much of your time. In our busy, hustle-bustle world, time is money. The more time you have, the more money you can make. So if your practical pet can perform those mundane tasks like doing the laundry, drawing the bath, and tucking the children in for bed.

            Finally, a practical pet is minimal-hassle. The less you have to spend (both time and money) on it, the less you have to nanny it, the less you have to clean up after it, the better. Like I said before, time is precious. And in the words of a current internet icon, “Ain’t nobody got time fo’ dat!”

With these criteria in place, we can now judge which pet is more practical, the chimp or the dog. Let’s start with the dog, whom I shall name Fido. Fido is a decently effective servant. He can bring you the TV remote when you’re crashed on the couch and just want to veg on the cough. He can bring you the newspaper on those cold mornings when you forgot your slippers and there was a particularly heavy dew the night before. And he can bring you a towel when you got into the shower without checking the towel rack.

Fido, however, cannot bring you your coffee in the mornings, much less brew it for you. But let’s set brewing aside for the moment and focus on the bringing. Fido uses his mouth in the place of hands, so when he grabs your coffee, you had better hope that your coffee lid was screwed on tightly, or else you’ll have to spend 30 minutes cleaning up nasty brown coffee stains. In addition, while Fido can bring you a bagel, most people would rather not eat soggy bagel. If Fido can resist the urge to eat the food that is in his mouth, not only his he a very well-trained dog, but the bagel will also be quite drenched in drool. I’ll leave it at that.

Can Fido perform chores for you? The simple answer is no. Once again, the lack of hands comes into play here. He may, perhaps, draw the bath for you, if you have installed long, doggy-friendly handles in your bathtub. And dogs are well-known for their ability to comfort children at night. But, sadly, our friend Fido cannot do other things, such as the laundry. He can bring the dirty clothes into the laundry room, but he cannot load the soap into the washer or start either the washer or dryer.

Now on to the third criteria: minimal hassle. The average puppy isn’t terribly expensive, depending on what breed you get, and you can get some for (comparatively) cheap from those corner stop salesmen who carry the puppies in the back of their trucks. And you can always check the classifieds for “puppies for sale.” However, puppies do take a great deal of training to perform the more complex tasks, such as getting your towel or drawing the bath, and you will have to pick up after them for the rest of their lives, even after they’ve been potty-trained. In addition, dogs are inbred with a desire to chew things when they get bored, so they must be constantly monitored or very well trained to avoid the owner’s coming home to find toilet paper strewn about the house.

Now that Fido has been analyzed, let’s move on to the chimpanzee, whom I shall name Zeke. Thanks to his opposable thumbs, Zeke can not only bring you the TV remote, newspaper, and towel, but also your coffee and that essential bagel. And, as an added bonus, he can brew your coffee for you so you don’t have to waste time brewing it.

Secondly, Zeke can draw the bath for you, tuck in your children, and do the laundry with ease. Opposable thumbs really are a huge plus. And, in addition to washing and drying your clothes, Zeke can even fold your laundry, iron it, and set it out for you the night before. 

But here’s the kicker: is Zeke minimal hassle? At first glance, the answer would seem to be no. While it is true that it is much harder and slightly more expensive to acquire a chimpanzee than it would be a dog, Zeke makes up for it in other areas. For instance, with his superior intelligence, Zeke can be trained much more easily to do the things mentioned above. He can be trained to use an actual toilet. And, while he, too, can be prone to tearing up things when left alone, Zeke can also be trained to use his boredom as a time to begin a more productive activity, such as the laundry. He doesn’t have to be let out every hour or so to use the bathroom.

While Fido is a very decent option for a practical pet, Zeke outdoes him in every area. Where Fido can be a go-fer for some things, Zeke can go-fer anything. With the benefit of his opposable thumbs, Zeke can perform chores that Fido can only do in his dreams. And Zeke can be trained much more easily than Fido can. Therefore, chimpanzees are more practical pets than dogs are.

Should Christians (non-Catholics) read Dante's "Purgatory"?

This is a short essay I wrote for my omnibus exam. I tried to imitate Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica by using the form of a Disputed Question. 

_______________________________________________________________

Question 1

First Article

Whether Dante's Purgatory should be read by Christians?

            We proceed thus to the First Article:—

            Obj. 1: It would seem that Christians should not read Dante’s Purgatory, for it seems to teach that people can be saved from the guilt of their sins by their own righteousness earned in Purgatory, and Paul says that it is “by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” If we could save ourselves by doing good things, then it would rob God of his glory, and the sacrifice of Christ would have been pointless. “For if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose” (Galatians 2:21). Therefore a person cannot blot out his bad deeds by his good deeds.

            Obj. 2: Further, Purgatory teaches that we will have another chance at salvation after we die. But in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, when the rich man begs for Father Abraham to have mercy on him and send him water, Abraham replies, “Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us” (Luke 16:25-26). Therefore it is impossible for a person, once deceased, to change his place of eternal residence.

            On the contrary, C.S. Lewis says in his essay entitled “On the Reading of Old Books” that “first-hand knowledge is not only more worth acquiring than second-hand knowledge, but is usually much easier and more delightful to acquire.” In addition, Lewis says, “[Many] would find that the heart sings unbidden while they are working their way through a tough bit of theology with a pipe in their teeth and a pencil in their hands.” Dante’s Purgatory is an old theological classic. Therefore, Christians should read it so that they may have an unadulterated view of Dante’s theology regarding Purgatory to compare to Scripture’s teaching, and, when doing so, learn what Scripture says on the topic.

            I answer that, Christians should read Dante’s Purgatory. For the same reason that we should read other classics, like Plato’s Republic—the reason being that classics increase our understanding of the world and God. “If there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things” (Philippians 4:8b). There is much that is excellent and worthy of praise in Purgatory. But we should still “take every thought captive” (2 Corinthians 10:5) and test it against Scripture, which is infallible.

            In addition, Purgatory gives us an example of how to live whilst on earth. While there is no such place as Purgatory, we can still take the principle portrayed in it—that of sanctification—and apply it to our lives. We are not saved by works, but we do become more like Christ through our actions, which stem from the renewing of our minds. 

            Reply to Obj. 1: Those that are in Purgatory are already Redeemed (Purgatory, 2.73). The Late-Repentant and the Excommunicate are in Purgatory, it is true; but, even though they only came to know Christ at the end of their lives, or were excommunicated, they are Christians nonetheless. Their works are not saving them, their works are making them ready for an audience with a Holy God who cannot be in the presence of sin.

            This has been a sufficient reply to the second objection.