Strangers in a Strange Land

[Please note: This blog may have been created for the purpose of rhetoric, but I plan to write on other works and such, this being one of those. You can skip all of this if you're going through for the sake of grades.]

It seems to me a great sorrow that there is not much time in the world and that we read so very slowly. If such was possible, it would be the greatest good for students to not only study the works of influential authors, but to study their lives as well. After all, what comes out on the page is the expounding of the heart and soul of the author himself.

The Narnian, a semi-biographical work by Alan Jacobs on the life and imagination of C.S. Lewis, should, in my opinion, be read as a complement to any and all of Lewis' works. There is something intrinsically beautiful in viewing the background of the Narnia tales, in seeing his journey towards 'mere Christianity', in hearing of his quest for what he called 'Joy'. I cannot point out exactly why, but learning more of the author behind the pages only increases my love and desire for the pages and words themselves.

There are two passages by Lewis, in two separate writings, that give me chills whenever I read them. One proceeds from the Narnia tale of The Last Battle and one from Mere Christianity. First, in The Last Battle, Lewis writes near the end of the tale,

Lucy said, "We're so afraid of being sent away, Aslan. And you have sent us back into our own world so often."

"No fear of that," said Aslan. "Have you not guessed?"

Their hearts leapt, and a wild hope rose within them.

"There was a real railway accident," said Aslan softly. "Your father and mother and all of you are - as you used to call it in the Shadowlands - dead. The term is over: the holidays have begun. The dream is ended: this is the morning." (Lewis, "The Last Battle", Chapter 16)

And from Mere Christianity,

If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world. (Lewis, "Mere Christianity")

Lewis speaks often in his more biographical writings of his long search for 'Joy', which he finally realized would not be found but in glimpses in this world (and, on a side note, what an amazing work of Providence that his future wife was to be none other Joy Davidman). This 'Joy' cannot be found anywhere in our own world except in fleeting moments, in passing seconds. This is the 'Joy' that will abound forever once the true holidays have begun.

As Lewis has put it, we belong to another world. Somehow, the beauty and wonder of that statement does not grow old with time. We long for the day when that first wild hope rises within us; it will be nothing like the feeling before Christmas and far removed from the hopes of our hearts now that I can hardly begin to imagine the moment. It is both terrifying and amazing to think of the day when we hear our Lord say to us, "Have you not guessed? The term is over: the holidays have begun. The dream has ended: this is the morning."And then, like the Pevensie children, we will finally enter into the first chapter of the Great Story.

Until then, we must continue on as strangers in a strange land.

Questions Raised from Luther's "On Secular Authority" (Parts 1 & 2)

There is little point in rehashing what Martin Luther expressly said in his text of On Secular Authority; anyone with a book and half a brain can figure that out for themselves. Rather, there are a couple of interesting, perhaps unrelated points which I would like to discuss further after having read the first two parts of his writing.

First, regarding Luther's idea of the true Christian as presented in part one and mentioned occasionally in part two. Luther seems to be of the ideal that, if this world were populated solely with Christian inhabitants, the need for law would disintegrate, as everyone would be doing exactly what they should be doing. If all men are forgiving injury and all men are attempting to keep others from injury, there seems to be little for any sword to do. Luther does, however, admit that such an idealized world of Christianity is impossible in the following quote,

But since no man is by nature a Christian or just, but all are sinners and evil, God hinders them all, by means of the law, from expressing their wickedness outwardly in actions. (Luther, "On Secular Authority", pg. 10)

Luther clearly states that no man is a Christian by simple nature, going on to say that they are all hindered, not just those who are wicked, but all of them, as they are all wicked in the beginning. It is interesting, then, to see the passage noted in part two of his discourse, where he writes,

Christians, on the other hand, do everything that is good, without any compulsion, and have all they need in God's word. (Luther, "On Secular Authority, pg. 34)

According to Luther, does a true Christian really exist? Is there a man in existence who actually does everything that is good, without compulsion, living solely off God's word and finding the law unneeded at any point in life? It would be impossible to answer affirmatively.

Luther's idea of the true Christian, the true believer, appears to be idealistic in nature and unrepresented in the current world. Following Luther's own arguments, laws, then, apply to all men, as none of them are truly Christian enough as to be able to correctly function without them. Are there, then, varying degrees of Christianity? Does man only reach true Christianity upon death? Luther's proposed answers bring with them yet more questions that I cannot pretend to know the answers to.

Secondly, I would like to bring notice to two particular phrases Luther uses in part two of his writing. When speaking of the differences between the kingdom of man and the kingdom of God and how Christians are to react to the evil doings of the leaders of the kingdom of men, Luther writes,

But I say to you: if you do not resist him and let him take away your faith or your books, then you will truly have denied God. (Luther, "On Secular Authority", pg. 29)

How curious, then, that not half a page further down, Luther writes,

Evil is not to be resisted, but suffered. (Luther, "On Secular Authority", pg. 29)

Luther's meaning seems clear enough; man is not to obey the worldly leaders when they are going deliberately against God's law, doing so being to deny God Himself. But somehow Luther has found a balance to strike between resisting evil enough so as not to deny the Lord, and not resisting it at all, but suffering it. Of course, this begs the obvious questions as to whether Christians should really sit by and not attempt to resist the evil of the world as it goes about, polluting all that it touches.

Do I have answers for these questions? Hardly. It's getting late at night and my brain feels like it's about to spontaneously implode. But Luther does raise interesting questions in his writing that deserve attention, even if I can hardly give it the attention it deserves. Perhaps it will make more sense in the morning sunlight.

And then again, maybe not.

A Short Essay on "The Prince"

"The Prince is a concise statement of Machiavelli's belief that classical and Christian political theory is unworkable in a world that defines politics as the exercise of power and the struggle for power. It is also implicitly a rejection of a nihilistic counterethic, that only power and brute force matter."

Discuss to what extent you agree or disagree with this statement. What evidence can you bring to support your position?

(Dante Germino, Machiavelli to Marx: Modern Western Political Thought, p. 32)

All states, all powers, that have held and hold rule over men have been and are either republics or principalities. (Machiavelli, "The Prince", Chapter I)

When Machiavelli began his work on The Prince, one can hardly think that he forsaw the results. Such a straightforward work, and yet the topic of numberless papers, essays, and speeches throughout the following centuries, all saying something different about this man and his strange work. For The Prince was strange indeed, being so clear in meaning that it has caused more confusion than had it been vague and shadowy.

Of the many voices that have and are breaching the subject of Nicolo Machiavelli, Professor Dante Germino is yet another one to be added to the sea of opinion and argument. In his work of Machiavelli to Marx: Modern Western Political Thought, he asserts two statements of Machiavelli. First, that Machiavelli's work demonstrates his belief that Christian political theory is useless in the modern world of politics, and that Machiavelli implicitly denies a nihilistic counterethic in his work. While, as is the case with Machiavellian literature, many differing opinions on the validity of Professor Germino's statements exist, it is clearly demonstrated throughout Machiavelli's own work that both of these statements are, indeed, true.

While Machiavelli never comes directly out and says such, he clearly indicates the truthfulness of Professor Germino's first statement throughout the writings of The Prince. He articulates for the reader a vision of the perfectly-ruled princedom, the perfect leader, who can and should lie, murder, steal, and so forth in order to preserve the princedom. Nearly every chapter, the Christian reader meets statements that debunk the Christian political theory as being weak, useless, and even dangerous to a proper leader.

For anyone who wants to act the part of a good man in all circumstances will bring about his own ruin, for those he has to deal with will not all be good. So it is necessary for a ruler, if he wants to hold on to power, to learn how not to be good, and to know when it is and when it is not necessary to use this knowledge. (Machiavelli, "The Prince", Chapter XV)

The "good man" mentioned by Machiavelli above is the religious man, the Christian man, and Machiavelli points his finger at him to tell him that he cannot survive in politics as he is. He remarks in chapter sixteen, that while meanness is generally regarded a vice, it is a necessity for a prince. Chapter seventeen follows up with his discussion on clemency and cruelty, and again he comes to the conclusion that cruelty is better for the nation than clemency, and to be feared is better for a prince than to be loved.

There is not a decent Christian who would nod his head and say to his friend, "Why, yes, I do think that if we were the rulers of this land we should be cruel and ruthless to our people. I do think that we should sacrifice the goodness that the Bible teaches us so that we might stay in power longer."

No, through his speaking on such topics as that, Machiavelli clearly demonstrates himself to be against the idea of Christian politics. Christian political theory, as Machiavelli has seen it, would be completely unresolvable with the necessary measures of modern politics.

The second statement made by Professor Germino, that Machiavelli implicitly denies a nihilistic counterethic, is perhaps a bit harder to prove than his first. Upon first glance, this seems obviously mistaken, as Machiavelli has written a work that seems to place everything in a distinctly black-and-white, no morality attached perspective. It may look as though he does, actually, believe that brute force and power are all that matter in the political world.

This, however, is incorrect.

If Machiavelli did believe that only power and brute force mattered in politics, there would be no reason for a good deal of his writing in The Prince. In fact, he could condense his entire book to an even shorter length than it currently is; he could bring it down to a sentence or two. (Something along the lines of "Have a good army and use force whenever necessary. The End.")

Therefore it is unnecessary for a prince to have all the good qualities I have enumerated, but it is very necessary to appear to have them. (Machiavelli, "The Prince", Chapter XVIII)

If power and brute force is all that matters, why should a prince go through such trouble to appear to have good qualities, even if he does not actually posses them? Why should a prince care about whether he appears to have compassion or generosity when he has power on his side?

Machiavelli may appear to do away with morality in The Prince, but it is only that, an appearance. Machiavelli has not done away with morality at all, he has only changed it to be a different kind of morality than the Christian kind that we might expect. Machiavelli has constructed a morality of politics, of the continuation of the state, and of the necessary tactfulness of the ruler to know when to use cruelty and when to appear to have clemency.

Professor Germino may or may not be right about a good deal of things. It is quite possible that he holds to ridiculous ideas and preposterous philosophies which have not yet been mentioned; one cannot propose to know. Regarding his above statements on Machiavelli, however, he is quite correct. Machiavelli most certainly did believe in the uselessness of Christian political theory in the working of actual politics, and he did indeed reject such a nihilistic counterethic of power and brute force alone. Whether he was right or wrong in doing so, however, is a discussion for another time.