Category — Literature

“Meaning is the being of all that has been created and the nature even of our self-hood”.
— pg. 4, Herman Dooyeweerd, A New Critique of Theoretical Thought, Vol. I

This is a little late in coming, but a recent discussion with my oldest daughter and wife about the film sparked some thoughts and I wanted to get them down before I forgot. These are just some basic ruminations based on questions my daughter was asking — she loves fantasy literature and we went and saw the film together when it first came out. My wife has not seen the film but was wondering about some of the controversy that has swirled around it within evangelical circles.

There is a sermon excerpt from Mark Driscoll that circulated around the web on the film. In it Mr. Driscoll stated boldly that Avatar was satanic and demonic. This précis is a riposte to his bloviation.

First, Avatar is that new species of the fantasy — or fairy-tale — genre known as science fiction. In other words, it is not asserting a philosophic or idealistic view of reality within our own as contradictory to the one we experience, but rather creates an entirely different place where creatures and things that we do not know exist. Pantheism suggests that known things are god. Avatar presents things, such as trees, as actual creatures- they are not trees as we know them, but exist as a wholly other kind of thing. Much like Tolkien did with the Ents in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. The story of Avatar acknowledges the existence of earth as a distinct kind of place from Pandora within the setting of the film, they co-exist as two separate, distinct kind of places. It could even be argued that, contrary to classic paganism, the story of Avatar maintains the distinction between the Creator and the creature. What we have is simply a different set of creatures within a different environment.

Secondly, the humans who experience the alien world of Pandora engage with it as a distinct reality from the one they knew on earth. They do not experience a revelation in their own minds regarding the nature of earthly existence, but rather experience the alien planet as an objective, alternative kind of place. Pantheism suggests that men do not see reality as it is, and until their minds are opened to a particular revelation of it, they remain unenlightened. This is not the notion suggested in Avatar. The experience of Pandora is not activated by a personal revelation, but is a physical reality experienced by all who visit.

Having said this, the film suggests an explicit world based on the popular notions found in the Gaia hypothesis, ideas that date back to the Hellenic search for a unifying substance or controlling aspect within nature. That search for a unifying notion is not itself Satanic, as men are religious by nature. When men pursue a unifying idea within temporal experience, they express their participation in the fall of Adam, as oriented toward the creation rather than the Creator. They do this within the realm of this world, in reality.

But, when a fantasy world is created, and the creatures within it act in accordance with the reality of that world — whatever kind of world that might be — then what we have is a potentially interesting piece of literature or film.

Finally, and as an aside, Mr. Drsicoll asserts that the film is contrary to the cultural mandate found in Genesis 1:28. He does not go so far as to suggest that the film depicts people who are fulfilling the mandate, but his words suggest that the opposition to the invasion of Pandora is a denial of something that might be close to it. Mr. Driscoll demonstrates deep confusion about the mandate in this regard. But again, I am not so sure the mandate was ever intended to include fantasy planets.

I would hope that Christians would take more time to think through these issues. We can be faithful without compromise, and still engage the artistic works of fallen men with intelligence and understanding. Reactionary and dogmatic evaluations are rarely accurate or helpful. Although we need to be circumspect, there is much to admire in the work of all kinds of men. We should strive as far as possible to see the world without a jaundiced eye.

“But as I put my head over the hedge of the elves and began to take notice of the natural world, I observed an extraordinary thing. I observed that learned men in spectacles were talking of the actual things that happened–dawn and death and so on–as if THEY were rational and inevitable. They talked as if the fact that trees bear fruit were just as NECESSARY as the fact that two and one trees make three. But it is not. There is an enormous difference by the test of fairyland; which is the test of the imagination. You cannot IMAGINE two and one not making three. But you can easily imagine trees not growing fruit; you can imagine them growing golden candlesticks or tigers hanging on by the tail”.
— GK Chesterton

At the brightness that was before him his thick clouds passed, hail stones and coals of fire.

The LORD also thundered in the heavens, and the Highest gave his voice; hail stones and coals of fire.
— Psalm 18:12-13

David gives clue to an understanding of historical judgment and apocalyptic literature generally. The language, if understood as the specific way in which the judgment happened, would be contrary to the historical record. There were not physical hail stones, nor coals of fire that fell on David’s enemies. Rather, the means which God used to judge the enemies of Israel were warfare, famine and political maneuvering. In the place of describing these very normal means (found in the historical books), David uses these thematic terms. This is a type of figurative trope — one in which the species of the genus has been changed. David uses poetic compaction to speak of the judgment of God. John does the same in Revelation.

Besides misconstruing the book of Revelation, perhaps we miss the judgment of God today, because we are waiting for hail stones and coals of fire.

The pomo rejects the meaning in the text, because they reject authorial intent. The Christian accepts the meaning in the text, and sometimes in spite of authorial intent.

“…let every good and true Christian understand that wherever truth may be found, it belongs to his Master; and while he recognizes and acknowledges the truth, even in their religious literature, let him reject the figments of superstition, and let him grieve over and avoid men who, when they knew God, glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things”.
- Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book II

Came across a book entitled “The 100 Most Influential Books Ever Written” by Martin Seymour-Smith. Like Mortimer Adler, he has created a list. Unlike Adler, he bases it on the general cultural influence of a book. Adler aimed at creating a prophylactic against illiteracy in the West. “Greatness” was an a priori assumption on Adler’s part, an “ought” built into his worldview. Seymour-Smith takes the after-the-fact route. There is over-lap between the two lists, but Seymour-Smith includes books that were actually read by people, not just what should be read.

He includes a number of mediaeval and 20th century books that Adler does not, such as Maimonides, Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, Chomsky’s “Syntactic Structures” and Von Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom”. Arguably, these books have had a deep influence on the West.

As a student of Western History and Worldview, I am thinking that Seymour-Smith may be on the right track. Dismissing the empirical reality of what shaped the West for an ideal of what should have can lead to all sorts of distortions and misunderstanding. Tone-deafness is a hallmark of some parts of Christendom.

I appreciate Adler’s work, agree with his pedagogical ideal, and have benefited greatly from following his plan — back in ‘96 I began to work through his list, and finished the better part of it. But, Seymour-Smith’s approach could help to fill in the blanks of the reality of the West and its trajectory.

“Unity of plot does not, as some persons think, consist in the unity of the hero. …As therefore, in the other imitative arts, the imitation is one when the object imitated is one, so the plot, being an imitation of an action, must imitate one action and that a whole, the structural union of the parts being such that, if any one of them is displaced or removed, the whole will be disjointed and disturbed. For a thing whose presence or absence makes no visible difference, is not an organic part of the whole”.
— Aristotle, The Poetics, Part VIII {italics mine}

Hero or action? Scriptural hermeneutics of the reformational type might deny that there is a choice to be made. The Person acted. If it was anyone else, the act would be empty.

“Epic poetry and Tragedy, Comedy also and Dithyrambic poetry, and the music of the flute and of the lyre in most of their forms, are all in their general conception modes of imitation“. — Aristotle, The Poetics

Via my older brother who introduced me to the author, I am a fan of William Gibson. Gibson is well known for his predictions and applications of future technologies. The household term cyberspace is one of his babies, amongst others. I read him because he spins such fun and intoxicating tales, but also because he is somehow jacked-in (there’s another one of his ideas), to what ever is coming next. I kid you not. Earlier this year I finished reading the two newest novels by the Canadian, Pattern Recognition and Spook Country. Pattern Recognition‘s protagonist, Cayce Pollard, is a free-lance cool-hunter. She spends her time hunting down the next big thing for Brand Marketers and industrial big-wigs. I would not be surprised if this is Gibson’s alter-ego as she seems to have a radar for the next trend. She even wears Mr. Gibson’s favorite jacket.

In Spook Country, a follow up to PR, a new kind of geo-spatial, public installation is making the rounds, and Gibson calls it “locative art” (he did not invent the phrase). It is based on a complex relationship between the internet, GPS (a product of released military technology, just as the internet is) and cell-tower triangulation. The viewer gets to see the art via a headset and computer hooked up to the system. One installation entails a memorial to River Phoenix which is a reenactment of his death outside the Viper Room in LA. The idea is that these invisible installations will eventually take up the space around us, placed there by the digital artists who claim the territory first. The preservation of historical moments and the iteration of memory is at the heart of the idea.

Having said all that, I nearly dropped my coffee when I saw this. Although it is not the full-blown thing, it is a step towards Gibson’s vision, brought to a very public level. Gibson’s vision is very much DIY and underground, but real research (think MIT) and experimentation has been going on for a while. This kind of user friendly app could make this the next big thing in terms of media exploration and communication. Here is a brief essay on the phenomenon.

He is supposed to be a man of letters. Yet, Christopher Hitchens is ignorant of the one Book he so hates. His characterizations and acidic tirades against the Book are tirades against his own imaginary constructions. He is battling monsters under his bed. He surely induces cringe in more literate Atheists. “Hey bro, bring it down to frantic”. 

After reading the two chapters on the Tanakh and the Gospels, I tossed the book aside. Hitchens has many perceptive things to say about Christendom, but he is a dolt on Christ. I like him, but he has lost me with his false assertions. On to more enlightened authors. 

“Religion spoke its last intelligible or noble or inspiring words a long time ago: either that or it mutated into an admirable but nebulous humanism….”
— Christopher Hitchens

At the moment I am reading god is not GREAT, by Christopher Hitchens. I have to say, he makes many good points. Although he focuses on the absurd of American evangelicalism, it is this absurdity that has come to define the faith in our society. Think Left Behind. The title ought to be: Many Christ professors are not great, something we can all agree on.

His main premise: We live off the past. Not just in the sense of the historical events of the life of our Lord, which is good and right, but in the literary and ecclesiastical past as well. We have little to offer currently. C.S. Lewis is still the cultural big-gun of the 20th century, and that is not saying much anymore. He was an anglo-Catholic, who wholly embraced Thomistic philosophy (the humanism Hitchens mentions). In other words, he did not have the epistemological armor to take on the likes of Hitchens. For my own part, I have always found the Narnia tales trite and predictable. No matter how hard I try, my eyelids get heavy by the fourth page. Do I blaspheme? Hardly. I like risky books that make a dangerous point. I think I have sided with Jesus in this regard. But, where are those writers?

Where are the new “noble and inspiring words”? Good question. Dead men are still my source for Christian reading. There is no Salman Rushdie of evangelical writing. So far there have not been any fatwas for the shite that LaHaye and his editors are hawking. The devil is happy. Maybe it is time the church declared a scourge on the millenarian garbage that has infected midland America and U.S. foreign policy. The sacred cow of unqualified support for geo-political Israel is a byproduct of the thin exegetical philosophy known as Dispensationalism. Hitchens quotes a Baptist missionary speaking in response to the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan: “American military might has now opened a way in the land of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob”. In other words, “We don’t have to risk our lives any more to bring people the Gospel, we have Black Hawks to protect us”. This is the puerile attitude that is now endemic in the American church; a strange echo of British Colonialism. Bravery exited stage-left. “I will not trust in chariots…but in the power of my Lord”. Hitchens uncovers the American evangelical panty-waste soul.

I have not finished reading, so I will not attempt a critique yet. Suffice it to say, every Christian should read this book at some point. Spiritual colon-cleanse that it is. If Hitchens angers you, it is assuredly for other reasons than your love of God. His greatness endures.