Tolkien and Plato

J.R.R. Tolkien is one of the great Christian neo-Platonists of the twentieth century. With C.S. Lewis and A.E. Taylor, Tolkien was part of a revival of this traditional Christian synthesis with the work of the great Athenian. Tolkien’s works in the realm of imagination helped create an entire genre of literature, modern fantasy novels. His writings continue to cleanse the imaginations of new generations of readers. However, many scholars, especially in departments of English, question whether Plato would have been comfortable with the literary and imaginative character of much of Tolkien’s writings.

What was Plato’s attitude toward the realm of imagination? The Republic is usually taken to be especially critical of imagination so our brief examination will focus on this dialogue.

For Plato, imagination is where images of the objects of the visible world reside. Here is the realm for the utterly unreflective imitation of what is visible. The imagination confuses the speculative with the visible objects of nature. Since Plato allows artifacts and manufactured things to be in the higher category one need not put Michelangelo’s “David” in this realm. Instead, one would place any image, like a reflection or a bad piece of “art,” that is the product of no thought.

Many scholars believe Plato condemns all art to the lowest level of thought. I agree with Francis Cornford in thinking that Plato is speaking here of thoughtlessness that does not separate the fantastic from the visible. If this is correct, Plato is not placing the arts, as we know them, in the realm of imagination. The hard work of the artist to think about and reflect on the world seems more like science than mere imagination.

Tolkien and his work do not fit in the lower realm. Tolkien’s writings are the product of massive amounts of thought and contain may deep truths. It is the sort of myth making of which Plato was so fond. Bach may be dealing with an even higher level of intellectual activity. His work seems more like thought in the Platonic sense than imagination.

Instead, Plato may be defining “imagination” is a very particular way. For example, there are some people who do not know that television shows are not real. George Reeve, the actor who played Superman, was worried that some fanatic fan would take a shot at him to see the bullet bounce off his chest. There really are people who confuse the lives of the characters they see on television with the actor who plays the role. One need only attend a Star Trek convention to see people who cannot keep in mind that William Shatner is not actually Captain James T. Kirk. Of course, Star Trek itself as a higher art form is mythic and the productive of great creative genius. However, not all television viewers are astute! Some simply accept what they see on television the same way they accept what they see at the mall. Plato is placing at the lowest level of cognition the sort of “imagination” that is unconstrained by any thought whatsoever. On the other hand, the arts that like his own dialogues create “thought experiments” for the viewer, reader, or user are of a different and higher order.

One other point must be made. Wherever he would classify art, Plato believes each person moves from the visible to the invisible. Imagination is a stage in this process and is not an evil thing unless it is never outgrown. The divided line moves from the least to the most real. It moves from the weakest form of opinion to sure understanding. Kindergarten is not bad unless one refuses to leave. No one should be finger painting at forty.

The best known image in all of Plato is the Cave analogy found at the beginning of Book VII. Once read it cannot be forgotten. Allusions to it appear in so many books and movies that it would be impossible to list them all. In fact, the Cave Analogy can be a kind of trap for the unwary reader. The image appears in a particular dialogue to show particular truths to a specific group of people. However, the image is so powerful that it is tempting to view everything Plato ever wrote through it. Students are often tempted to compare it to any other passage of Plato and use it as a Rosetta stone for every difficulty. Many other people only read the Cave Analogy in anthologies. It becomes the entire Republic.

This is very dangerous. By itself, the Cave leads the reader to believe that Plato despised the visible world and science. Plato was surrounded by people who believed the visible world was the only one that mattered. He saw the comparatively greater importance of the divine. To most people the divine seems less important, because it is not immediately visible. Yet it is the divine that makes the visible possible. Compared to the Good nothing seems worth discussing. But Plato does discuss other things for he devotes an entire dialogue to science, the Timaeus. Many of his myths like that in Republic Book X contain important cosmological detail. Plato does not feel the need to convince his reader of the importance of the “real world.” That is easy enough.

Plato uses the Cave Analogy to make many points. The world that seems so important is much less important than the divine reality we cannot see. People who have seen the truth often seem less wise than those who not seen it. Men cannot live in the world of the Forms. At best, man leaves the cave and sees the sun. No man ever goes and lives on the Sun. In fact, humans must eventually return to the cave. There they can tell what they have seen. This difficult duty shows that Plato does not despise the world. He sends the philosopher back to it. He just speaks in a kind of prophetic extreme about the glories of the next world to jar the prisoner of the cave from his complacency.

Let me draw attention to one detail that is often overlooked. Plato provides no way for the first man to get out of the Cave. He merely says, “When one was freed from his fetters. . .” (515c) How? It seems unlikely chains would fall off merely by the prisoner recognizing he is wearing them. Every human is in chains. Of course, the theory of recollection says there is forgotten knowledge of the other world that might be remembered by some fortunate man. This does not seem adequate, however. The power of the lies about the shadows would be too all pervasive. The returning memory would be uncertain and the power of the keepers of the prisoners, who create the images on the wall with their puppets and fire, too absolute. The prisoner who began to doubt the sufficiency of the explanations found in the Cave could be quickly silenced. Who shall release the first man? How is it done? This is the great unanswered question of Republic.

Socrates presents his views on education following the insights gained from the Cave Analogy in Book VII and his divided line image in Book VI. Education is offered freely, but is not compulsory. “Nothing taught by force stays in the soul.” (536e) The students are to be sound in body and in mind. Sound bodies will enable them to engage in the hard work of learning at a later age. Young people are to learn all the normal Greek fields of study. At twenty, the best are taught how these fields of study form a unified whole. Socrates warns that the dialectic is not for the immature. The immature use it to become lawless. Having been confused by argument, they rush out and confuse others. Instead, only the best and most mature should be given the tools of the dialectic. They will then be forced to serve others.

This is the educational system of the city in words. Real men took this speculation seriously and built the Western educational system around it. The training of a stereotypical Victorian English gentleman followed this course of study almost exactly. Modern American education still has the remnants of this liberal arts system without any comprehension of the philosophy behind it. Building on the ideas of Republic was not an unreasonable thing to do. How can this be since I have cautioned so often that Plato is building a city of words that is not to be taken as proscriptive?

This is schooling in words. I think Plato has no commitment to the details of his educational proposal. At one point Socrates is asked if a course of study should take five or six years, he says, “It doesn’t matter. Make it five.” (539e) On the other hand, at times in Republic Plato is basing his city in words on certain metaphysical beliefs he does take seriously. These ideas are not just found in Republic. The general principles outlined here in compact form are the same ones we have seen scattered throughout the other dialogues. It seems fair to attribute them as Plato’s own views as a result. One would use the same rules that one might use in determining what a writer like Tolkien believed from reading Lord of the Rings. No one should conclude from reading Return of the King that Tolkien would have favored an absolute monarchy for Britain based on blood. With care one might find attribute certain views in Lord of the Rings to Tolkien and not just think of them as details in his mythic universe. For example, Tolkien had a mixed view of technological advance. He did not accept the common assumption of his time that technological change was always good. In the same way, no one should think Plato wanted to make himself or some other philosopher tyrant of Athens.

Tolkien and Plato both use myth in the same way. Each used story telling to spur the human soul to deeper truths. If the myth is not confused with the Truth, then it has served its Platonic function. Plato need not condemn literature and myth-making, indeed he would applaud it. Tolkien is a consistent neo-Platonist.

July 31 is the last “red” Sunday. We use red as the color for Pentecost. Pentecost Sunday was May 15 and our church has been reminded of the Gift of the Holy Spirit and His Power for over two months.

On August 7 we turn green, or at least our church colors do. The cloth on the Communion Table will be green, the scarf on the pulpit will be green and Dn. Dan and I will wear green. We are entering what the Church calls Ordinary Times, or another name is Kingdomtide. This is the longest season as it lasts till the last Sunday in November, when the New Year starts with Advent.

This is a reminder that we must live in ordinary times. An important part of the Christian life is just loving our families, loving and serving our neighbors, going to work and earning a living and being good responsible citizens.
Sometimes the Christian life is presented as if we must always be experiencing something new and “exciting.” A lot of what we see and hear in the media seems to present a constant state of “hype.” Sometimes we are tempted to become followers of the latest trend. There are even times when believers neglect the “ordinary times” and the ordinary duties to be “super spiritual.”

Most days are not filled with hyper sensory stimulation and unusual manifestations of God’s Power. Most days are lived in Ordinary Times.

But Ordinary Times are to be lived as citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven. For the Bible tells us that we are a colony of Heaven right here on earth. We have a King. We are citizens of a heavenly country. We live our lives confessing that Jesus is Lord.

Our Lord wants us to learn how to live in Ordinary Times, so that truly they are Kingdom times. He wants us to live at home, to go to work, to live in our neighborhood as citizens of the Kingdom.

I am glad that Pentecost comes before Ordinary Times. It is His Power that enables us not just to have great experiences and do great deeds of valor, but to live our ordinary lives as Christians. Folks need to see Jesus in us as we go about our day. Our most powerful witness should be who we ARE in our everyday life.

So, in August we bring out the green. Whether or not your church observes all the seasons, perhaps when you see green you will think of Ordinary Times and be thankful that the Power of the Spirit and the Presence of Christ He gives us is for Ordinary Times.

Father L. Dayton Reynolds
CEC

TheWhitePath.com: Bolshevism in a Headdress

This is a must read article by a rising star in Islamic journalism.

Rather than the Tancredo Option, we should be setting up think tanks to enourage this sort of dialogue and reformation in Islam.

This news story should remind all evangelicals that liberalism has been tried and found wanting. My Pentecostal and left-of-center evangelical friends are invited to try dialog with the left, women’s ordination, and innovation. Perhaps then you could replace the Faithful now leaving the NCC.

Touchstone Magazine - Mere Comments: “Breaking News: Orthodox Leave NCC

Dearborn, Michigan. July 28, 2005.This afternoon the General Convention of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America voted overwhelmingly to leave the National Council of Churches of Christ. The General Convention is holding its annual meeting this week in Dearborn, Michigan.

The action was not a temporary “suspension” of membership, but a formal withdrawal from the NCC. The clergy unanimously approved the withdrawal, followed by a unanimous vote of the lay delegates supporting the move. An announcement of the final vote was met with thunderous applause by the Convention.

Reasons given for the withdrawal include the general liberalism of the NCC, whose General Secretary, Bob Edgar, withdrew his signature from a statement defining marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Metropolitan PHILIP, head of the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese, was reportedly outspoken in calling for the church to withdraw from the NCC, stating that the relationship had proven fruitless.

The National Council of the Churches of Christ has listed on its website ‘36 member communions and denominations.’ It now has 35.

Note: An interview about this vote and its consequences with the Very Rev. Olof Scott, the newly-elected chairman of the Department of Interfaith Relationships, is scheduled to air on Ancient Faith Radio this coming Sunday, July 31, 2005, at 5 PM EDT.”

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Japanese develop ‘female’ android: “We have found that people forget she is an android while interacting with her
Prof Hiroshi Ishiguro”

The science is interesting, but the cultural implications are bad.

Just what a Japanese culture that already has too few children needs! Sterile faux-women that might someday fool men into thinking they are woman for ten minutes. Most men don’t interact more than ten minutes with woman already. The implications are staggering!

The ancients made gods in their own image and worshipped them. We make less capable images of our own image and chat with them.

Does anyone else see a failure of imagination here?

There are simpler ways of getting more actual Japanese women.

Robotics can have many positive uses, but creating “foolies” is not one of them.

Vital church question:

What if this android is programmed to claim a call to the ministry?

I have just received a second suggestion for the worst argument favoring women’s ordination.

Let’s call it the “We Already Knew” (WAK) attack.

This little gem can go in one of two ways.

First, one can simply state that failure to allow women to be priests/senior pastors is on its face unjust. Being unjust is bad. . . therefore it is bad to bar women from the priesthood.

WAK!

How do we know. . . because “We already knew!”

Of course the very issues at stake are whether the priesthood is like a “job,” whether men and women have equal qualifications for the “job” (if it is a job), or whether inequality in function is part of the divine order.

However, there are positive aspects to this argument. The Green Bay Packers (bless them!) have never asked me to try out as their place kicker. I feel called to be a Packer. I love the Packers. I can place kick. (Dare anyone question my sincerity? If so, then I will cry or scream or both.) Why shouldn’t I get a try-out? Am I not a human? Am I not a citizen created equal before the Almighty?

It is unjust that the Packers do not let me play for them given my passion and calling. Since it is bad to be unjust, they must give me a try out.

WAK!

Can anyone say “circular argument?”

Of course, there are advocates of women’s ordination who do not stoop to this level of argument by brow beating, but there are an amazing number of church leaders who do.

The second technique is to claim that God has called one to pastoral ministry. How can anyone deny a call from God based on theology? Aren’t we led by the Spirit?

Pentecostal churches have been particularly vulnerable to this sort of argument.

Their history is abused, distorted, and an overly robust individualism (common to all Americans!) is exploited to make a subjective and highly manipulative appeal look like an argument.

Why should women be ordained? Why it turns out that “we already knew” they should!

(”Are you saying, Mr. Smith,” said the candidate with tears in his/her eyes, “that I am not hearing our precious Saviour?”

WAK!

Any counter argument based on reason will make the foe look like he or she has a hard heart and is led by the law and not the Spirit.

I can think of no objective standard immune to this WAK attack given the state of the culture.

Any Anglican knows that this method will not end with women’s ordination.)

Of course, this argument could be used to justify making just about anyone a minister who claimed a call . . .including people that the advocates of women’s ordination would agree should be excluded. (For example, suppose Bob were the husband of two wives. . . )

At that point, the advocate (one hopes) would point to Scripture, Church history, or some standard within their community to limit the subjective feelings of the membership.

So the truth is none but the mad think anyone should be a priest/pastor simply on the basis of receiving a call.

A call is a necessary, but not sufficient condition.

Bringing this issue up simply distracts from the point.

What is the point?

We all agree that our culture (meaning the US/Western Europe. . . these people often talk a global Christianity but on this issue aren’t) believes equality of persons demands some kind of equality of function.

Is this a good idea? Is it Biblical? Is it just? Does it comport with the traditions of the Church? Is it reasonable?

One cannot beg these questions with fetching anecdotes. In many churches the laity ends up going along with change that makes them uncomfortable based on these bad argument. Lightly educated seminary grads with an agenda can push and push. The folk don’t have an agenda, don’t have much training in this area*, and so can be worn down by advocacy “scholarship.”

*Fun example: Let’s call this the Greek bluff. A seminary grad with very little actual Greek skill claims that Paul has been misread. “By the goddess, he is not really a misogynist like he seems. After all, how could he be? Isn’t the Bible true?” The poor traditional elder ends up looking like he is attacking Paul and the Bible.

Does anyone with Greek skills outside the evangelical sub-culture take evangelical feminist exegesis seriously? Paul stands in the way of what they want so the advocates simply misrepresent the Greek to people who don’t know better. Seminary grads further down the food chain repeat the lies in all sincerity. Church elders are told: “Head means source in the Greek!” and they don’t know the proper response is to laugh.

In the interest of good philosophic fun, I am conducting a hunt for the single worst argument in favor of women’s ordination. People arguing for such a role have to argue against tradition. It just was not done. They have to explain how a book (the Bible) shot clean through with patriarchy isn’t. Finally, they have to assault reason itself. (More on that later.)

Part of that assault on reason has been the production of some of this worst scholarship this side of Kent Hovind.

Today’s candidate for bad argumentation could be called the “Luther was an Anti-Semite” argument.

Advocates of women’s ordination have a problem. Nobody read the Bible (or orthodoxy) their way until very, very recently. All the great heroes of the faith, including women saints, supported traditional roles for women until very, very recently. That makes women’s ordination look like an innovation coming to the Church from the worst part of secular culture, not a move of the Holy Spirit.

So what is to be done?

Find out that (the horror!) some men in the Church (even big names!) were misogynists.

Second, point out that Church leaders were not always perfect. Here the fun thing to do is to point out that “Luther was an anti-semite”.

Why is the argument bad?

First, it ignores the universal consensus of the Fathers. Unless a male priesthood is held to be a sign of a low view of women in and of itself (begging the question), many church leaders (including the female saints) were not misogynists. They also did not support women’s ministry.

There is no absolute consensus on “racism” or “anti-Semite” thought as there is on the issue of women’s ordination.

About any odd belief can find a Church leader in history to be its advocate (ask the Mormons!). What should concern the leaders of the women’s ordination movement is the consensus. . .not any given name.

Second, the Luther argument implies that if a great thinker pops off in a bad way in some area at the edge of his thought, we can freely dismiss serious discussion of views instrinsic to his theology or way of reading Sacred Scripture and tradition.

If only Catholics knew! They could solve any problems with Lutherans by saying, “Well, we know that Luther made some strong arguments, but he was an anti-Semite!” This is a pretty all purpose defeater.

Professor Bainbridge sides with Tancredo on the issue of whether it is ethical to target non-combatants.

While it may be (in very rare cases) ethical to target non-combatants, I would argue that it is so unlikely that any of these cases would apply to the War on Terror that Hewitt’s statement is true enough for blog use.

Tancredo has argued that bombing Mecca “should be on the table.” I fail to see any relevant example where traditional Christian ethics would allow for the bombing of Mecca. First, the default ethical position is strongly on the side of Hewitt’s general take that one should not intentionally target non-combatants. It seems to me that Hewitt has stated a generalization with so few exceptions (none of which seem at all likely to apply to this war) that it should be accepted.

The War on Terror seems unlike any other war used as an example in three important ways.

First, we are not (mostly) at war with a state. Terror need not depend on state support. (We are of course in the process of destroying those few, very weak states that decided they will support terror.) Therefore arguments about knocking out the infrastructure of a guilty state do not apply.

Second, terrorists do not depend on massive arms, numbers, or supplies to act. With or without state support, they are lean. Destroying an entire city will not keep them from getting box cutters or simple explosives.

Third, those few nations that do support terror (or might) are so weak that it is incoceivable that we would need saturation bombing to bring them down.

I am of course assuming that Mecca is not a military target. So far as I know it contains no massive stores of arms, factories to build military supplies, nor does it have a large civilian population necessary to the “radical Islamic” war effort.

Mecca is of importance only as a symbolical target. As such, the only value it could have is if the destruction of this place would shorten the war by demoralizing the foe. Since nobody believes it would do this and it would obviously have exactly the opposite effect, I see no precedent in just war thought that would allow for consideration of the bombing of Mecca in this War.

As a result of these considerations, I think Hewitt is right in his generalization as applied to the GWOT. It would always be self-defeating and wicked to intentionally target civilians and civilian targets in this war which is the only war were are fighting at present. Generic examples (which may be rare) from World War II do not help Tancredo.

Bainbridge is a very good thinker, but isn’t it a bit unfair to apply examples to a Hewitt generalization that do not apply to the situation to which Hewitt was commenting?

Comments below:

ProfessorBainbridge.com: Tancredo versus Hewitt: “Actually, the extent to which one can target non-combatants consistently with Christian just war theory is a pretty complex question, as I explained in a semi-tongue in cheek post on Star Wars.

Bainbridge is right, but I feel to see one reason Mecca would fit (even in theory) as an example of just targeting of non-combatants. (I view this intentional targeting of non-combatants with some degree of distaste. It may be ethical in some rare cases, but even in those cases it should scarcely be the topic of bombastic speech making by a Congressman with his eyes on the White House.)

LTC Peter Farber has written that just war theorists long defended strategic bombing:

… 1) it preserved and protected the just against the criminal (note the Augustinian emphasis here),

It is unclear to me how the bombing of Mecca would accomplish this end. We are not at war with Saudi Arabia. Though terrorists may live in Mecca (or LA for that matter), there is no reason to think the majority of the people of Mecca are aiding terrorists. If their government is doing so, then I would suggest we start a war against the House of Saud. Such a war would not begin with a bombing of Mecca!

If on the other hand, the House of Saud is being (on the whole) presently helpful against terrorism, then what possible justification can there be in attacking Mecca?

2) the civilians supporting their national leadership were equally responsible for the decisions made by that leadership,

I fail to see how the people of Mecca could express this view in present day Arabia. They did not elect their government.

and 3) the vigorous prosecution of the war prevented an even greater loss of human life.

As everyone agrees there is no chance that Mecca would be a good target in this regard.

The use of strategic bombing in response to an act of non-state terrorism presents different questions than its use in traditional warfare between states, of course, especially when one of the states is as evil as Nazi Germany, but what if the terrorists had state support?

-If the House of Saud (the government in the case of Mecca) supports terrorists and they will not stop, then war with them might be justified. In such cases one might bomb cities in order to quickly bring the terrorist nation to its knees and end active warfare, but only if this was necessary to save lives in sum. However, since the House of Saud could not withstand even the amount of force used to topple Sadaam, it is hard to imagine a case where the war would get to the point where targeting non-military infrastructure and civilians would ever be necessary OR ethical. The government of Arabia simply does not have the muscle (unlike the powerful Nazis) to justify it in any conceivable situation. In fact, does any Islamic state have such power at present? As a result, even in this hypothetical, Hewitt’s general rule would still apply.

As a Christian I do not think Islam is right on some vital issues. My preference would be for Moslems to be Christians. I respect serious Moslems who believe that I would be better off (closer to Truth) if I were Moslem.

That is a matter for dialogue and reasoned debate. Being right on these issues is important and one need not “wimp out” on them carry on civil discourse and friendships. People who think dialogue is “wimpy” are the same people who think winning by force, without winning hearts, is victory.

Ask the Communists in Russia. You may have the guns, but when that is all you have then your cause is doomed. Win the battle of ideas and all the guns in the world cannot help your foe.

Of course, good ideas need brave guardians to keep intellectual losers from trying to survive by force, but the USA has plenty of such guardians.

Disagreement on some things should not cloud agreement on other things.

I agree with most Moslems on many important issues. Mainstream Islam is right about the bad impact of secularism. Serious Islam supports a strong family structure and positive child rearing practices.

Of course there are “unserious” forms of Islam, just as there are weird forms of Christianity.

Christians should be allies with serious Moslems when they can on cultural issues where we have much in common. We should also be allies against terror which both religions (in their serious manifestations) deplore. The US has millions of Moslem allies in the Global War on Terror.

The abortion clinic terrorist behaved in a way contrary to his stated Christian faith. My Moslem friends say that the World Trade Center bombers were bad Moslems. Just as I would hope they would believe my claim about the abortion clinic killer so I take their world for the state of play in Islam.

Tom Tancredo misses that important point.

Taking on someone that is “on your side” is hard for a member of the media to do.

When someone does, it is brave and they should be commended for courage.

Hugh Hewitt is showing such courage.

Recently, a conservative favorite in Congress, Tom Tancredo announced that bombing Mecca should be on the table in the Global War on Terror.

Hewitt opines:

“Supporting” Congressman Tancredo on this issue identifies you as an American interested in comforting noise rather than progress in the GWOT.

Hewitt is right and Tancredo is wrong on at least four grounds.

First, Tancredo is wrong on pragmatic grounds to make such a statement. Turning the War on Terror into a West versus Islam battle is the only hope our foes have. They have little support in most of the world. Islam has a great deal of support. Tancredo would be stupid to say this (as a leader) even if he was right.

Second, even if one assumes that Islam is all radical Islam (as I do not), the proper position would be to support movement in Islam toward change. Advocating bombing Mecca is no more likely to produce positive change in Islam than ecumenical dialogue with Catholics would be helped by putting “bombing the Vatican” on the table.

Third, Mecca is not a military target. What would be the ethical justification for destroying part of our world heritage, with civilian losses, for no military gain?

Fourth, it is empirically false that all of Islam supports terrorism. To cite but one example my colleague Mustafa Akyol has a fine web site and blog here.

Mustafa is a thoughtful person and professional friend. He has had positive interaction with my intellectual godfather Phillip E. Johnson. Johnson writes about him in the most recent Touchstone.

We do not always agree, but it horrifies me that a member of our government would put bombing this fine man’s most holy site on the table in a war in which Mustafa, like millions of Moslems, is an ally against terror.

One can think Islam wrong on theological and philosophic grounds without making the straw man argument that all of it is as bad as its worse possible proponents. Christians rightly resent it when this is done to them. Moslems should be treated with the same charity.

Tancredo is making presidential noises. He now is disqualified from serious consideration given the pressing need to win the War.

The British police shot a man they believed was a terrorist.

He was not a terrorist.

This man fled from police when asked to stop. He entered the Underground System that had just been bombed.

Now the British police are under fire. However, the criticism is irrational and assumes that one must be right in order to be justified in his actions.

In the real world, human beings must act based on the information they have. When lethal force is being used this information must be compelling. The person making the decision must use the time he has to gather this information and make a rational choice.

In the case of the victim of the shooting, the police had seconds (at most) in which to make a decision. If the man were a terrorist, lethal force had to be used quickly. All appearances pointed to the man being a terrorist. The officer made a rational decision and shot the man. His decision was the right one at the time given the information at hand and the time limits imposed by actual terrorists.

It is sad that the officer was wrong and that a man innocent of terrorism was killed. The blame for this error must rest with the terrorists of London who created a situation where such decisions to shoot are rationally justified at the time of the shooting.

Given actions of the terrorists, men with backpacks who refuse to stop when asked by police who run into crowded areas often the targets of terrorists are going to die.

Imperfect knowledge, the only kind one gets in a fallen world, will lead to imperfect decisions.

People demanding that governments never be wrong before using lethal force cannot live in the real world.

The same thing is true in the case of WMD in Iraq. Bush made the decision that Iraq had WMD. He based his case on information that every country agreed was accurate. The Russians thought Iraq had WMD. The French believed it. This information had been gathered over a long period of time.

There was no reason to believe that more time would lead to different information. For example, part of the UN was actually in the pay of the old regime. The UN could not be trusted to find any information. The government of Iraq lied so often it could not be believed. It had used WMD in the past. In a world where foes of the USA were beginning to gravitate to Iraq for training and perhaps for weapons, this situation was intolerable.

Bush acted. . . Like the officer in London.

In the case of Iraq, a brutal madman was removed from power and a democracy is beginning to take root.

The situation in London is not so happy. There is nothing good about the death of the man in the Tubes except that it tells the terrorists that such behavior will now meet lethal force. The chances of taking “infidels” with them now might seem less to them.

It might (one prays) deter some of them from giving their lives for “nothing.”

In any case, “being right” after the fact should not be the sole standard by which we judge a decision to use force. One has to make the best choice one can at the time.

Given the evils of Sadaam, Bush was almost surely justified in using force. Given the cost of letting a suicide bomber through, the police officer was also ethically justified in making the decision he did at the time.

Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good. Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another; Not slothful in business; fervent in spirit; serving the Lord; Rejoicing in hope; patient in tribulation; continuing instant in prayer….

It is an honor to be asked to speak at this wedding today. This is something I cannot do often, but am proud to do today at this blessed occasion. David has meant a great deal to Hope and me. We are learning to know and love Cordelia. We trust that in the years to come we will see the full outworking of the great promise we see in these two now becoming one.

You have chosen to begin your marriage with words from Saint Paul. This was wise, even if your wisdom would not be easily apparent to the modern. Why listen to the words of a first century celibate man on your wedding day? His advice, even if inspired by the Holy Spirit, was not even directly related to marriage! He was giving advice to all Christians.

And yet there is no better place to turn in order to seek wisdom at the start of your life together. In fact, the holist man is most experienced in the rules of marriage. The actions that make you holy are the actions that will make your marriage successful in the eyes of God. Paul, the great apostle, knew the love of God and so is the best source for wedding advice.

If you begin your marriage by understanding the greatest purpose of marriage, then you will fulfill its calling.

Marriage is the very best image of the relationship of Christ and His Church. Marriage is a preparation for the union of God and man at the Great Wedding that will end this Age and bring on the Age to come. What prepares the Bride of Christ for her great Bride Groom for all Eternity will prepare the bride and groom of this marriage for life together now.

This marriage is the deepest reflection of your life in Christ. You cannot love your God and hate your spouse. This is why God hates divorce and loves marriage. He is ever faithful and wishes us to be so. He will never leave us and knows the harm that comes when we leave Him. Today you are in a sense born again, the very best earthly image of the heavenly reality, as you take each other and become a new family.

Of course we are fallen and in the divine economy there is forgiveness for those of us who have marred His perfect plan. There is forgiveness and a new start. However, the failure of some of us to live up to the ideal does not vindicate giving up on that ideal.

Love is to be “without dissimulation.” The NIV says “love must be sincere” a fine translation which runs the risk of reminding some of us the Great Pumpkin and a sort of goofy-hearted innocence. Our culture thinks innocence is boring, sincerity is stupid, and marriage is about feelings.

Paul defies this worldly wisdom with the Truth. He sees that being real destroys the fantastic love of Hollywood which can exist only for the moment in the imagination. Love that is based on a perfect fantasy in the mind of the other person cannot last. We are all sinners in need of grace. Sincerity will have to reveal our deep and abiding faults and only God’s love, the love of the Cross, is strong enough to accept and love the real self. This love does not accept with resignation, but itself acts to transform the beloved not into a tool of self, but into the full expression of what God intended our lover to be. Sin aborts. Sincere Christian love brings to birth.

However, this rational, pure, and passionate love is building for forever. It strips aside every pretence, every mask, and reveals itself to the beloved. Only in this way can a person see the other and be drawn from the image of God at last revealed in them to the Creator.

Abhor that which is evil. Nobody gets near a thing he abhors. Evil will never appear evil. Much of it will come masked as great good. Learn to hate anything that draws you away from God’s law. This will protect you from the sin which will build barriers between the two of you. Right now you feel very much in love, but inside (despite best efforts) there are hidden places, dark and private- or so you believe. God knows of them and they separate you from Him. But since human love is a piece of divine love, those dank dungeons of depravity also pull the two of you apart. Now emotions cover this up- but will not last- I know. Abhor those evils- at first for the sake of your marriage but ultimately so you both, one forever, can bask in Love Himself.

Cleave to that which is good. This is an interesting command since marriage is about leaving the old life and cleaving to each other. You are to cling to the good as strongly as today you wish to cling to each other. The good may be the harder path at first, but you will eventually find that it is the best way.

You both know that virtue is not the absence of vice- inanimate objects have no vice, but they are not good. Instead seek Love. Crave it. Never be satisfied with settling. Accept that there will be low points in your love, but never listen to the burned out or the worldly wise who demand you settle for affection. The world seduces you to evil with the promise of a Grand Mission- holiness delivers what the world cannot give.

In honor prefer one another.

David in the years to come you will grow restless. You will feel that you are taken for granted. When life does not go exactly as you have planned, and it will never (thank God!) go exactly as you have planned, the temptation will be to lash out at Cordelia. Why?

You believe she will take it or you blame her for any failure. All of us think mostly of self. To often even our loving is posturing, pretending. Make every note you sing to Cordelia a harmony. There are no long solos in marriage- even when your voice is the dominant one, use that moment to set her up for her own moment of glory, her own solo. Think of her- and you will save yourself. In the reverse economy of the Kingdom, if you lose yourself in serving Cordelia- you will find yourself.

Cordelia: Marriage to a strong man can be difficult. This is especially true for an equally strong and accomplished woman. Being married is the greatest role a person can play. Do not accept the stereotypes that limit home. Use all your gifts and grow and thrive as an artist and a person. Do accept and image as the maker of a civilization that David is called to defend. Abandon every human opinion, but cling to Truth- and never measure your worth or David’s by your pay check’s size. Instead, create beauty and culture wherever you go. Love David, submit to him, and find your equal worth in the magnificent model of Mary- the handmaiden of her Lord.

Finally, rejoice in hope. Be patient in tribulation. Continue in prayer. On this happy day it seems odd to speak of endings, but Christianity does so. I have just returned from the funeral of my last grandparent, Sibyl Reynolds. She was a wonderful Christian woman and a perfect reflection of plain, honest, and godly living. She was also happily married for just over 50 years. She loved my grandfather deeply- and I often felt her last years were for her a last deepening of that love. And death only helped her receive the peace of abiding love. My handsome, strong and capable grandfather grew old, since, and tired. She was forced to care for him. His wit began to fade- though it was never lost- and then he died. At his funeral I heard a well meaning friend try to comfort granny. “It was for the best,” he murmured, “he must have been hard on you at the end.” I saw my grandmother’s eyes flash, her bent back, straighten and her words become sharp, “I would do it all again- for a lifetime- to be with him.”

And that is the love you both must gain. It is a love that will see beyond the physical- which will decline as the Spirit grows. It is a love that serves- and finds its fulfillment in that service. My grandmother looked so peaceful Monday- in the very room where Papaw had been. Her body was tired and broken- the morticians art only softened, could not hide, the years. But I rejoiced! For she was not there- she had gone on. The vows made seventy years before had been fulfilled- death had parted- nut now that parting was over and they are fully one.

Fully in Love

Fully in Christ

Both of you today begin that long journey to the undiscovered country from which only One Man has returned with Good News, and He calls you today to Love- Immortal, Joyous, and Holy Love.

Homily for Mealman/Anderson Wedding

June 25^th 2005 by JM Reynolds

We have been reminded by the readings of the Great Marriage that is to come – the Marriage that even this happy occasion can merely foreshadow. For no matter how perfect, even this day carries with it the petty imperfections that mark and mar every event this side of Paradise. Just this week my wife and I celebrated 19 years together – years marked by God and marred by our sinfulness – but years that have enriched us and made us eager for the Perfect Wedding that is to come.

May you both share a fraction of our joy – and come with us to greater feast – there with eyes made strong to see the shining glory of His wedding. But that hope is not yet – that perfect culmination still to come. It can be talked about and even dimly experienced, but it is not yet and we live now. So what of now?

Three weeks ago almost to the day, I stood on the island of Patmos in the very cave in which church history tells us John saw the Lord and heard His thunder. My soul cried out to God as I heard His faithful servants still speaking and singing the praises of God in that place. I thought of the old man, the last living of the disciples, the last of the friends of Jesus, exiled. Tortured. Nearly alone. And yet still found in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day. Christ can come to such a man – faithful, full of love and not just talk. Christ did appear to him and showed the old man great and mysterious things. And yet when the last seal was broken, the last trumpet sounded, and the last “Amen” written by his scribe Monday would have come to John on Patmos. He still would have been exiled, old, broken – and so what difference did it make? Domitian still ruled in Rome. What did the great Revelation matter?

The answer, it seems to me, has a great deal to say about this Sacrament of Marriage we are seeing here today. To some marriage has become a great party – an excuse to justify actions most have taken earlier – or worse, an excuse to compete, to see who can have the biggest and most elaborate event. Relatives are keeping score – and the credit card bills will not come for a month. Now there is nothing wrong with a party – the Kingdom of Heaven is going to a great one and I hope we will soon be enjoying a foretaste of that event. But there must be more to a party than the party – what are we partying for? In the same way the big noise and flash of the Revelation – with verbal effects not even Peter Jackson could visually match – has to be for something or it is just noise and not very comforting.

Did John wake up with a spiritual hangover on Monday morning? God forbid we even think it! The outer vision of the Revelator was matched by an inner work of the heart. The entire world was spiritually changed, least for John, that Sunday on Patmos. The Roman madman Domitian might bully and posture for another few years, but John knew that Jesus was Lord! John had spiritually entered the Heavenly Kingdom and there was no going back – he had seen the Truth as last.

In the same way, in a manner you will only dimly grasp, at this time and on this day Matt and Charity will enter into the reality of the wedding feast that is coming. Today, as a bride, Charity is all of us – the pure Church clothed in white – and Matt, unworthy as we all are, stands as an image of that greater bridegroom. As Matt receives Charity so Christ will receive us. This is a great mystery – and it is an exciting thought.

Today each one of us must renew our vows. Each husband must repent of failure, I most of all, and vow to show the inner truth plainly by laying his life down for his beloved. Each wife must turn her heart to her husband and vow eternal faithfulness to him. What God has joined together no man can put asunder. And those blessed with singleness can freely image the Great Love to the Heavenly Lover. We are all brides to Him in the end. His great I AM reducing the rest of us to an echo of the most perfect brides – “be it done unto me according to Your will.”

And so we are left with this parting word to the couple before us. You are both precious to us – good, brilliant, and holy. We know you are not perfect – but love helps us see each of you as Christ sees you. Charity, do not forget that submission is not an easy vow. It is part of the bloodless martyrdom of marriage. It does not mean destruction of self – but the affirmation that bending the knee is the first step to great honor. Matt is your lord – and you will be his lady – not simpering and docile, but a fierce warrior queen. You can be like Judith, Esther, or Mary – greater by being who you are. And knowing this great lady, with a fine mind and virtuous soul, is enough to humble any lord. So it should be for you, Matthew – lost in the wonder that she would willingly, for God knows you have no right in merit, tie her fortunes to yours and take your name, such as it is. But of course, like all of us mulish men you know this with your head, but not yet fully with your heart. It will be the years of laying down your life for her that will teach you. Pride will be your greatest foe – never demand her fealty – but simply love her and watch her voluntary service with joy. If Christ could humble Himself to die for us as our better, how much more should you die to every other passion and serve Charity – always moved by charity to Charity.

Each one of us who witness this event feel bittersweet. For some of us it marks the passing of time – were we ever so young?! For others it reminds us of failure. Broken vows. New starts. Small selfishness that seem obscene in this Holy Place and Time. But the good news is this – One who is Ever Young will make all of us New, if we will know Him. One who never breaks a vow will come and keep His word and take us to His home and give us His name. The very scars of our sins He will mysteriously transform into the birthmarks of our new birth.

There is such a wedding coming! Matt and Charity – you will fight and fail – but He will never oppose this vow you make to Him today. From this day forward He is on the side of you two! He will never forget – He sees! Both of you had to give up lesser goods, and some evils that aped the good, to stand here today. Most in our culture never get to this place, because they will not go on to Patmos – by moving on. They would hang on to childish pleasures and lose this thing. Having begun well – end well – move forward in joy. Keep giving up and you will get more together – and then on some sad day death will part you. A final giving up – the greatest loss it will seem. Only persist and you will see – you will close your eyes in sorrow only to open them in joy – and you will be together with all God’s saints in a Wedding and a Marriage that will never end. Today is your Patmos, your revelation that will be your divine culmination. Joy, feasting, love. Grand and glorious charity that will never end so long as Christ rules and God is true.

I am back from a month in Europe with the chums. I will be posting daily on that trip . . . and the insights I think I got on where the culture is going.

I also spent one week with Phil Johnson plotting the Revolutions to come (and playing with the kids!).

We traveled to two glorious weddings and one funeral following this. My grandmother of blessed memory, Sibyl Reynolds, went to be with Jesus last week.

May her soul and all the souls of the faithful departed rest in peace.

To mark my return to blogging I will post a series of homilies given in the last month on marriage. . . and begin my European thoughts. . . With Hope Abroad.