I love Sophocles' play Oedipus Rex (Tyrannus in Greek). It is the best constructed play I have ever read. It is like an steel trap. It suck you in to where you almost feel sorry for poor Oedipus for everything that he is going through in his life. Even though Sophocles expects us to know the backstory-that Oedipus did kill hsi father and marry his mother-we still feel like he is right to be mad at Tireseias and Creon (well, mayboe more Tireseias than Creon, but still). Then the whole edifice of the play begins to crumble and we are left near the end with the unmistakable conclusion that Oedipus has done everything he is said to have done. He even called down curses upon himself. We are left feeling that life just isn't fair. Poor Oedipus had no choice. He could not have foreseen this, not in a million years. He truly is the tragic hero. His punishment is way more than his pitiful little sin (hubris) deserves. At least that is what Sophocles wants us to be left with. Or does he?
At the point where Oedipus is left with no other conclusion than the inevitable admission of total guilt, he fails the test. He gouges his eyes out and inflicts a self-exile from Thebes. Now we are supposed to say to ourselves, "See how bad he feels about all of this. He can't bear to look at anythign beautiful again and refuses to allow his guilt to afflict the city he loves any longer. What a great guy. He has totally turned around and is no longer prideful." But the exact opposite is true. He has not repented of his sin, he has run from it. He has not dealt with his sin, he has blinded himself to it. He does not leave Thebes for Thebes' sake but for his. He does not blind himself for his children's sake, but for his. Compare Oedipus to two different Old Testament fiugures in slightly similar situations.
Take David. When David was shown his sin by Nathan his reaction was to decalre his own guilt and agree with God's judgment on his sin (2 Sam. 12:13). David does not gouge out his eyes or exile himself from his own people. Listen to the words of David as he contemplates his own sin. "Restore to me the joy of Your salvation,
And uphold me by Your generous Spirit.
Then I will teach transgressors Your ways,
And sinners shall be converted to You." (Psalm 51:12-13)
David longs to be restored to his place of leadership that he might teach and instruct others how to avoid sin. He does not want to run away from sin. He wants to deal with it at its root.
Another interesting comparison deals with the issue of Oedipus' complicity in his own downfall. Students and even authors sometimes argue that there was nothing Oedipus could have done to avoid the situation that happened. Really! Did he have to murder that man on the road to Thebes? Whether he knew it was his father or not, he still acted sinfully. In this way Oedipus walked headlong into the fulfillment of his own prophecy. Compare this to Abraham who also acted foolishly in trying to bring about the promise fo God. When God promised Abraham that he would have great blessing though his decendents, Abraham looked around and said to himself, "I have no children. I'd better help God out of this mess and get some children." So he had a child by Hagar. But God was not naive or misinformed about the situation. He intended Isaac to be the child of promise, not Abraham's substitute for God's blessing. Yet, Abaraham intercedes and procures blessing for Ishmael and submits to God's will in this as well, recognizing and repenting of his actions. Oedipus never really repents of his actions that brought about the fulfillment of prophecy. He blinds himself and exiles himself, rather than face his own penalty for the murder of his father.
It is fascinating to see how pagans deal with sin, even if they know it is sin. They do not deal with is, but set it aside and hope the best will come of a bad situation. It is not to be with us. We should be like David and rejoice in being shown our sin that we might deal with it and mortify it in ourselves.
Monday, March 17, 2008
The Ides of March
I can't believe I let the 15th of March slip by without a little tribute to Julius Caesar. Julius Caesar was murdered by the Senate on the 15th of March in 44 BC so that he would not attain to the status of king or empoeror in the Roman State. This murder set off a chain of events that led directly to that very thing taking place. Octavius Caesar, Julius' adopted grand-nephew was made the sole ruler of the Roman world in 27 BC. Why did Julius Caesar die?
The whole saga has been so immortalized by Shakespeare that we can hardly think of the death without dear Brutus and Caesar's dying words "Et tu, Brute." Yet in all liklihood this phrase was never uttered (that's OK though, Washington never cut down a cherry tree either). The sentiment is the same. Caesar died because of what others were afraid of. Caesar was simply about twenty years ahead of his time. He was unable to grasp what his grand-nephew took hold of and weilded with expert skill, the people of Rome. Caesar thought he could man-handle the people. Augustus knew they had to be worked like clay. Caesar thought he could do whatever he wanted to and with the Senate. Augustus knew he had to make them think they needed him. In the end, Caesar died because he wanted too much, too fast.
Augustus was successful because he handled the situation with far more prudence and care.
We are all political playthings, at least it feels that way. As long as the leaders give us rebate stimulus packages, we won't revolt. Actually we would eb unlikely to revolt even if they didn't give us stimulus packages. We are way too lazy for anything as difficult and trying as a revolt.
The whole saga has been so immortalized by Shakespeare that we can hardly think of the death without dear Brutus and Caesar's dying words "Et tu, Brute." Yet in all liklihood this phrase was never uttered (that's OK though, Washington never cut down a cherry tree either). The sentiment is the same. Caesar died because of what others were afraid of. Caesar was simply about twenty years ahead of his time. He was unable to grasp what his grand-nephew took hold of and weilded with expert skill, the people of Rome. Caesar thought he could man-handle the people. Augustus knew they had to be worked like clay. Caesar thought he could do whatever he wanted to and with the Senate. Augustus knew he had to make them think they needed him. In the end, Caesar died because he wanted too much, too fast.
Augustus was successful because he handled the situation with far more prudence and care.
We are all political playthings, at least it feels that way. As long as the leaders give us rebate stimulus packages, we won't revolt. Actually we would eb unlikely to revolt even if they didn't give us stimulus packages. We are way too lazy for anything as difficult and trying as a revolt.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Satire
Jonathan Swift defined satire as “a sort of glass [a mirror] wherein beholders do generally discover everyone’s face but their own, which is the chief reason for that kind of reception it meets in the world, and that so many are offended with it.”[1] The famous children’s story, The Emperor’s New Clothes, may well help illustrate what Swift meant. In the story, only the child who was not sucked in by the ruse of the traveling con artists was willing to admit that the emperor was naked. Swift’s definition of satire says that those who are part of the satire will likely not see it as satire and will find nothing offensive about it. The rest, like the child in the story, will find it utterly amusing that others have been so blinded as to believe that the emperor is wearing new clothes when he, in fact, is naked.
The satirist is an upholder of standards, moral and otherwise. He points to a given situation and then draws such an aberrant analogy that many will not even notice the comparison. In A Modest Proposal, Swift maintained that English landlords have already devoured the adults of Ireland, thus they might as well feed on the children as well. He was making a gross analogy between the economic exploitation of the Irish and the supposed remedy to the hunger that was rampant in Ireland at the time. To prove his point, many thought he was being serious and decried the work as “written in bad taste.”
Satire is thus called an attack on “social and moral evils by means of humor.”[2] Veith maintains, rightly, that all satire requires a presupposed standard for moral action. Whatever is held up against this standard is found lacking. In satire, humor is often used to draw attention to the fact that the standard has not been reached or has been transgressed in some obvious way. Swift’s picturing the politician’s of Lilliput dancing and jumping over colored ropes to gain positions in the government is a very humorous satire on the methods of choosing ministers based on party politics rather than on merits.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Virtue in Gawain
I am not that good at the verse version of Gawain. I like the prose version published by Dover. When I was reading this recently, I was struck by something interesting. When we look at the character of Gawain we are supposed to see virtue in his character. The problem is, we don't, at least not totally. Take the scene where the lord has gone hunting on the first day and left Gawain sleeping. Gawain wakes to find the wife of the lord, a woman, we are told in another place, that was “fairer even that Guinevere” (19) entering into his room. We are told that Gawain is “shamed” by the mere fact that the woman is entering his room while he is still in bed. Why is this the case? Because of his understanding of virtue.
We can spend countless hours looking up definitions for virtue. We can read many authors, including Marcus Aurelius and Augustine and still not come to a really helpful idea of virtue. That is because virtue, like faith and love, is primarily identified through actions. How does virtue look? This is the question that Gawain helps us with at this point in the story.
Gawain is shamed when the lady enters his room because he knows how it will look. It really doesn’t matter whether anything actually takes place between the two that is inappropriate. The very fact that she has come into his room is inappropriate. Gawain understands the nature of virtue to that extent. We would do well to learn this from him. There are situation and things that are simply inappropriate for us. The Bible warns us to “abstain from every kind of evil” (1 Thess. 5:22).
We put ourselves in and tolerate inappropriate situations all the time. Gentlemen should guard their speech around young ladies. There are things that may be appropriate for men to discuss in certain contexts by themselves, but should never be mentioned or discussed around young ladies. This is not being sexist; it is recognizing the biblical category of discretion; something we’ll address with the ladies as well.
Proverbs 2:10-12 tells us that “discretion will guard you ... from the man who speaks perverse things.” Here an antithesis is set between the man who has discretion and the man who speaks perverse things. The “perverse things” are things that should not be mentioned in mixed company. This can just as easily be said to the young ladies. There are things you should not mention in the company of young men either. Young ladies that lack discretion are likened to a pig with a gold ring in its snout in Proverbs 11:22.
Discretion is a sensitive issue but is very important for us culturally because our culture lacks so much discretion. The Greek concept of “obscene” (lit. off-scene) referred to an action that should not be witnessed. Oedipus gouges his eyes out and Jocasta hangs herself off scene because these actions are inappropriate for audiences. Our culture doesn’t think a film has been worth its ticket price if someone doesn’t die violently and as realistically as possible. And television is following the lead quickly. Series’ like CSI and House M.D. are doing their best to be gruesome with the death scenes. They and other series like Law and Order: SVU are crossing the line on inappropriate content for their stories all the time. Even the news programs are discussing this subject matter with regularity, although they tend to be more discrete in the details.
Returning to our text, we quickly see that Gawain’s shame does not keep him from getting entwined in further indiscretion with the lady. He asks her to give him a minute to get dressed before they talk, but does not hasten to avoid the situation when she refuses. He merely “jests” and pretends that nothing inappropriate is taking place. We may say that he stays in bed because he is not dressed and does not want to flee from her because she will see him in this state if he does. We can make immediate application here to the story of Joseph in Gen. 39:12. There we see that Joseph thought it more appropriate to flee naked than spend another moment with Potiphar’s wife. Here is where we get a sense of allowing one virtue to be elevated above another thus causing both to suffer. Gawain holds modesty as a virtue, as well he should, but not at the expense of propriety. He should not have remained in that room with the lady since she refused to leave and let him get dressed before talking.
We next see that a bad situation gets worse. Throughout the three days of hunting, Gawain allows her to kiss him each day. Gawain remains true to his covenant with the lord and gives the kisses each evening as he is bound to do, but never acknowledges where he received them from. Gawain knows that he has entertained indiscretion with the lady every day, talking about subjects such as love. It is interesting to note that as a guest, Gawain owed a certain amount of obedience to the lord and lady, as he acknowledges each day when she sits and talks with him. He is protecting his honor, in this sense. However, he is doing so in a way that elevates honor above truth and morality. This is similar to a situation we might find ourselves in. Your buddies dare you to throw a brick through an old ladies window. Knowing you should not, you refuse. Immediately they call you “chicken.” You decide that defending your bravery is more important than respecting another’s property and you launch the brick. You have just succeeded in throwing your worldview out of balance. Gawain has this problem and it is presented here for our instruction.
Virtues cannot contradict each other. If we elevate one virtue over the others we throw the balance out of our ethics.
We can spend countless hours looking up definitions for virtue. We can read many authors, including Marcus Aurelius and Augustine and still not come to a really helpful idea of virtue. That is because virtue, like faith and love, is primarily identified through actions. How does virtue look? This is the question that Gawain helps us with at this point in the story.
Gawain is shamed when the lady enters his room because he knows how it will look. It really doesn’t matter whether anything actually takes place between the two that is inappropriate. The very fact that she has come into his room is inappropriate. Gawain understands the nature of virtue to that extent. We would do well to learn this from him. There are situation and things that are simply inappropriate for us. The Bible warns us to “abstain from every kind of evil” (1 Thess. 5:22).
We put ourselves in and tolerate inappropriate situations all the time. Gentlemen should guard their speech around young ladies. There are things that may be appropriate for men to discuss in certain contexts by themselves, but should never be mentioned or discussed around young ladies. This is not being sexist; it is recognizing the biblical category of discretion; something we’ll address with the ladies as well.
Proverbs 2:10-12 tells us that “discretion will guard you ... from the man who speaks perverse things.” Here an antithesis is set between the man who has discretion and the man who speaks perverse things. The “perverse things” are things that should not be mentioned in mixed company. This can just as easily be said to the young ladies. There are things you should not mention in the company of young men either. Young ladies that lack discretion are likened to a pig with a gold ring in its snout in Proverbs 11:22.
Discretion is a sensitive issue but is very important for us culturally because our culture lacks so much discretion. The Greek concept of “obscene” (lit. off-scene) referred to an action that should not be witnessed. Oedipus gouges his eyes out and Jocasta hangs herself off scene because these actions are inappropriate for audiences. Our culture doesn’t think a film has been worth its ticket price if someone doesn’t die violently and as realistically as possible. And television is following the lead quickly. Series’ like CSI and House M.D. are doing their best to be gruesome with the death scenes. They and other series like Law and Order: SVU are crossing the line on inappropriate content for their stories all the time. Even the news programs are discussing this subject matter with regularity, although they tend to be more discrete in the details.
Returning to our text, we quickly see that Gawain’s shame does not keep him from getting entwined in further indiscretion with the lady. He asks her to give him a minute to get dressed before they talk, but does not hasten to avoid the situation when she refuses. He merely “jests” and pretends that nothing inappropriate is taking place. We may say that he stays in bed because he is not dressed and does not want to flee from her because she will see him in this state if he does. We can make immediate application here to the story of Joseph in Gen. 39:12. There we see that Joseph thought it more appropriate to flee naked than spend another moment with Potiphar’s wife. Here is where we get a sense of allowing one virtue to be elevated above another thus causing both to suffer. Gawain holds modesty as a virtue, as well he should, but not at the expense of propriety. He should not have remained in that room with the lady since she refused to leave and let him get dressed before talking.
We next see that a bad situation gets worse. Throughout the three days of hunting, Gawain allows her to kiss him each day. Gawain remains true to his covenant with the lord and gives the kisses each evening as he is bound to do, but never acknowledges where he received them from. Gawain knows that he has entertained indiscretion with the lady every day, talking about subjects such as love. It is interesting to note that as a guest, Gawain owed a certain amount of obedience to the lord and lady, as he acknowledges each day when she sits and talks with him. He is protecting his honor, in this sense. However, he is doing so in a way that elevates honor above truth and morality. This is similar to a situation we might find ourselves in. Your buddies dare you to throw a brick through an old ladies window. Knowing you should not, you refuse. Immediately they call you “chicken.” You decide that defending your bravery is more important than respecting another’s property and you launch the brick. You have just succeeded in throwing your worldview out of balance. Gawain has this problem and it is presented here for our instruction.
Virtues cannot contradict each other. If we elevate one virtue over the others we throw the balance out of our ethics.
Friday, March 7, 2008
Pessimism and the Twentieth Century
My modernity class is reading All Quiet on the Western Front. It is a great novel and there are lots of lessons to learn from it. However, what they have been struck by is the level of realism in dealing with war details. They noted how pessimistic Remarque was about the war and any possibility of a normal life afterwards. We quickly set Remarque side by side with other writers who lived through the war. Similar situations came out with respect to people like Hemingway. However we looked as well at authors who contrasted the pessimism of Remarque.
J.R.R. Tolkien, who fought in the war was able to come out of it and write stories of redemption with honor and duty as thematic elements. Rudyard Kipling wrote poetry and fiction that expresses a constant belief in the Christian Ideal rather than the postmodern vortex of chaos. C.S. Lewis also fought in the war and still wrote such passionate novels as the Chronicles of Narnia, which warn, but do not despise, the developments of the 20th century.
What separates these writes? What made the Lost Generation lost? I guided my students to understand that the difference was a fully rational Christian worldview and ethic that understood that all things happen to the glory of an almighty God and that there is no room for pessimism in His universe. Tolkien, Lewis, and Kipling (among others) had this confidence in God. Hemingway and Remarque (among scores of others) did not have this confidence.
J.R.R. Tolkien, who fought in the war was able to come out of it and write stories of redemption with honor and duty as thematic elements. Rudyard Kipling wrote poetry and fiction that expresses a constant belief in the Christian Ideal rather than the postmodern vortex of chaos. C.S. Lewis also fought in the war and still wrote such passionate novels as the Chronicles of Narnia, which warn, but do not despise, the developments of the 20th century.
What separates these writes? What made the Lost Generation lost? I guided my students to understand that the difference was a fully rational Christian worldview and ethic that understood that all things happen to the glory of an almighty God and that there is no room for pessimism in His universe. Tolkien, Lewis, and Kipling (among others) had this confidence in God. Hemingway and Remarque (among scores of others) did not have this confidence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)