Of Dystopian Novels

I just finished reading That Hideous Strength written by C. S. Lewis. It is the third in what is commonly called The Space Trilogy, though any of the three books could be read on its own. The first two books, Out of the Silent Planet and Perelandra, are fine in their own right, but Strength outdoes them both, handily, in my view.

I noticed this time through That Hideous Strength themes that resonate with the debates we are having today about how much government we want, who do we trust for information, and so on. Lewis was spot on in framing, in particular, the tack that progressive types will take in advancing their cause.

But don't take my word for it, here's Powerline blog contributor Steven Hayward :

"Dare I incur the wrath of (Ayn Rand fans) everywhere if I suggest that Lewis' dystopian novel is the best of the entire genre of mid-20th century group that includes 1984 and Darkness at Noon. Which means it is also far superior to Atlas Shrugged, not only in style but in content as well. Whittaker Chambers had it right that Atlas Shrugged is a "strenuously sterile world" filled with "operatic caricatures." By contrast, Lewis' portrait of the academic bureaucrat Withers holds up along side Randall Jarrell's Pictures from an Institution. (It has some other relevant wit: the National Institute of Co-ordinated Experiments-or N.I.C.E.-is dead-on for the kind of authoritarian bodies and processes-sensitivity training anyone?-the therapeutic Left imposes on all of us today.)"

All of Hayward's post is here.

The 'S' Word

As Forrest Gump's mama might say, "Socialism is as socialism does." And I would agree with her, if she ever said that.

For Americans in 2010, who is or is not a socialist is less important than the policies a person is advocating. Take our president (please). What he is is less important that what he is doing, or trying to do. So, I haven't been big on calling Obama a socialist, or using the word flippantly.

That being said, this interview is an eye-opener. Stanley Kurtz has written a new book called "Radical-In-Chief" about Barack Obama. Here is what he says about his journey in writing this new book:

"I traveled all around the country doing what scholars do when they want to write a biography of a president or any other important individual. They go into the archives of the organizations that these people worked with, are connected to, find out what the ideology, what the feel of things was among those intellectual environs. And that's what I've done with Barack Obama. And to my shock, as I began this process of searching through the archives, I was forced to a conclusion that even I had not been inclined to make, and that is Barack Obama really is a socialist."

And he tells you why he thinks so, based on what Obama has said and done, not on some bias or preconceptions. You may wish to read the whole interview.

Prodigal God, Chapter One's Conclusion

Author Tim Keller has spent a good part of the Introduction and Chapter One drilling one idea into our heads: the two sons represent two kinds of people and two ways of being alienated from God. The two kinds of people are sinners and pharisees.

Keller winds up the Chapter with an interesting observation. Namely, it was the self-centered and licentious sinners who were attracted to Christ. It was the moralistic pharisees who were angered and offended by Him.

"Jesus's teaching consistently attracted the irreligious while offending the Bible-believing, religious people of His day. However, in the main, our churches today do not have this effect. The kind of outsiders Jesus attracted are not attracted to contemporary churches, even our most avant-garde ones. We tend to draw conservative, buttoned-down, moralistic people. The licentious and liberated or the broken and marginal avoid church. That can only mean one thing. If the preaching of our ministers and the practice of our parishioners do not have the same effect on people that Jesus had, then we must not be declaring the same message that Jesus did. If our churches aren't appealing to younger brothers, they must be more full of elder brothers than we'd like to think."

I would not presume to fuss with Keller about this last statement - he is a towering intellect. (Here he defends orthodox Christianity on the campus at Stanford) However, I am not as certain as he about the "mathematical certainty" he ascribes to his conclusion. In other words, does the fact that certain kinds of people are attracted to our churches "only mean one thing?"

On the other hand, I can't really poke a hole in his conclusion and it's worth serious discussion.

The Prodigal God, Chapter 1

Two Kinds of People

Author Tim Keller opens Chapter One of his book, "The Prodigal God":

"Most readings of this parable have concentrated on the flight and return of the younger brother - the "Prodigal Son." That misses the real message of the story, however, because there are two brothers, each of whom represents a different way to be alienated from God, and a different way to seek acceptance into the kingdom of heaven."

We talked about the two sons in the previous post in this series, but now we'll see what they represent. Keller reminds us of Luke's setting for this parable, that there were 'tax collectors and sinners' present, as well as 'pharisees.' Two kinds of people. The former were like the younger brother in Jesus' story and the latter were like the older brother.

The tax collectors and sinners were drawn to Jesus' teaching and the pharisees were indignant about that. And it is this indignant attitude that Jesus begins to address with the parable of the two lost sons.

Here's Keller:

"Jesus' purpose is not to warm our hearts but to shatter our categories. Through this parable Jesus challenges what nearly everyone has ever thought about God, sin, and salvation. His story reveals the destructive self-centeredness of the younger brother, but it also condemns the elder brother's moralistic life in the strongest terms. Jesus is saying that both the irreligious and the religious are spiritually lost, both life-paths are dead ends, and that every thought the human race has had about how to connect to God has been wrong."

Previous posts in this series:

The Prodigal God

The Text

The Introduction

The Prodigal God, There Were TWO Sons

You know when I posted the other day, I said I should begin where the author, Tim Keller, begins. And then I posted the parable from Luke 15 that we know as the Prodigal Son. Well, I goofed.

I goofed in the sense that Keller actually begins his explanation in the Introduction, so I wasn't beginning where he did. Sigh.

Without further ado (because there's been enough ado already), here are important quotes from the Introduction to Timothy Keller's The Prodigal God.

"I will not use the parable's most common name: the Parable of the Prodigal Son. It is not right to single out only one of the sons as the sole focus of the story. Even Jesus doesn't call it the Parable of the Prodigal Son, but begins the story saying, 'a man had two sons.' The narrative is as much about the elder brother as the younger, and as much about the father as the sons. And what Jesus says about the older brother is one of the most important messages given to us in the Bible. The parable might be better called the Two Lost Sons."

As I said in a previous post, the book makes a much different approach to the familiar story and in the quote above Keller makes that view much more clear. There wasn't just one boy, there were two and there was a father also, though his role has not been left untouched by teaching and preaching over the years.

Keller's Introduction goes further, spelling out who he understands the two boys to represent - it's fascinating. He says his book is ". . . written to both curious outsiders and established insiders of the faith, both to those Jesus calls 'younger brothers' and those he calls 'elder brothers . . .'"

Right away my categories get blown. I had pretty much a standard view of this story, a view probably shared by most of you, that the younger son represented the lost world Jesus came to save and the father represented our Heavenly Father. There wasn't really any interpreting done as far as the older son was concerned.

But now I think Keller is right. There's a reason Jesus makes a point of there being TWO sons. And what I think we will find as we go is that, while there may have been a day we related to the younger boy who repented and returned, we might have more in common with the attitude of the older brother these days. Or maybe it's just me.

Fascinating.

The Prodigal God

I recently read "The Prodigal God" by Timothy Keller. It is, as you might imagine, about the parable of Jesus as recorded in Luke 15 that we know commonly as "The Prodigal Son."

However Keller does not treat the parable in the way we commonly understand it, or have heard it preached and so the title of the book gives us a clue that surprises are in store.

I don't want to give it all away at this point, but I will say that this book made an impact on me as I read it and not just for a different look at the parable, but for what a difference that difference makes in our understanding of what Jesus was teaching.

The book was sent to me by a vendor after he told me how impacted he was by it. My pastor has also commented on what a remarkable work it is. I recommend it to you.

And to whet your appetite, I will post some excerpts here at Central Standard in the days ahead. I'm looking forward to going through "The Prodigal God" one more time.

The Caine Mutiny

I finished reading this book a week or so ago. It's one of the best books I've ever read, and I was surprised by it in that regard.

As I posted before, I was familiar with the movie having seen it a half a dozen times or so. I liked it pretty well, the end was always satisfying, but it always felt a little strained. It always seemed that some pieces were missing in the story and that the movie was just trying a bit too hard.

Having read the book, it's obvious that the movie was trying to cover way too much ground and suffered a bit as a result. That's not to say that the movie's no good because it is good and remains a popular film to this day.

The book, on the other hand, is so rich, so well written. I was very struck by what a good writer Herman Wouk (pronounced woke) is. He is a Navy veteran himself and it is clearly evident in his storytelling. I'm sure I wasn't expecting it to be poorly written, but it is so outstanding in my opinion that I can't help comment on it.

You could order one here.

One last thing - as I read the book, the dialogue for Queeg sounded like Bogart and Maryk sounded like Van Johnson and Keefer sounded like Fred MacMurray and Barney Greenwald sound like Jose Ferrar and I think I liked it that way.

It could have been worse.