skip to main |
skip to sidebar
So I realize that my last post might have been kind of weird (especially if, like Wes, you're wondering what this all has to do with the novel 1984). To be honest, it was really just me wanting to feel smart and to prove that I know enough about the Old Testament to point out Fromm's inaccurate statement.
Anyway, in continuation... I will be the first to admit that as a whole (and pretty much everything else that Fromm says other than that one statement in the beginning) is really insightful. (Actually, there was one more statement that I was curious about, but I'll save that for later.)
Fromm begins his commentary on 1984 by discussing a common perception of "end times" long ago. In Greek and Roman thinking (as well as the Old Testament), there was a hope that man will eventually be able to "create a world of justice and peace." This was the mindset for most of the world's history. And during the Renaissance, a form of writing developed to express how people thought things might work out. It was called utopian literature and was first seen in Thomas More's Utopia.
(Interesting fact: "utopia" literally means "nowhere.")
In this particular book, More "combined a most penetrating criticism of his own society, its irrationality and its injustice, with the picture of which, though perhaps not perfect, had solved most of the human problems which sounded insoluble to his own contemporaries." This society also catered to the "deepest longings of man."
This view of the future continued through the writings of the Enlightenment philosophers of the 1700's and the socialist thinkers of the 1800's, and really wasn't reconsidered until the end of World War 1.
It was then during that first world war that we began to realize what humans were capable of, and the hope that we had embraced so strongly began to fade. We saw millions die in the war, we saw Stalin drive a country mad, we saw Hitler demolish an ethnicity, we watched atomic bombs disintegrate populations.
It is precisely the significance of Orwell's book that it expresses the new mood of hopelessness which pervades our age before this mood has become manifest and taken hold of the consciousness of people.
Other books did the same: Zamyatin's We and Huxley's Brave New World. But I've only read 1984, so I won't talk about those.
This new genre was identified as negative utopian literature and marked the beginning of a new way of thinking. A loss of hope.
Fromm (keep in mind, he wrote this in 1961) also points out the paradox in this transformation: Our "hope-filled" time before WWI had economic justification for slavery & exploitation and science was looked to in order to make things better; it is here at the beginning of modern development that we find hope.
Then, when the hopes are realizable, when enough food could actually be made for everybody and war is unnecessary, when world peace begins to come within our grasp, "when man is on the verge of realizing his hope, he begins to lose it."
Interesting, no?
So I've just now finished George Orwell's 1984 - good read.
And I'm all excited because I want to blog about some of the things I've kind of been thinking about, but then I began the afterword by a guy named Erich Fromm, and I'm already confused. You think you know a book until you begin reading criticisms...
Fromm says...
The Old Testament philosophy of history assumes that man grows and unfolds in history and eventually becomes what he potentially is. It assumes that he develops his powers of reason and love fully, and thus is enabled to grasp the world, being one with his fellow man and nature, at the same time preserving his individuality and his integrity. Universal peace and justice are the goals of man, and the prophets have faith that in spite of all errors and sins, eventually this "end of days" will arrive, symbolized by the figure of the Messiah.
This really doesn't make sense to me. I don't know if the problem is that this inaccurate or untrue, or if I just don't like the language he uses. This really doesn't have much to do with the book, it just stuck out to me as unusual. What do you think?
Several times in the Old Testament, God refers to Himself as a "jealous God." Most of the time I would read this and think to myself, "Isn't that a bad thing?" I mean, isn't jealousy bad?
Recently, my look at jealousy has changed. I've learned this from my awesome girlfriend, Caitlin. And, I wouldn't have expected it, but she has told me herself that she is a "jealous girlfriend." What she meant was that when I spend my time with other people, she becomes jealous, in a sense, that I am not spending my time with her. This may sound selfish, but it really isn't. Regardless, I'm beginning to understand what God means.
Think of someone you care about immensely, preferably a loved one, but I guess it doesn't have to be. But it should be someone that you constantly want to spend your time with. Got it? Good.
Now imagine, you start seeing this person hang out with other people all the time or just doing things that don't involve you. You want to be those people so bad just so that you could be with your loved one. Or you want to be involved in whatever that thing is that doesn't have to do with you. Your own self-esteem begins to falter because you feel that you're not good enough for this person. They would rather spend their time with those people or that thing than you. It sort of hurts, doesn't it?
Well, surprise! God feels the exact same way. He's jealous of the things you spend your time with. He's jealous of your computer and your TV. He's jealous of your schoolwork, your girlfriend - anything that you seem to want to spend your time with that isn't Him.
And why shouldn't He? It makes sense doesn't it? The Creator of the Universe wants to spend time with you... but there is a really good episode of Lost on this week (for the record, I don't actually watch the show), or you're just really, really tired.
Now don't get me wrong here. Think about it. In this sense, jealousy is a sign of pure love. For Caitlin, it shows me that she loves me because she wants to be a part of my life. For God, it shows us that He wants to be involved with us. That's amazing!
I think our perception of idolatry needs to change. I consider myself a pretty knowledgeable Christian at times, but even I can't help but think of a large golden image (or a chocolate bunny for my Veggie Tale sympathizers) when I hear the word "idolatry."
Idolatry is spending time with things that don't involve God. And it's a big deal. It really is. That's why God gets so worked up about it all over the Old Testament. It insults the very nature of who He is. It insults the idea that He is worth every single breath in your being. And we're all guilty of it.
I should also mention that those things I mentioned earlier (girlfriend, computer, etc.) are not examples of idolatry in themselves. But what we need to do is use our time in a way that involves God in our lives. And hopefully, even better yet, we should be striving to the point where not only is He involved, but God becomes the focus and motivation of every single one of our activities.
I leave you with Deuteronomy 4:23-24:
"Be careful not to forget the covenant of the LORD your God that he made with you; do not make for yourselves an idol in the form of anything the LORD your God has forbidden. For the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God."
This is not a new issue for most. Everyday, during second period, the girl that sits next to me refuses to stand during the Pledge of Allegiance.
Now, it's not the lack of patriotism or anything that bothers me (believe me). Here's what it is: she'll be talking, and mid-sentence, the announcements come on. She stops and sits - as if to make a public declaration - as if to make an additional effort to go against the grain and draw attention to herself.
Now granted, she's not the only one. In fact, she's not only the even person in that class who sits during the Pledge... But that's not the point.
As I talked to Danny a couple of hours ago, he was mentioning that he stands during the Pledge at the school he works at... to show respect - but he doesn't say anything. Fine, I respond. To be honest, I don't really care about that.
I've heard some arguments.
For atheists, it's "under God" that they don't like, and instead of leaving that part out, they pit themselves against the principle of the entire thing and neglect the Pledge altogether.
For some, it's "I don't like the idea of giving allegiance to a flag." In my humble opinion though, isn't an inanimate object the best possible thing to give allegiance to? I mean, think about it: it can't do anything wrong. It seems like the only logical thing to give allegiance to.
I guess my point is this. If you don't like the Pledge, fine. If you don't want to say it, all right. If you think you're being brainwashed, so be it. If it contradicts the God you don't believe in, okay. But why do you have to make it a spectacle? Why do you have to be so facetious for something so unimportant? Is it really that big of a deal?
This isn't a religious or patriotic issue for me. It's a "Why are you wasting your time making this statement?" There are others to spend your time on. For the girl next to me, I know you can talk about how much you hate the President or the War. Talk about those to someone... and do something about how you feel. Support the causes you believe in. But you're not accomplishing anything by trying to draw attention to yourself during the Pledge. At least stand up. It's a bunch of high school seniors: they don't care anyway.
"Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son.'" Most of us are familiar with the story found in Matthew 22, right? We went over it in Sunday School on (you guessed it!) Sunday. But so many new ideas started to reveal themselves to me while I was reading...
The story starts with the king calling on those whom he invited - a typical Jewish custom I learned. So he calls on his friends. They "refused to come." A little surprising to say the least. Let's call this Invitation #1.
More servants are sent, because obviously these people don't understand how good the food is. But they don't really seem to care much. In fact, some even decided that they didn't care so much, they killed the servants (a logical course of action). This made the king mad (to say the least). I mean it's one thing to say no to a party... twice. But it's another to literally kill the messenger. Invitation #2.
The king sends out servants a last time, but this time not to the invited ones. They are told to go to the street corners and invite anyone they can find (Invitation #3). The servants continue to obey - they get good people, bad people, and I assume the okay people (I like to refer to them as the purgatory people... sorry - bad joke).
When the king looks at his guests, he notices a guy who seems to have a wardrobe malfunction, and sends him to hell.
(Actually, if you want to know what really happens, see Matthew 22:1-14.)
So here's what I'm thinking, and I might be way off, or this might really be obvious, I don't know. But as an 18-year-old without any formal Bible background, I gave myself a pat on the back for this one.
The first invite gave me the image of Eden: God setting aside a place for us to have communion with Him. Why would anyone pass it up, right? Well, we all know what happened just two chapters later. Adam rejected the invitation. We rejected the invitation.
The second: Torah. God asks again: "Why don't you just come and join me?" And yet, ultimately the Israelites decide that Torah is not for them. We reject the second invitation.
#3: One needs only a quick peek at the prophets to see that "the king" is pretty mad. So Jesus is introduced. And if you actually read anything about Jesus in the gospels, you will find in no time that he extended this invitation to the poor, to the outcast - the previously uninvited. The call to communion with Yahweh is not only for the select few any more. The select few didn't want to come... we didn't want to come.
So lots and lots of people are coming to the party now... notice: none of them were originally invited (kind of scary, right?). But there is a man who doesn't belong. Somehow he slipped in, wasn't wearing wedding clothes, and the king throws him out. There's lots of directions I could go with just this: who invited him and didn't tell him about the clothes? They must feel bad. Or maybe: is that a description of hell that he is sent to? I don't even want to begin down that road... Wes?
No... I want to focus on the bigger issue of the story. This man missed out on the banquet because he wasn't dressed properly. Bringing in the metaphor: this man missed out on the kingdom of heaven because he didn't take care of something relatively basic.
Now notice the entire time that I have linked "us" with the Israelites. Because it is us that breaks Shaalom. It us us that ignores Torah. It is us that decides that food prepared by the God of the universe is just.... eh - not really for us.
It takes beggars to appreciate this food. It takes the humble to say yes to the invitation. It takes the broken, the outcast, the ones that no one cares about, to admit, "Hey, I could go for a meal right now with Somebody... it's all I have going for me." Maybe this is why a few chapters earlier Jesus said that it is the "poor in spirit" who actually have the kingdom of heaven.
And then there's a poor man who wasn't wearing wedding clothes... Maybe he couldn't afford them. If so, that servant would be responsible for the hell he ends up going through (pardon the figurative language). Or maybe one of the invited would have been able to buy him some proper attire.
Or maybe that's not the case. Maybe the guy was a slob. Maybe he was lazy.
Moral of the story:
Shopping = Salvation
He ponders the petition with unquestioning composure;
Close to the response in typical fashion,
Ringed with the pleading scent, he settles.
The beating heart beneath him races;
He draws from his exalted wisdom,
And like a politician he smiles.
