Tag: Christianity

Mailvox: the anti-Puritans

SJ emails and makes what I consider to be an all-too-common mistake among Christians with regards to the rating system I created upon request yesterday:

Read your post on a Christian Ratings System. As the father of two young boys, there is a lot I like about this. And I laugh at how similar my experiences are with other Christian fathers. But I think it is important to think through one aspect of this sort of effort: Christians have self-selected towards being at the bottom of the food chain, often the victims, in our modern society.

That isn’t necessarily meant as a defense of modern society, other than being a reminder of the reality we live in. Regardless, I am sick and tired of Christians coming up on the short end, and I am concerned that the lesson that our churches and families are teaching our young men. With my own boys, I have taken the tack of raising Christian men in a Fallen and potentially violent world. I see no disparity between Christianity, being strong, and being realistic. In, not of.

Thus, I don’t necessarily argue with the idea of scores per se, but of the thresholds. For example, I am not sure that I wouldn’t let my boys read something more than a 15, and I balk at saying that a book that contains openly atheist characters scores a +3. What about the atheist characters being contrasted with Christian characters? What about setting up an atheist for a religious awakening?

My point is really not to pick nits, or to argue line items, but to try to argue for:

a) a more granular system that allows for more insight into the “Christians” of the book
b) in support of (a) but more tangentially, possibly having categories of scores
c) somehow trying to allow for books and material that encourages a realistic approach to Christianity

It’s really this latter point that makes me write this email because by making such a scoring system seems likely to help the self-same self-selecting Christians to self-select into ever more naive, victim-filled categories. I think this is especially true if the system is more or less linear and additive, as you have suggested. Ultimately, you are on to a great idea here, but it shouldn’t abide by the standards and metrics that a Fallen world has seen fit to place on Christianity. For example, some Christians swear, dammit, and the Song of Solomon is ostensibly about Sex. Perhaps with a little more granularity and possibly with some helpful Categories, this becomes a tool to teach rather than a grading system for my 4th grade Sunday School teacher.

I think we may need a word to describe the modern Christian anti-Puritan, the sort of Christian who fears that somewhere, somehow, there might be another Christian out there who is insufficiently exposed to the world. But is there truly a Christian in the world of 2015 who is insufficiently exposed to the material existence of godlessness, obscenity, sex, and sin? And what shall we call these advocates of being sufficiently engulfed by the world, though not of it? Soilitans? Filthians? Those Who Wallow? Edified Mudrollers?

My more literate response is to quote Aslan: “Child…I am telling your story, not hers. I tell no one any story but his own.”

It is no more SJ’s business to concern himself with how these self-selecting Christians self-select into ever more naive, victim-filled categories than it is for them to determine the precise threshold that will determine what books his young boys are permitted to read. And notice that all of his concerns are about influence and interpretation; he is bothered by the idea of simply permitting other Christians to acquire accurate information about the books and make their own judgments concerning them. In answer to his questions and points:

  1. What about the atheist characters being contrasted with Christian characters?
  2. What about setting up an atheist for a religious awakening?
  3. a more granular system that allows for more insight into the “Christians” of the book
  4. in support of (3) but more tangentially, possibly having categories of scores
  5. somehow trying to allow for books and material that encourages a realistic approach to Christianity 

1. What about them? Whether they are contrasted with Christian characters or not, the either exist in the book or they don’t. Why should parents who don’t want their children to be prematurely exposed to atheism be intentionally kept in the dark from knowing that there is a godless character in a book?

2. What about it? I’d rather like a system that would warn me: LAME AND UTTERLY CONVENTIONAL CONVERSION STORY AHEAD so I could avoid ever reading the book. “And then he became a Christian and lived happily ever after” is not the sort of thing I’m interested in supporting even if that was within the scope of the rating system. Which it isn’t. Regardless of what happens to the atheist over the course of the book, he is still there. How can any Christian rationally oppose parents simply being informed of godlessness in their children’s books?

I am perhaps uniquely qualified to comment on this. Does anyone seriously think I am even remotely afraid of exposing my children to atheist arguments, let alone fictional atheist characters presenting dumbed-down versions of those arguments? I throw Plato and Cicero and William S. Lind at my kids, does anyone seriously doubt that they can chew up arguments presented by the likes of Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins without even blinking? At the same time, I’d still like to know that they are being tested in this way when it is taking place.

3. No. That goes well beyond the purpose of the rating system, which is to simply inform parents what is in the book. It doesn’t involve insight into anyone, for any reason. It describes, it doesn’t interpret.

4. The more complicated the system, the less useful it is and the less anyone will use it. Again, this is an attempt to sneak interpretation and influence in through the back door.

5. And who is to define “a realistic approach to Christianity”? I doubt anyone wants me doing that. Here the attempt to influence is overt, which is in absolute contradiction to the intention of the ratings system, which is simply to inform parents of what specific elements are present within works of fiction.

The rating system is a tool for people to use, not a tool for using people. Try to keep that in mind if you’re looking to improve it.

Mailvox: atheist theology or the ignorance therein

The self-aware  Trimegistus seems to share my incredulity:

I ‘m an unbeliever (I stopped using the term “atheist” when it became a
synonym for “self-righteous asshole”) and the staggering ignorance of
other unbelievers always shocks me. I know I’m not an expert on
theology; I know history, I’ve read Lewis and Sayers and St. Augustine
but that’s about it — and yet I’m like the frickin’ Vatican Curia
compared to the general run of atheists.

One thing I’ve noticed about many atheists of the general run variety is that they cannot follow simple if/then statements. Consider these facepalm-inspiring tweets inspired by this morning’s post:

Milo Yiannopoulos ‏@Nero
Perhaps the neatest skewering of @stephenfry ever, from @voxday

#OttawaStrong ‏@Canadastani
Summary: God is real because the bible says god is real! LALALALLALAKALALALALALALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU!!! #bacon

Vox Day ‏@voxday
Your summary is false. I merely pointed out the God-concept he is attacking is not the Christian God.

Dan Sereduick ‏@Globalizer360
Your summary of the Christian god is one that exists in advanced theology, not in ordinary religion.

Vox Day ‏@voxday
The Chronicles of Narnia and The Lord of the Rings are NOT advanced Christian theology.

#OttawaStrong ‏@Canadastani
Your imagination is not a real place either, but that doesn’t stop your imaginary friend Yahweh.

Vox Day ‏@voxday now
Look, you can’t criticize fiction for things that are not there. Sauron is not in Narnia.

It’s not that hard. My critique of Fry holds whether God exists or not. Christian theology is very well-defined. It is explained on multiple levels, from Tertullian and Thomas Aquinas all the way down to children’s novels like the Chronicles of Narnia. And yet, Stephen Fry quite clearly doesn’t know ANY of it.

You don’t have to believe in something to know what it is. I don’t believe in the Labor Theory of Value, but I can explain it to you. I don’t believe in Keynesian Economics, but I can explain multiple variants of it to you. I am skeptical of the Theorum of Evolution by (probably) Natural Selection, Biased Mutation, Genetic Drift, and Gene Flow, but I can explain how it is supposed to work.

The Cross and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ are the core of the Christian faith. And that core is absolutely and utterly predicated on the EVIL OF A FALLEN WORLD. So for Fry to claim that the observable existence of evil somehow condemns the Creator God requires either a) perverted quasi-Calvinism or b) stupendous ignorance.

Atheism and the problem of ignorance

Although I’ve seen more than a few episodes of QI, I’ve never considered Stephen Fry to be either very well informed or very intelligent. He strikes me as a considerably messed-up actor who plays the role of an educated and intelligent man for the masses, as opposed to actually being such a creature. Of course, it’s a lot harder to sound intelligent when you’re not being fed lines through your earpiece, which explains how Fry managed to betray an astonishing ignorance of nearly 2,000 years of Christian theology and abandoning one primary atheist line of defense in the process:

Fry was being interviewed for an Irish television show called The Meaning of Life when he launched into an impassioned tirade about God’s existence. Asked if he thought he would get to heaven, he replied: “No, but I wouldn’t want to. I wouldn’t want to get in on his terms. They’re wrong.

He added: “The God who created this universe, if he created this universe, is quite clearly a maniac, an utter maniac, totally selfish. We have to spend our lives on our knees thanking him. What kind of God would do that?”

“Yes, the world is very splendid, but it also has in it insects whose whole life cycle is to burrow into the eyes of children and make them blind. Why? Why did you do that to us? It is simply not acceptable. Atheism is not just about not believing there’s a god. On the assumption there is one, what kind of God is he? It’s perfectly apparent that was monstrous, utterly monstrous, and deserves no respect.”

Now, for those whose knowledge of theology does not rise to the level of the Narnia novels, let me point out that basic Christian theology points out that while God’s Creation was initially perfect, it was His choice to give both Man and Angel free will that permitted Lucifer’s initial fall from Heaven, and Man’s subsequent fall from Grace. From these two failures entered in every form of sin, death, and evil.

Furthermore, Jesus Christ himself made it very clear that it is not the Creator God who rules the Earth. Hence his command to Christians to be IN the world rather than OF it. He specifically refers to Satan as both the prince and the ruler of the world, as one translation has John 12:31: The time for judging this world has come, when Satan, the ruler of this world, will be cast out.

Fry is clearly blaming the wrong party. The utter maniac, the totally selfish and utterly monstrous being he castigates is not the Creator God. It is the usurper who rules the world, whose name is devil, Satan, Lucifer. And what makes his rant so ridiculously stupid is that all of this information is not only in the Bible, but in Milton, in Lewis, in Tolkien, and indeed, in many of the greatest works of the Western artistic canon. God is not “utterly evil”. God is good, and loving, and thank God, merciful. It is the ruler of this world, the prince of the powers of the air, who is utterly and irredeemably evil.

Ironically enough, Fry commits the same sin as that utter evil, in demanding the right of the clay to judge the potter.

Notice that Fry also insists that, contra both linguistic etymology and practically every petty Internet atheist ever, “atheism is not just about not believing there’s a god”. In other words, he is conflating atheism and secular humanism, something other atheists have tried very hard to distinguish, and for good reason, because doing so simply transforms atheism into a pallid religion that has no ability to compete intellectually or spiritually with Christianity, Islam, or paganism.

And then he descended into utter self-parody when he claimed to prefer Greek paganism: “Fry said he preferred the religion of the ancient Greeks whose Gods did not
present themselves as being “all-seeing, all-wise, all-kind, all
beneficent”.” This is rather amusing, as the Greek gods were a collection of rapists, adulterers, and murderers who were descended of a parricide and never hesitated to shed vast quantities of human blood in pursuit of their selfish objectives.

In just one interview, it can be seen that Stephen Fry is a fraud. He is not a brilliant man, but rather, an obtuse and ignorant charlatan.

UPDATE: No wonder he gets away with it. Consider his fans:

Milo Yiannopoulos ‏@Nero
Perhaps the neatest skewering of @stephenfry ever, from @voxday

Steve Skipper ‏@SteveSkipper
@Nero @stephenfry hardly a skewering, @voxday is using elements of a fictional myth to explain a fictional myth

Vox Day ‏@voxday
You’re missing the point. To intelligently criticize a myth, you must criticize THE ACTUAL MYTH.

Steve Skipper ‏@SteveSkipper
@voxday @Nero @stephenfry whatever

The Divide-by-Zero Left

John C. Wright observes how the other side has transformed over the course of his lifetime:

Something rotten, very rotten has happened to the Left just in my lifetime. They used to be champions of free speech; and now they are its most vehement opponents.

They use to be able to give some sort of argument or logical reason
for their position, even if an incorrect argument; now they have no
argument, none of them, aside from wild and insincere accusations
delivered in a mechanical fashion without any hope of being believed,
phony as a three-dollar bill.

They used to be firmly on the side of the workingman; now they hate the workingman as a white racist oppressor.

They used to be in favor of free love and the sexual liberation; now
they object to rocket scientists wearing shirts with cartoon women
printed on them, they object to science fiction magazines showing a
scantily clad warrior princess slaying a monster, and they call all sex
rape, and demand strict segregation of women and men. On the same day as
these protests, they appear in front of the Pope, writhing on the
ground naked with crosses and crucifixes inserted into their vaginas. So
the Puritan rules apply arbitrarily, without sense or order, to anyone
or no one.

They used to be in favor of Blacks and other minorities; now their
disgust for all the impoverished and dispossessed is plain to see. All
they want is to keep the Blacks on the plantation, addicted to welfare,
addicted to crack, their children aborted, their parents unwed.

They used to be in favor of the Jews, and other minorities; now they
kneel to Islamic Jihad at every opportunity, vowing that those who
slander the prophet of Islam will no be in the future, and ergo the Left
now curse the Jews, and pray daily for the destruction of Israel, and a
new Holocaust in the warhead of a Muslim nuke.

What? You say that his the not what the Left says? That they say they
are creatures of purity, goodness, and sweetness, who live only to help
others out of the depth of their hearts and the depth of your wallet?
No, that was the old Left, back when the Left still had some scraps of
sanity and intelligence.

They serve Sauron and have forgotten their own names.

They do not say what they are, because, if you listen to them, they
say that words mean nothing, that truth is relative, that all
civilizations are no better than savagery, that no religion is better
than another, and that anything which is not illegal is allowed.  So of
course they say they are perfect angels: because the word has no meaning
to them, no words have meaning, and telling the truth is not correct.
Only political correctness is correct.

Now they have gone fullbore barking moonbat mouthfoaming evil.

To summarize: the answer to the question “is the Left evil or stupid?” is “yes”. The truth is what we always expected: they never held the values they professed. They were charlatans; they never had any intention of fighting for free speech with which they disagreed, they never gave a damn about blacks, Jews, homosexuals, immigrants, or science.

All those things were to them were tools. All those things were was a means of attacking that which they hate and want to destroy, Christian civilization in the West. They are literally nothing, they stand for nothing, they seek only to destroy and they have absolutely no more conception of what will come after the fall of Western civilization than Karl Marx did the Worker’s Paradise.

It is not possible to compromise with them because there is no middle ground on which to meet them. It is like trying to divide by zero. It’s not merely undesirable, it can’t be done. Their principles and their objectives are a constantly moving target, always pushing the outer limits, stretching them out further.

Reject them. Don’t seek their approval or try to reason with them or hope to win them over through dialectic and discourse. Their sickness is not of the mind, but of the soul.

The devil called Driscoll

I know nothing about this “Pastor Driscoll” except for what I’ve read at Dalrock’s. And I would bet considerable money that he’s a Swaggart/Bakker debacle just waiting to be uncovered and exposed:

I’ve referenced Pastor Driscoll’s sermon Men and Marriage in several recent posts.  This is the sermon to watch, or better yet, read, if you wan’t to understand what I was describing in The only real man in the room.  In this sermon Driscoll opens with the prayer I quoted from in Fragging Christian Headship:

Father God, I pray that our time would be pleasing to
you, that it would be profitable to us, Lord God, as well. I pray for
those men who are here that are cowards, they’re silent, passive,
impish, worthless men, they’re making a mess of everything in their life
and they’re such sweet little boys that no one ever confronts them on
that. I pray for the women who enable them, who permit them to continue
in falling, those who are mothers and sisters and girlfriends and wives.
I pray, Lord God, for those men who are chauvinists, those who are
mean, who are brash, who are rude, who are harsh, who, Lord God, think
they are tough when in fact they are Satanic. God, I pray for those men
that they would have the courage today to not fight with a woman, but to
fight with you, to actually find their rightful place in creation, that
they might receive a good rebuke so that they can become honorable
rather than dishonorable sons. God, I pray for my tone, I pray for our
men, and I pray for the women who are listening in. I pray, Lord God,
that they would know this comes from a heart of passion, deep concern,
and love. I pray, Lord God, that we would think biblically, critically,
humbly, and repentantly, and that, Lord God, there would be dramatic
life change by the power of the Holy Spirit in the name of Jesus, Amen.

If you read the sermon, you will see that Driscoll repeatedly makes it clear that when he uses terms like dishonorable, Satanic, cowards, passive, impish, worthless, jokes, losers, imbeciles, fools, etc.
he isn’t just referring to a few “peter pan” men who don’t have jobs
and/or aren’t married.  He is talking about the husbands and fathers
who sought out the church lead by Driscoll, the men who brought their
wives and children to the sermon.

…most of you men don’t know what masculinity truly is

Driscoll defines the six types of worthless men he regularly comes
across.   They are all either cowards or chauvinists and bullies.  And
again, Driscoll is addressing this not to men outside the congregation,
or even a smallish subset of the men in the congregation.  He means
nearly all of the men in the congregation:

Were this a women’s conference, I would not call you all
idiots and imbeciles and fools, that you’re a joke, okay? But you men,
this is where it needs to go. You’ve been glad-handed and buddied up and
positive thinking and you’re a winner and Jesus loves you and you can
do better. And I’m telling you, you’re a joke. And the real men in the
room know it and they see it. And maybe there’s one woman that you
fooled and she doesn’t see it because like Eve, she’s deceived.

The hallmark of a real man, a real Christian man, according to
Driscoll, is looking around at the other men in the room and knowing
that they are pathetic compared to you.  This is of course exactly what
Driscoll is doing throughout the sermon. Again, this is a sermon about men and marriage, and married men are
Driscoll’s primary target.  While he makes a short stop in Genesis for
background, the inspiration for the sermon is one single verse, 1 Pet.
3:7

Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an
understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel,
since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers
may not be hindered.

The disparaging of the men in the room goes on to the very end of the
hour and seven minute sermon.  I’ll repeat that I highly encourage you
to read the transcript.  There is simply too much to quote, as the stream of invective against the men in the room is non stop.

This guy is the epitome of the wolf in sheep’s clothing. He’s a wannabe cult leader, not a man of God. Reading his words, I can scent the stink of feminist-appeasing, neighbor’s-wife-seducing sulfur. The joke, the evil joke, is him.

No man who runs around posturing as “the only man in the room” in this manner is a Christian leader. He’s an Alpha male, a pathological seducer who can’t stand the fact that there are women in the room who prefer another man to him. I can just about guarantee you that he would react very, very badly to me if I merely walked into his church with Spacebunny and stared at him. His sort of Alpha absolutely hates Sigmas because a) we tend to marry attractive women and b) we see their bullshit for what it is.

Dalrock’s close was beautiful: “Miss Flowahs got Driscoll’s message, and no doubt so did the women in attendance.” His real message, not the fake sermon given as cover.

I never trust a man who pretends to be talking to God when he is actually talking to the people listening.

The face of the Devil

The Church of England is marking a new era in its history as the Rev Libby Lane becomes the first woman to be ordained as a bishop. More than 100 members of the episcopate from England and other parts of the worldwide Anglican Church will lay hands on the 48-year-old vicar from Hale, Greater Manchester, to formally consecrate her during a service at York Minster. The Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu will anoint her with oil in an ancient tradition tracing its origins to the prophets of the Old Testament.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev Justin Welby, will also be present, alongside female bishops from churches in other parts of the world.

The consecration marks the conclusion of a decades-long wrangle over the role of women in leadership in the established Church, the last great institution of British public life to open itself to full gender equality.

Does that look like someone who is sobered by the burden of assuming spiritual leadership? Or the smirking triumph of someone who has finally managed to corrupt a once-great institution?

As the Church of England finally succumbs to its entryist invaders, we can safely predict that the church leaders will be disappointed in their expectations: “Church leaders hope it will mark a moment of reconciliation between
traditionalists and reformers on the issue.”

It won’t. It marks the death knell of the Church of England. The “new era” that is marked is the end.

The faux sociopaths

John C. Wright explains that the Left is evil, not stupid:

Leftists are people who have a conscience but act like sociopaths. If the Leftist were really a sociopath, he would not need excuses, justifications, and rationalizations to fill his yammering mouth and empty his wrathful brain.

Please note also that this behavior only surfaces on matters where the Leftist has turned Left and turned off his brain in a vain attempt to turn off his conscience, which he wrongly believes to be lodged in the brain. A Leftist can be a good coworker, even a good friend, if you stick to topics where the Leftist brain-parasite called guilt does not take root and bloom like ghastly fungi expanding from his hypothalamus and medulla oblongata to suck up all his gray matter and ooze sinuously out of eyes, nostrils, mouth, ears.

I have talked with social Leftists about economic issues, for example, without triggering their brain-fungi response. The Leftist will mouth the normal sounding American ideals about Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness provided you do not crowd him too closely to ask him what those things mean, or why their heroes Che and Mao and crystal meth dealer Matthew Shepard slain by his gay lover and fellow drug dealer Aaron McKinney fit into the idea of the American Way, then and only then will the brain fungi erupt, and the human-shaped skull be cracked and flung aside, revealing the fleshy lobes and convolutions of the nonhuman being beneath.

Leftists are reasonable and decent people except in their particular areas of sensitivity, by which I mean, of course, where they are hiding their smothering guilt, and — this point bears emphasizing — not all of them are sensitive about the same thing, because not all of them sold the same section of their brains to the Fungi from Yuggoth for the same reason.

No one has sold all his brain, and no one is an entirely self consistent Leftist, so what triggers one Leftist into frothing inanity is not what triggers another. But the behavior once triggered is the same. That behavior is flight from reason.

As stated above, Leftism is what you get when you stop reasoning.

Their reasoning is marred and crippled because they mar and cripple reason so that reason will not operate properly. They want reason not to operate properly because reason shows them a truth that they cannot abide. They cannot abide the truth because the truth condemns them. Truth condemns them because they do evil.

We are all potential Leftists. We are all capable of rationalizing away our own particular sins. How good I am, because I am not a glutton, says the slender whore. How good I am, because I am not a slut, says the obese woman as she stuffs her face. How good I am, because I am not a murderer, says the homosexual. How good I am, because I am not a thief, says the killer.

It is only when attention is drawn to their own particular sin, to OUR own sin, that the human mind goes haywire, because it is hard to look at yourself in the mirror and say: “I am a sinner. I am corrupt. I am fallen short of the glory of God.”

And yet, whether we admit it or not, we have.

We sinners of the Right are no better than the sinners of the Left. We are only more sane because we do not run from our sins, we do not hide from them, and we know better than to try to justify them. But we commit them, all the same. Don’t pretend otherwise, for doing so is the first step on the path to becoming differently and incompletely sane.

CS Lewis on Liberty and Statism

An interesting 90-minute talk concerning CS Lewis’s views on the evils of statism, by the president of the CS Lewis Society of California. It’s often forgotten that the third volume of Lewis’s Space Trilogy, That Hideous Strength, was deeply and intimately concerned with the intrinsic evils of statism and bureaucracy, as was his Abolition of Man.

Christian revival in the heart of secularism

A Christian in France suggests one might be in the works:

On a recent Sunday, my family and I only showed up 10 minutes early for Mass. That meant we had to sit in fold-out chairs in the spillover room, where the Mass is relayed on a large TV screen. During the service, my toddler had to go to the bathroom. To get there, we had to step over a dozen people sitting in hallways and corners. This is business as usual for my church in Paris, France.

I point this out because one of the most familiar tropes in social commentary today is the loss of Christian faith in Europe in general, and France in particular. The Wall Street Journal recently fretted about the sale of “Europe’s empty churches.”

Could it be, instead, that France is in the early stages of a Christian revival?

Yes, churches in the French countryside are desperately empty. There are no young people there. But then, there are no young people in the French countryside, period. France is a modern country with an advanced economy, and that means its countryside has emptied, and that means that churches built in an era when the country’s sociological makeup was quite different go empty. In the cities — which is where people are, and where cultural trends gain escape velocity — the story is quite different.

But back to our parish. Is our pastor some outlier with megawatt
charisma? In terms of flair, he would win no public speaking contests.
But there is something that sets him apart from many of the Catholic
priests my parents’ generation grew up listening to: he is
unapologetically orthodox.

It may seem strange to suggest this at a time when liberalism in the mainstream churches and secularism without appear dominant. The Anglicans have made women bishops, the Pope is a demi-socialist, and everyone expects the Supreme Court to declare, ex nihilo, that the abominable parody known as “gay marriage” was magically written into the U.S. Constitution in hitherto undetected invisible ink.

But consider the logic of the situation. First, as with a market at its peak, there is no one left to buy into the mainstream denominations’ liberal quasi-Christianity. The pews, as they say, are already empty. The 60’s-era notion that being more tolerant, more accepting, more accommodating of the world would strengthen the Christian Church and bring in more believers had precisely the opposite effect. After all, if the Church is not only in the world, but of it, what purpose does it have?

At the same time that its intellectual bankruptcy has resulted in the undeniable material failure of inclusive, liberal, and tolerant Churchianity, the material and spiritual failures of secularism are being more apparent as well. People are beginning to realize that asserting a belief in nothing is not going to save them from either the fires of Hell or the bullets of a resurgent Islam.

Add to that the fact that the apparent wealth of the longest credit boom in world history has turned out to be mostly illusionary, and what we are seeing is the potential for a perfect storm of a return to the faith of an intensity that may be unprecedented. For decades, only prophets saw the danger. For years, only extremists were willing to speak out. But now, one has to have one’s head lodged firmly in the sand, or in one’s posterior, to fail to recognize four things:

  1. The failure of liberal Christian heresy
  2. The spiritual and material failures of secularism
  3. The danger of the third great wave of Islamic aggression
  4. The peril of the Christian West

Now, none of this means a revival is inevitable. It is not. But God works in mysterious ways and in His own time. He appears to enjoy waiting until the moment is dire, and then, using the most unlikely of sources. We cannot make it happen, but we can raise our voices and pray that He will make it happen, and that He use us as His weapons against those who have proclaimed themselves His enemies.

We are all sinful, corrupt, and fallen. I do not exempt myself from that, being worse than many, if not most, in those regards. But even I can see that something is stirring, something appears to be rumbling under the ground to which the flimsy secular chains that cover the inert corpse of Christendom are attached.

I know that there are those who believe that we are living in a permanently post-Christian era. But I suggest it is far too soon to count out a faith that began with nothing more than eleven frightened men. If Christians do not serve and worship a Living God, then Christianity should, by all reason and logic, continue to dwindle and fade. But if that does not happen, if there is, instead, a great revival, that will be meaningful evidence to the contrary.

An interview with John C. Wright

A Castalia House blogger interviews the leading Castalia House author at Castalia House:

Q: Your conversion story from atheism to Christianity is remarkable.  Some critics have been surprised to discover which of your books were written as a Christian, and which were written as an atheist.  You have said that in each case you simply followed the internal logic of the story to its conclusion.  How much has your faith influenced your fiction, if at all?

A: This is a very difficult question, because my firm resolution when first I converted was to simply tell stories to entertain.

I am often annoyed by stories that preach, even when they preach a sermon with which I wholly agree, such as Philip Pullman’s THE GOLDEN COMPASS. I was an atheist when I read it, a full-throat anti-Christian zealous in my love of godlessness, and even I could not stand the obtrusive excrescence of the preaching in that miserable book.

Now that I am in the other camp of the endless war between light and darkness, I confess I am still nonplussed and unamused by preaching disguised as entertainment, whether it supports my side or not. The idea of ‘Christian entertainment’ is a sound one, as long as it is entertaining as well as being Christian. There is an odor of self satisfied smugness and piety which is as repellant as the musk of a skunk clinging to much Christian entries into the literary world, which one never finds in older works, such as Milton or Dante, and never in the works of masters even in so humble as genre as science fiction. I challenge anyone to find anything nakedly and blandly pious or preachy in the work of J.R.R. Tolkien, R.A. Lafferty, Gene Wolfe or Tim Powers, but there is clearly a spiritual dimension to all their works.

So I vowed a great vow never to let my personal feelings creep into my books, but merely to tell a tale for the sake of the tale, keeping faith with my readers. I am not their teacher, nor their preacher, nor their father confessor, and I have no duty to instruct them, and no qualifications to do so, no more than the jester in a King’s court has the authority to criticize the laws and policies of the King. My customers are my kings, and my job is to do pratfalls and take pies to the face to amuse them.

In the space of a single hour my great vow was overthrown when a reader, practically in tears, so deeply and thoughtfully praised the vision of spiritual reality presented in one of my short stories, the wholesomeness of the moral atmosphere portrayed there, that the reader likened it to a man trapped on some alien world of chlorine gas and sulfurous clouds being allowed to step on the fair, green fields of Earth for a single breath of wholesome, springtime air.

The reader was talking about my Christian faith, and the strength and firmness and clarity it lent to my writing. If I can wax lyrical about Ricardo’s Theory of Comparative Advantage, as I did in THE GOLDEN AGE, then surely I can wax lyrical about truth, virtue, and beauty.

The king is sad, and the jester needs to bring him comfort, for I know tales of a country where these sad things do not reign, but a king kindlier and mightier than any mortal king. As a jester, I owe it to my kings here on Earth and the King of Kings in heaven not to hide or waste my talents.

You’ll definitely want to read the whole thing. And afterwards, if you happen to find yourself still failing to be in possession of excellent books by the interviewee such as THE GOLDEN AGE, AWAKE IN THE NIGHT LAND, ONE BRIGHT STAR TO GUIDE THEM, and THE BOOK OF FEASTS & SEASONS, I find it impossible to imagine that you will not want to swiftly rectify the situation.

It’s an excellent interview with a fascinating author. Scooter did an excellent job of formulating much deeper questions than one generally sees in the SF genre, in addition to demonstrating that he was actually very familiar with the author’s material.