Movie Review: Urban Cowboy

European people received Christ with fervor, leading to varied yet beautiful cultural expressions.

As we gradually traded the true God-man for a systematized corpse, the life blood of our culture became weaker and weaker until today, there is nothing left but faint memories.

The movie “Urban Cowboy” starring John Travolta is such a memory. It is a modern fairy tale, set in a time that is not so long ago, and not so far away.

There was a time when blue-collar cowboy culture had a legitimate standing in America. Women would flee the city proper in search of honky-tonks…hoping to find a cowboy to entertain for the evening. Popular songs (like “Stand by Me”) were recorded by country artists for a country crowd. (Today it’s the other way around.) The women, and the song, were included in “Urban Cowboy” without apology.  The authority and legitimacy of this culture are taken for granted.

Bud (Travolta) moves to the city to find a job. He stays with his aunt and uncle in the mean-time, and they introduce him to the local country club. He meets Sissy, and the couple two-step their way into a marriage. But, as anyone with knowledge of Country music knows, their relationship was headed for rough pastures. An ex-convict ends up dividing Bud and Sissy. Pride runs wild as the married couple try to out-cheat each other, leading to a climactic bull-ride competition where Bud and his live-in girlfriend face off against the ex-con and Sissy. Will Bud’s blue-collar work ethic defeat the snake-in-the grass tenacity of the ex-con? You’ll have to watch the movie for yourself to find out!

While you watch, take special note of the way Bud and Sissy are contrasted with Uncle Bob and Corene (Bud’s relatives). As generations pass, the cultural influence of Christ gradually fades, and His beauty becomes less manifested. Aunt Corene notes at one point that Bud and Sissy “live like pigs!”  Bud’s relatives represent a Christ-like stability in Bud’s life. One only hopes that he and Sissy attain the same level of stability in their relationship.

Also, Bud’s relationship with his live-in girlfriend is interesting (as noted above.) She is a wild-woman…interested in sex for pleasure, and particularly interested in cowboys. Today, the same metro-chick is interested in the gangster wanna-be. At least the girl in “Urban Cowboy” had some romanticized sense of chivalry and virtue. When women of today seek their mate in a club, they look for ghetto-conformity. What romance is left? What brand of chivalry are they looking for?  If you’re going to be promiscuous, at least choose the cowboy over the gangsta! Oh how times have changed!

Honor, strength, and hard-work were glamorized in this culture. Guts, and integrity were held in high esteem. And, yes…as blasphemous as it may seem (to modern society)…when push came to shove…God almighty clearly lent strength to the main characters, and was a mighty presence in the background of the entire drama. (For example, Sissy was at pains to sleep with the convict, her conscience was really giving her a fit. In a few years, this scene may no longer make sense to the modern American…”why would she hesitate to have sex with him?” they will wonder.)

It seems that Europe has been truly looking for love in all the wrong places…and neglecting the savior that once made us so great.

(This movie gets 3 out of 5 stars on the Shotgun movie scale.  It’s got a lot of cussing, and is long-winded at points.  But the music is great, and the culture it displays tends to make one daydream about a better place…)

Book Review: The Wonga Coup

The Wonga Coup written by Adam Roberts, gets a 2.5 out of a possible 5 stars on the Shotgun rating scale.

The subtitle reads:  “Guns, thugs, and a ruthless determination to create mayhem in an oil rich corner of Africa.”

A tiny country in the very armpit of Africa, Equatorial Guinea is unknown to most Americans.   To thirsty men…Equatorial Guinea is seen oozing with that eloquent black nectar known as crude oil.  Ironically…oil not only fuels our cars…but our inner monsters as well…as Africans know.

Rape has been a long companion of decent societies…floating on the outskirts and hiding in the shadows.  This deplorable virtue is heroic in Africa.

The heroes of the Wonga Coup were greedy men who thrived on adventure and the promise of riches.  The easy buck goaded at them.  It drew Simon Mann (the main character) back from retirement…and along with him, hundreds of out of work mercenaries and information peddlers.

Simon Mann saw potential in Equatorial Guinea.  He planned to stage a coup…topple the evil dictator of the nation, and set up a puppet government.  This government would be legally inclinded to repay Mann for the services offered…leaving Mann in a very wealthy position.

The bulk of the book details (in an interesting and fast-paced narrative) Mann’s organization of the coup.  He rounds up partners and raises the money.  He plans out the details and arranges for mercenaries to carry out the coup as well as for weapons, transportation and a helicopter gunship for extra support.   (The helicopter was to be paid for by son of Margaret Thatcher, sir Mark Thatcher.)

Plans of his coup eventually leak out to the intelligence agencies of major nations like France, Spain, South Africa and America.  This doesn’t stop Mann however.  He reasoned that Macias Nguema (the president and genocidal maniac rulling Equatorial Guinea) wouldn’t be missed by these nations…and it seemed for awhile that he was right.  Mann’s coup would not be interfered with.

However, through various sorts of political twists and unfortunate events, Mann ends up being arrested on a runway in Zimbabwe just before initiating the coup.

This is a very exciting and fun read.  It gives an insightful look at the way politics work on an international level as well as provides new meaning to the term:  “Follow the money.”  In my opinion, the Wonga Coup demonstrates the attitude and thinking of international bankers and wealthy men.  They see governments as pawns in their game.  Nothing is out of the range of possibility for these people as long as money is involved.

This international attitidue of greed highlights a deeper problem in human nature…one that cannot be solved with diamonds, oil revenues or slavery.   Africa is especially sensitive to this problem.  She has been raped for hundreds of years.

When the only savior man knows requires bullets instead of loving petitions…then Christendom will know that a larger coup has been staged…though this one….like Mann’s…is doomed for failure.

Movie Review: The Watchmen (0 out of 5 stars)

See my preliminary (and somewhat reactionary) thoughts on this movie:  http://shotgunwildatheart.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/watchmen-preliminary-discussions-warning-this-blog-contains-strong-language/

Streets stank of Fire.  The void breathed hard on my heart turning its illusions to ice, shattering them.  Was reborn then, free to scrawl own design on this morally blank world. – Rorschach , Watchmen chapter VI page 26.

Our struggle from the primal ooze, every childbirth, every personal sacrifice rendered meaningless, leading only to dust, tossed on the void-winds. – Adrian Veidt, Watchmen chapter XI page 22.

Man before God is the only alternative to man in the void. – Cornelius Van Til, Psychology of Religion pg. 73.

Since the dawn of mankind our species has been at constant war with our own finitude.  When Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit they acknowledged their lordship over God thereby establishing a faux moral realm of neutrality in which they were free to act:  a void.

The constant enemy man faces is his own nature; his own lack of god-hood.  To admit this would disclose that he does not live in the void at all, but is rather a subject.  A helpless and derivative being existing in total servitude to the true Lord of all reality.  This, fallen man cannot and must not admit to. For eternity he will strive to cover up this blasphemy.

The Lord of the cosmos is a loving and gracious God.  In His kindness, He has granted me and many others infinite forgiveness.  He sent His one and only son to die a humiliating death that we foul beasts may arise from the void and regain our place as His righteous vice regents over the created realm.

There arises from this a basic dichotomy among men.  We regenerate are pitted against those who cherish the void.  All of our history can be understood in terms of this basic gospel message.  It is with this in mind that R.J. Rushdoony wrote the following:

“The purpose of Biblical history is to trace the victory of Jesus Christ.  That victory is not merely spiritual; it is also historical.  Creation, man, and man’s body, all move in terms of a glorious destiny for which the whole creation groans and travails as it awaits the fullness of that glorious liberty of the sons of God (Rom. 8:18-23).  The victory is historical and eschatological, and it is not the rejection of creation but it’s fulfillment.” – Rushdoony, The Biblical Philosophy of History pp. 25-26.

In opposition to this we find various different schools of humanist thought and historical interpretation.

Alan Moore, author of “The Watchmen” cherishes the void and wishes to maintain his own god-hood by denying the power of the cross in history.  His novel, and the subsequent movie adaptation, demonstrate a clear understanding of what is at stake.  Unfortunately his view of the matter is more accurate than many Christians would admit; a fact that compels me to write this review for purposes of education and warning.

Upon realizing possible implications of the theory of thermodynamics, the co-founder of communism, Frederick Engels writes:

“…we arrive at the conclusion that in some way, which it will later be the task of scientific research to demonstrate, the heat radiated into space must be able to become transformed into another form of motion, in which it can once more be stored up and rendered active.  Thereby the chief difficulty in the way of the reconversion of extinct suns into incandescent vapour disappears.
For the rest, the eternally repeated succession of worlds in infinite time is only the logical complement to the co-existence of innumerable worlds in infinite space….It is an eternal cycle in which matter moves, a cycle that certainly only completes its orbit in periods of time for which our terrestrial year is no adequate measure, a cycle in which the time of highest development, the time of organic life and still more that of the life of beings conscious of nature and of themselves, is just as narrowly restricted as the space in which life and self-consciousness come into operation; a cycle in which every finite mode of existence of matter, whether it be sun or nebular vapour, single animal or genus of animals, chemical combination or dissociation, is equally transient, and wherein nothing is eternal but eternally changing, eternally moving matter and the laws according to which it moves and changes.” – Frederick Engels, Dialectics of Nature pp. 23-24.

To allow scientific principal to highlight a possible future end of man (as thermodynamics may) is to propose the death of man’s god-hood thereby destroying the illusion of the void.  Engels cannot allow this and so, along with many pagan cultures of the past, he posits an eternal history of cyclical motion.  An infinite nature of infinite causal events.

Engels concludes:

“…we have the certainty that matter remains eternally the same in all its transformations, that none of its attributes can ever be lost, and therefore, also, that with the same iron necessity that it will exterminate on the Earth its highest creation, the thinking mind, it must somewhere else at another time again produce it.” IBID p. 25

The Watchmen is a story with a complex message.  Drawing upon the view of history highlighted by Engels; Alan Moore seeks to present a serious moral quandary to his characters  having them ultimately resolve it in a way that preserves the void and demonstrates the foolishness of Christian society all in one stroke.

It all started, (according to Hollis Mason, the original Night Owl) in 1938: “The year when they invented the super-hero.”  It was in 1938 (according to the story) that the first issue of Action Comics came out and people were fascinated by tales of super heroes.   Riding this wave of enthusiasm, a “hooded vigilante” intervenes to stop a mugging.

Others were inspired and soon afterwards an alliance of colorful citizens assembled to fight crime.  Over the years for various reasons, they retire or get themselves killed.  Further adding to the doom of this group’s optimism was the horrific transformation of scientist  Jon Osterman into the god-like character Dr. Manhattan.  As Mason declares to Dr. Manhattan, “With someone like you around, the whole situation changes.  You can do anything.  All I got to offer is a good left hook.”

The introduction of Dr. Manhattan plays on a common humanistic theme that man will eventually be able to make himself into something more than “human” and escape the horrible notion of the true God once and for all.  (See Erik J. Wielenberg‘s “Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe” specifically chapter 4.) This theme is prominent throughout the story as characters react to Dr. Manhattan and can be seen in his own dialogue. It is also crucial for the development of the main message in the film, demonstrating that man can become his own god.

The old group of heroes retire, but a new generation arises to take their place.  Their actions, along with the strict control over society by the god-like Dr. Manhattan (who teleports people around and disintegrates them at will) causes political strife in the nation and eventually leads to legislation against all vigilantes.  Some of the heroes go into hiding, some expose their identities in order to capitalize on them, and others remain legally active, working for the government.

In the background of this story, relations between the Soviet Union and America are declining.  They face off over Afghanistan after America’s victory in Vietnam (thanks to Dr. Manhattan.)  The harsh realities of this Cold-War world, as well as the anti-vigilante legislation, strike at the heart of the new alliance of heroes and eventually drives them apart.

The novel begins with the murder of one of these heroes, “The Comedian.”  In response, Rorschach (who refused to quit adventuring despite the new law) launches an investigation.  Being characteristically paranoid, he believes that someone is out to kill all the ex-superheroes.   His suspicions prove true when someone tries to kill Adrian Veidt, aka: Ozymandias, the so called “smartest man in the world.”  Events spiral out of control when Dr. Manhattan is driven into seclusion and Rorschach is arrested.

With three of the heroes disposed of, and an attempt on the life of a fourth, Night Owl and Ms. Jupiter dust off their old uniforms and go to spring Rorschach from prison.  Meanwhile the Cold War escalates and nuclear war is immanent.

Night Owl and Ms. Jupiter (aka Silk Spectre II) rescue Rorschach and escape to safety.  Upon arrival Jupiter finds Dr. Manhattan waiting for her.  (The two were romantically involved and while in seclusion on Mars, Manhattan sensed Jupiter’s need for him prompting his return.)  He teleports them both to Mars where Ms. Jupiter tries to persuade him to stop the impending nuclear war.

During this conversation, author Alan Moore makes his view of history and “meaning“ abundantly clear.  It is difficult to see how Frederick Engels could disagree with much of the following dialogue between Manhattan and Jupiter:

Dr. M:  I don’t think your life’s meaningless.

Ms. J:  You don’t?

Dr. M:  No.

Ms. J:  But…listen, you’ve just been saying life is meaningless, so how can…?

Dr. M:  I changed my mind.

Ms. J:  But why?

Dr. M:  Thermodynamic miracles…events with odds against so astronomical they’re effectively impossible, like oxygen spontaneously becoming gold.  I long to observe such a thing.  And yet, in each human coupling, a thousand million sperm vie for a single egg.  Multiply those odds by countless generations against the odds of your ancestors being alive, meeting, siring this precise son, that exact daughter, until your mother loves a man she has every reason to hate, and of that union, of the thousand million children competing for fertilization it was you, only you, that emerged.  To distill so specific a form from that chaos of improbability like turning air to gold.  That is the crowning unlikelihood.  The thermodynamic miracle.

Ms. J:  But…if me, my birth, if that’s a thermodynamic miracle…I mean, you could say that about anybody in the world!

Dr M:  Yes.  Anybody in the world.

Here we find the ultimate attempt at fallen man to find meaning and purpose for himself from out of the chaos of the void.  Earlier in the discussion, Dr. Manhattan discloses his disbelief in any creator.  He says:

Perhaps the world is not made.  Perhaps nothing is made.  Perhaps it simply is, has been, will always be there…a clock without a craftsman. – Watchmen, chapter IV page 28.

Alan Moore puts this same concept in the mouth of Rorschach who supposed to be representing a different view of the world.  We can see, however, that he has the exact humanistic and fallen view of history as Dr. Manhattan.

Existence is random.  Has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long.  No meaning save what we choose to impose.  This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces.  It is not God who kills the children.  Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs.  It’s us.  Only us.  Streets stank of fire.  The void breathed hard on my heart, turning its illusions to ice, shattering them.  Was reborn then, free to scrawl own design on this morally blank world.  Was…Rorschach. – Watchmen, chapter VI page 26.

Thus in the dialogue between Ms. Jupiter and Dr. Manhattan we find this concept of “meaning emerging from the void” made manifest.  This ideology has had profound effects on human action throughout history leading to all sorts of institutionalized depravity. (1)

When all notion of God is done away with in favor of the void then it is only the power of man that can dictate what is right and wrong.  As Rorschach says, after accepting the void he was then free to scrawl his own design on a morally blank world.

While Ms. Jupiter is on Mars with Dr. Manhattan; Night Owl and Rorschach discover that Adrian Veidt (Ozymandias) is the man behind the conspiracy to dispose of the heroes.  They track him to his fortress in Antarctica where Veidt quickly overpowers them and lays out his plan.

He had genetically engineered a giant, psychic squid which he hoped to teleport into downtown New York.  Upon arrival the squid would die (the fate of all teleported objects) and release a psychic wave, killing millions.  This,Veidt hoped, would cause the world to unite in peaceful cooperation against what they perceived as a common, extra-terrestrial, threat.  His plan was successful, having been carried out strategically, leaving Night Owl and Rorschach helpless to stop it.

Dr. Manhattan and Ms. Jupiter teleport from Mars to New York where they see the massive devastation and the remains of the squid.  Dr. Manhattan quickly figures out the source of the problem and teleports them both to Antarctica where they meet up with the others.

After assessing the situation, the group of heroes decide collectively to keep silent about the true nature of the disaster, preferring to hide the truth rather than risk the new-found peace.  All of them, except for Rorschach, who stubbornly walks out of the fortress.  He is brutally murdered by the god-like Dr. Manhattan.

From watching the movie, Rorschach’s intentions were unclear since his diatribe about a meaningless universe was left out while his words about God were left in.  It lead the viewer to think initially that perhaps this, coupled with his frequent discussion of the depravity of society, meant that Rorschach’s character was displaying a sort of Christian ethic.

After reading the novel, it is abundantly clear that he was simply holding (however righteously) to his own higher standard of morality.  If Rorschach could violently impose his will on the world, then so could Dr. Manhattan, and in the end, it looked as if Rorschach was consistent in this view.  He didn’t try to run or stop his own murder (not that he could have.)  He literally accepted that his view of morality and Dr. Manhattan’s were different, and Manhattan had the power to enforce whatever he wanted.

The closing dialogue between Veidt and Manhattan is especially telling:

V:  I know I’ve struggled across the backs of murdered innocents to save humanity…but someone had to take the weight of that awful, necessary crime.  I’d hoped you’d understand, unlike Rorschach…

M:  …yes I understand, without condoning or condemning.  Human affairs cannot be my concern.  I’m leaving this galaxy for one less complicated.

V:  But you’d regained interest in Human life…

M:  Yes, I have.  I think perhaps I’ll create some.  Good bye Adrian.

V:  Jon, wait, before you leave…I did the right thing, didn’t I? It all worked out in the end.

M:  In the end?  Nothing ends Adrian.  Nothing ever ends.

Well, I thank God that Engels, Moore, and Dr. Manhattan were wrong or else this travesty of a novel may have gone on indefinitely. To spiral on and on forever, spawning, destroying, then re-spawning consciousness would be utter Hell.  In the end, that is all the chaotic void turns out to be.  The death of all possible meaning and all possible freedom or happiness.

Perhaps the final joke will be on Alan Moore after all, because, just like the stranded mariner in a particular sub-story running throughout the “Watchmen” novel…he will in the end become the very thing he hated the most.  He will gain total interdependence from God…thus integrating himself fully and consistently into the void…destroying all possibility of rational existence for the rest of eternity. (2)

If he screams loud enough in Hell, I wonder if Dr. Manhattan will save him?

(1):  This depravity includes modern trends in the art world.  Humanism and postmodernism have drastically affected the way modern artists view language, meaning, beauty and art.  The  Wikipedia entry for Alan Moore notes that he is considered a pioneer for applying “formalist sensibilities” to the genre.  This is clearly an example of his formalist (postmodern and existential) sensibilities being displayed through the moral convictions of his characters.

(2):  This is a somewhat controversial view of Hell. I’ll not take a dogmatic stand on it for now.  I will admit that due to God’s nature, no creature, even those in Hell can fully escape His Lordship. I believe He will abstain His providential blessings from those in Hell to such a degree that they can no longer make sense of the myriad of experiences their brains encounter and will be reduced to an infinite state of pure existentialism where all that exists is the “now.”  A “now” filled with pain, humility, dishonor, and incoherent thought.  Such is the true nature of the void.

Chocolate Review: Green and Black’s Organic Milk Chocolate Bar

Ok…

The Green & Blacks brand of organic milk chocolate candy bar is some of the absolute greatest chocolate I have ever eaten in my entire life.

If you love Hershys, these guys will blow your socks off.

I give the milk chocolate bar from G&B, a 5 out of a possible 5 stars on the Shotgun food scale!

The normal sized bar comes in black and blue wrapping…100 grams (3.5 oz.)  It is 34 % Cocoa (Rich). Green & Blacks is certified organic by the California Certified Organic Farmers (CCOF).

The only downside is…there are about 420 calories in one bar.  So, make sure you walk a few miles after eating one!  (Or, maybe you could take a walk WHILE eating one?  I gurantee you…it’s worth it!)

Movie Review: Ink Heart

This movie gets a 2 out of a possible 5 stars on the Shotgun movie scale.

Chocked full of fantasy, magic, and sarcasm, this movie turned out to be a little better than I was expecting.  (Though not by much.)

Brandon Fraser stars as “Mo Silvertongue Folchart,” an average guy who happens to have the ability to bring into reality whatever he reads aloud.  Unaware of his abilities, Mo reads to his daughter out of the fantasy novel “Ink Heart” only to have the villains appear out of nowhere…knives at the ready.  The fortunate appearance of a noble hearted (but somewhat cowardly) character “Dustfinger” (played by actor Paul Bettany, Wimbleton, Knights Tale) shows up in time to save the day.  When the dust settles, a sinister side effect of Mo’s power is discovered.  Whatever comes out of a book must be replaced by something from the real world.  Mo’s wife has vanished into the Ink Heart novel…which was destroyed during the scuffle.

For the next twelve years, Mo is on the run with his young daughter (played by actress Eliza Bennett) going from book show to book show looking for a copy of Ink Heart in the hopes to bring  his wife back.

Adventure ensues when Dustfinger catches up with the duo.  Dustfinger, wanting nothing more than to get home to his family, makes a pact with the badguys and helps them catch Mo.  They capture Mo, and use his daughter as leverage to force him to manifest large amounts of gold out of “The 40 Thieves.”

(The budding economist in me winced at this part of the movie.  I wanted to lecture the thugs on the economic principals of counterfeit, and how all that influx of new gold into the market would only serve to reduce the value of gold all together.  Seriously folks…if you ever get a “reader” and wish to abuse his abilities for nefarious ends…make sure you only have him “actuate” consumable goods like guns, or food, or mass amounts of toilet paper and napkins.  Leave the “money” alone.)

Dustfinger, having been betrayed, helps Mo and friends escape the clutches of the bad guys, and set off to find the author of Ink Heart in the hopes of finding the original manuscript.  Once there, Dustfinger reveals that Mo’s wife was really back in the castle with the bad guys.

The heroes then mount a rescue attempt that really doesn’t work.  At the end…(SPOILER ALERT) they are all saved by Mo’s daughter who has inherited his reading ability.

Overall, I was kind of bored with this movie…granted it is geared towards young girls (with enough action that I imagine the producers hoped young boys would also be interested.)  Brandon Fraser doesn’t ever contribute in any significant way to the resolution of any conflict.  He just runs around, yells, and get’s the crap beat out of him repeatedly.   The entire conflict is resolved in a dramatic way by his daughter, who ends up “reading” everything back to normal…why she didn’t just do that to begin with…who knows?

They could have done so much with this.  I would love to have seen some of the great literary characters manifested to do battle with each other or otherwise interact in creative ways.  Instead, all we get is Toto the dog, and Farid (a character from the 40 theives.)  Yeah…I would have loved to see Sherlock Holmes team up with Quasimodo, and perhaps have Smog the dragon show up to do battle with the nefarious “Shadow” demon from the Ink Heart novel.  Oh well….

One of the most enlightening parts of the movie, is when Dustfinger meets the author of Ink Heart and forcefully tells him “You are NOT my God!”  This sets up the dichotomy in the child’s mind, (albeit implicitly) that there is a “higher” sovereign over the “real” world…a sovereignty that man cannot achieve…no matter how powerful he might be.

The movie has a weak but enjoyable story…one that kids will find attractive.  It might also have the added benefit of motivating and inspiring children to read old books…(which, these days, means…”good” books.)  There are one or two harsh words spoken, and some strong (scary) images of a large shadow monster at the end…but, I think overall it’s suitable for children.

So, go enjoy the movie…and, if you happen to be a “reader” then please read the following line out loud for me:

“And then Shotgun turned from his monitor and peered out the window just in time to see a brand new, fully restored 69 Mustang fastback…and magically the keys appeared in his pocket…”

Book Review: The Mythology of Science

The “Mythology of Science” is another home run by R.J. Rushdoony!  For any of you familiar with my review of “Creation According to the Scriptures” you will remember how dissatisfied I was with it.

This book redeems, supplements, and amplifies “CATTS”.  Rushdoony covers in depth much of the ground left uncovered there.   Looking back, I would suggest that anyone interested in reading these two books, read “The Mythology of Science” first, and then “CATTS.”  (Here is the link to my review of Creation According to the Scriptures:  http://shotgunwildatheart.wordpress.com/2008/06/28/book-review-creation-according-to-the-scriptures/ )

In the Mythology of Science, Rushdoony begins by demonstrating that the concept of evolution is a cultural myth.   It is shown that unbelieving thought necessarily leads to the death of all meaning (see my book review of “The Death of Meaning”) and a form of pragmatic anarchy results.

In this new cultural myth, men seek to destroy God, and in His place, enthrone themselves.  They seek to make themselves completely sovereign over reality.  Thus, as Rushdoony says, it is not predestination that offends fallen man, but rather, predestination BY GOD.

The horrifying result of such thinking is highlighted over and over again throughout the book, but is specifically addressed in chapter 3, “Orwell’s 1984:  Horror or Hope?”   Man seeks to control every aspect of nature, and this is the type of society that begins to emerge in “1984.”  Though, as Rushdoony notes, the society of Orwell’s “1984″ will seem like Heaven in comparison with what man really has in store.

Over and over again, man’s attempts to control other men is discussed.  Whether by means of drugs, shock therapy, micro chips, or some other devilish scheme, man seeks to govern others.  Man himself becomes the ultimate experiment.

Perhaps the most valuable aspect of this book is the way Rushdoony clarifies the false religion surrounding “progress” and progressive change through history.  He shows why any Christian who attempts to hold to this idea of “change” in an ultimate way, essentially ends up destroying the God of Christianity.

Thus, any attempts by Christians to reconcile Christianity with modern notions of evolution end up in theological absurdity.  (Chapter 6 “The Necessity for Creationism” really focuses on this point.)

Chapter 11 discusses Kuhn’s idea of paradigms and compares them (in a way) with Van Til’s notion of worldviews.  It is concluded that Kuhn is right in saying that everyone views the facts through the lens of their paradigm, however, Kuhn was not willing to admit to (or subject himself to) the ultimate and objective reality necessary for such paradigms to exist within.  This leads to a “schizophrenia” of sorts among modern scientists.  They must acknowledge the objective world of the Christian God in order to do their science, but they are not willing to give up the subjectivity necessary for their own god-hood.

Rushdoony includes a few book reviews in the Appendix section which may be a little outdated but are valuable all the same since they demonstrate a presuppositional attitude towards attempts to reconcile evolution and Christian thought.

All in all, I’m giving this book 5 out of 5 stars!  It is simply priceless and will enable me to critique many other aspects of God’s creation in light of the truths presented therein.

Book Review: The Death of Meaning

  “The Death of Meaning” by R.J. Rushdoony gets a 4.5 out of a possible 5 stars.

As always, this was a valuable and far reaching book.  Rushdoony discusses the history of thought in order to show how secular philosophy (especially after Descartes) has held to human autonomy as a foundational presupposition resulting in the death of all meaning in the world.

This is an especially valuable work to the up-and-coming presuppositionalist like myself.  Too often Christian literature tends to skip over the case Rushdoony makes.  Granted, from the start of my studies into presuppositional apologetics, I understood that unbelieving thought leads necessarily to the death of all meaning, the process, however, is not always clearly demonstrated.

As Paul says, “All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” are found in Christ.  If you deny Christ (The Christian God) you are giving up any chance you have of claiming legitimate knowledge of anything…and furthermore, if the non-Christian system proposed was consistent with itself, the promoter of the system wouldn’t be able to reason, use science, logic, math, or have any intelligent thought at all.  (It’s a good thing they don’t live consistently with their own philosophical profession!)

This conclusion is arrived at naturally (and freely admitted by) many of the Existentialist philosophers.  Rushdoony walks the reader step by step through the process providing helpful commentary along the way.

If you make man the center and interpreter of thought, you will necessarily be forced into the conclusions of the existentialist.  They live in a dark world, devoid of hope or freedom…a world that is quickly descending into chaos and destruction.  As a matter of fact, destruction is one of the highest goods in such a world.

This book really helped clarify the subtleties of the existentialist position in my mind, as well as allowing me to appreciate and developed their arguments for my own use as a Christian apologist.

As a Presuppositional apologist, I can use the arguments of the Existentialist to demonstrate to the unbeliever that his or her thought necessarily leads to the death of all meaning, and ultimately physical death as well…(which is exactly what God told Adam in the Garden.)

I highly recommend this book to any Christian that is interested in the history of recent philosophical thought.

I couldn’t give it a full 5 stars because of the way the book is structured.  It seems like they pulled together a few relevant essays and presented them in book format. I’ve very grateful for it, but as a result, the book doesn’t flow quite as well as it could have otherwise.

Book Review: “Army of the Republic”

The Army of the Republic by Stuart Archer Cohen gets two out of a possible five stars in the Shotgun rating system.

I didn’t like this book.  Sorry Stuart.

I don’t like people glorifying terrorist acts against a government that I love.*

I don’t like seeing this beautiful system portrayed in such a terrible light.**

You see, in the book, America has completely fallen prey to the cooperate regimes backed by a phony administration.  This terrible oligarchy was selling off American public assets (like water) to the highest bidder.

The hero of the story founded a terrorist organization called “Army of the Republic” in response.

While I can sympathize with the passion of the Army folk, I find their violent acts to be disgusting and unheroic.  The more violent of acts include the execution (via sniper) of a top business man, the demolition of a water plant, and at one point, a fellow terrorist is taken out point blank.

These terrorist also played fast and loose with the term “Revolution” and their misuse of the term is key to understanding why it should get a negative response from Christians. ***

Why should we trade tyranny of the Oligarchy for tyranny of the terrorist?  Even if their revolution were successful (and we never find out if it is or not…) why should we care?  Using power to force your view onto another only happens when your view is completely worthless and arbitrary.

This statement by Rushdoony about war, can just as easily be applied to the current understanding of revolutions:

“War is a sign of impotence. A system or philosophy of life which has no power to convert becomes imperialistic. For the zeal and faith of peaceful missionary work it substitutes brutal terror. A failing faith resorts to war, because it lacks the contagion of faith and conviction and can only force men into its own system. War is the resort of those who lack true power and are declining.” – R.J. Rushdoony: Roots of Reconstruction pg. 17.

As Christians we cannot, and MUST not allow talk about violent revolutions.  As Otto Scott points out in his lectures, such revolutions always destroy the host country. 

So why did I give the book two stars then?

Well, ever since reading 1984 that fateful day in high school, I’ve enjoyed watching totalitarian regimes get what is coming to them.  When humans are not afraid to stand up to their governments the idea of the messianic state is shaken.

We are clearly shown that the solution to the fictional America’s problem is a massive change of heart among the citizens of the country.

That is something I certainly agree with.  God bring this nation a true revival!

Overall, this is a fast paced and enjoyable book…one that I would have devoured when I was younger.  But now that I’m older, and have a clearer understanding of a proper Christian Just War theory, I can spot the naked skeleton of despair through the shimmering facade that is the Revolutionary. 

*Yes, I do still love our system of government even though I hate what it’s being turned into by the evil fascists currently in power.  It’s like standing by helpless while you watch a gang of grinning and blasphemous thugs rape your girlfriend.

**While ultimately the OT theocratic republic (ruled by a decentralized system of judges) is the greatest and freest system, our American Republic comes in a distant second.

***Consider Otto Scott’s statements about a proper understanding of “Revolution.”  http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1805181647

 

Liberty’s Lost Cause

I promised a friend of mine that I would read her essay and make some comments about it.  You can read her article here:  http://littlereb.wordpress.com/2008/08/30/libertys-lost-cause/

This was surprisingly less of a burden and more of a treat than I had expected! Ms. Liberty has written a paper called, “Liberty’s Lost Cause,” and in it, she highlights the tragedy of America’s “War Between the States” and discusses the topic of liberty in the context of the war. After getting to know Ms. Liberty perhaps I shouldn’t have been surprised at the ardent display of passion in this particular work, and my subsequent enjoyment of it.

 

Which of the bloodstained patriots would have thought that in the year 2008 the love of freedom would be systematically eradicated from the hearts of millions of emasculated Americans? Everyday on my walk to work I am struck by the terrible irony of our current dilemma.

 

After passing the old “Presbyterian Meeting House” once frequented on a regular basis by none other than George Washington himself; I saw a newspaper box with headlines declaring the most recent travesties of the U.S. congress.

A few blocks down, I usually stroll past Robert E. Lee’s boyhood home. Standing just a block down from the birthplace of such a striking defender of liberty was a woman carrying a sign promoting presidential candidate Barack Obama. She looked at me as I walked by and assured me that “change was on the way!.”

 

No doubt change IS on the way, and God speed its coming, if for no other reason than the people of Alexandria Virginia earnestly desire a good night’s sleep. (They’re being kept awake by the sound of all the dead patriots rolling over in their graves!)

 

I wish that the Alexandrian dog could read! Perhaps then he could be similarly inspired by Ms. Liberties essay and shed the horrible shade of tyranny that clouds his eyes. Yes; sadly, even the Alexandrian dog now feels the cruel rod of the state, and we self righteous Christians applaud! What little is left of my heart is tempted to melt when I lock eyes with the wretched beast, imprisoned behind the glass door by his cruel masters (who themselves are similarly locked behind a glass door constructed by a veneer of liberty.) God has blessed this poor animal with some far distant memory of being a wild thing; a memory that in practical application allows him to realize that he is indeed stuck behind a door. If only God would so bless his masters.

 

Perhaps the first sprinkling of this blessing is to come through the keystrokes of Ms. Liberty? Perhaps it will be possible to stir the cowed hearts of Americans towards passion again and provide them a glimpse however small, through this hazy glass door at an amazing sight; the Lost Cause of Liberty.

 

By way of critique I have very little to say.

 

Perhaps Ms. Liberty is a tad quote heavy, but when faced with such a wealth of great material her desire to include as much of it as possible is more than understandable. When debating about the ideas of our founding fathers it is an oft employed tactic to appeal to various quotes of the men in question in an attempt to establish their character. I wouldn’t condone such a method of argumentation, and thankfully Ms. Liberty does not take that route in her essay.

 

She DOES however effectively utilize certain quotes to show the origin of the lines of thought and philosophies which contributed to the particular understanding of liberty held by our founders.

 

Towards this end, I realize that she was limited in space and therefore would be hard pressed to encompass an entire view of history to bring the reader to the period under discussion. That said I would recommend that she take a step back and give an even greater overview of the time period. I’m specifically thinking of the historical context which gave birth to much of American thought that lead to the “revolution;” namely, the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.

 

It is a far too often used argument that our founders were not inspired by Biblical thought but rather were deists after the likes of French revolutionaries, and other enlightenment thinkers. Therefore, Ms. Liberty leaves herself vulnerable to these sorts of attacks by not sufficiently highlighting the development of “natural rights” doctrines throughout the Enlightenment.

 

This is a harsh criticism on my part though due to various concerns. Lack of space, (as I said above) and also the wealth of material to be poured through in presenting such a study would no doubt seem daunting.

 

It would be important to note however, that more firmly securing the foundation and growth of natural rights theory would benefit this paper enormously, since as Ms. Liberty points out, the War Between the States is so often mischaracterized as a “civil war.”

 

Likewise, the “revolutionary” war was not a revolution, but rather a legal judgment carried out by the colonists against an unjust tyrant. It was essentially the king that “revolted” against the people!

 

Once this concept has been clearly laid out, then the particular matters of succession, states rights, and due process, find their natural place in the argument. To merely present these doctrines in a pragmatic appeal is to deny “natural law” and instead appeal to the moral right of a majority.

 

Democracy is often (and humorously) characterized as two wolves and lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Tyranny by tyrant or tyranny by a majority is tyranny in either case.

 

This I feel is the one weakness in an otherwise excellent paper.

 

I suggest a deeper look at the necessity and progression of “natural law” theory by adding a few more quotes from John Locke in proper context as well as looking through the first few chapters of William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England” volume one. (Blackstone is published online, and I’m sure you could find some of Locke’s works as well, in addition to what you’ve already written concerning him.) Contrast these views with that of Thomas Hobbes and Sigmund Freud (A Renaissance man and Enlightenment man respectively) who both believed in a totalitarian type “Leviathan” to coerce individual men into a pattern desirable by the intellectuals. Through contrasting them, the real difference between the founders and Enlightenment thought will manifest itself.

 

Additionally, I love your list of 15 infractions of our current state. These sorts of travesties cannot ever be listed enough.

 

I am very encouraged by the winds of freedom that blow from the pages of this essay!

 

Now, if we could just learn to speak “dog” perhaps we’d have a real change in the near future!

Book Review: Harry Frankfurt’s “On Truth”

Harry Frankfurt’s essay “On Truth” gets 2 out of a possible 5 stars in the Shotgun book scale.

Mr. Frankfurt is the esteemed professor emeritus of philosophy at Princeton University, and author of the book “On Bullsh***.”

I first heard of Mr. Frankfurt when a friend of mine quoted him as a great “secular epistemologist” in one of his essays on presuppositional apologetics.

When I saw Frankfurt’s book in B&N, I thought that I would find a good attempt to explain the concept of “Truth” in some objective fashion.  I was a little dissapointed however because instead of some attempt at formulating an objective epistemological understanding of truth, he skirts the issue entirely.

He says this about the metaphysics of truth:

“My editor has pointed out to me the rather paradoxical circumstance that, while no one has any trouble recognizing that there is plenty of bullsh*** around, quite a few people remain stubbornly unwilling to acknowledge that there might be –even in principle–such a thing as truth. 

In my discussion, however, I shall not even try –at least not by any directly confrontational argument or analysis–to settle once and for all the entangled debate between those who accept the reality of a meaningful distinction between being true and being false and those who energetically represent themselves (never mind whether they are correct in doing so, or whether it is even possible that they should be correct) as denying that the distinction is a valid one or that it corresponds to any objective reality.  That debate seems unlikely ever to be finally resolved, and it is generally unrewarding.”

Also, in a following statement he declares an unwillingness to even try defining the differences between “true and false.” 

So, how will Mr. Frankfurt define “truth” in his essay?  He says this:

“I will simply take for granted the more or less universally accepted commonsense ways of understanding these notions.”

Once explaining what his essay will NOT accomplish, he goes on to describe what he WILL be trying to do:

“My discussion will be concerned exclusively with the value and the importance of truth, and not at all with the value or the importance of our efforts to find truth or of our experience in finding it.”

Such a discussion does end up to be ultimately beneficial to the Christian, especially the apologetically minded Christian.  It is often the case, (especially these days) that we true believers find ourselves in verbal “battles” with people of a philosophically postmodern bent.  They usually content themselves with denying any sort of “truth” exists.

While as a Christian, I would have to disagree with certain formulations of Mr. Frankfurts athropological attempts at explaining why man seeks truth(1), I can whole-heartedly agree with the thrust of his argument that truth is itself an indispensable element of any functional society, and indeed is an indispensable aspect of any sort of rational thought. 

How indeed can you have a rational thought without being able to distinguish between what is “true” and what is “false?”  Consider this argument by Frankfurt.  He begins by characterizing the postmodern position on truth:

The point on which the postmodernists especially rely is just this:  what a person regards as true either is a function merely of the person’s individual point of view or is determined by what the person is constrained to regard as true by various complex and inescapable social pressures.  (page 21.)

He then brings up the example of workers who depend on objective truth to make their livings:

Surely it is unquestionable, regardless of what postmodernists or anyone else may say, that engineers and architects, for instance, must strive to achieve–and do at times succeed in achieving –genuine objectivity. 

Suppose that a bridge collapses under no more than normal stress.  What would that tell us? It would tell us, at a minimum, that those who designed or who constructed the bridge made some pretty bad mistakes.  It would be obvious to us that at least some of the solutions that they had devised, in dealing with the multiple problems they confronted, were fatally incorrect. (page 23)

The true genious of Frankfuts argument comes in the next chapter that he begins thus:

(Despite all the arguments from objective judgements above…) Still, many people manage to convince themselves — sometimes rather smugly — that normative judgements cannot properly be regarded as being either true OR false. 

Frankfurt decides to grant them this “truth” for a moment, and see where it will lead us:

Okay.  Suppose we concede this.  It remains clear nonetheless that accepting or rejecting an evaluative judgement must depend on other judgements that are themselves straightforwardly nonnormative.  Thus we cannot reasonably judge for ourselves that a certain person has a bad moral character except on the basis of factual statements describing instances of his behavior that seem to provide concrete evidence of moral deficiency.  Moreover, these factual statements concerning the person’s behavior must be true, and the reasoning by which we derive our evaluative judgement from them must be valid.  Otherwise, neither the statements nor the reasoning can effectively help to justify the conclusion.  They will do nothing to show that the evaluation resting on them is reasonable. 

So the distinction between what is true and what is false remains critically pertinent to our assessments of evaluative or normative judgements, even if it is agreed that the true-false distinction has no direct application to those judgements themsevles. 

Besides these practical arguments for truth, Frankfurt also excellently show’s how we cannot hope to be “rational” without recognizing the distinctions between true and false.

To be rational is fundamentally a matter of being appropriately responsive to reasons. (page 63.)

“Reasons” he explains are composed of facts.  If we didn’t distinguish between truth and falshood, then we couldn’t recognize the facts that compose “reasons.”  If we cannot respond to reasons, then we cannot be rational. 

One of the most memorable, useful, and encouraging quotes from the entire essay wraps up the chapter on truth and rationality:

“We cannot think of ourselves as creatures whose rationality endows us with an especially significant advantage over others–indeed, we cannot think of ourselves as rational creatures at all–unless we think of ourselves as creatures who recognize that facts, and true statements about the facts, are indispensable in providing us with reasons for believing various things and for taking various actions.

If we have no respect for the distinction between true and false, we may as well kiss our much-vaunted “rationality” good-bye.”

Using these arguments, (or similar ones tailored to the specific situation) the Christian apologist can show that the unbeliever (especially the post-modernist unbeliever) has no philosophical system with wich to think rationally. 

We should doggedly persue this line of argument, and demand that they provide for us a philosophical system that can account for truth.  If they cannot, then they cannot consider themselves rational creatures.

Thanks Mr. Frankfurt for helping articulate the indispensable nature of “truth.”

(1.)  He alludes to the philosopher Spinoza, and Spinoza’s idea that all men are driven to be truthful due to an imposed desire for truth via a concept of “love.”  A while back, I worked my way through Greg Bahnsens course on the History of Western Philosophy, and I remember his discussion of Spinoza’s monistic metaphysical view.  I speculate that his ethic of “love” is based on his metaphysical view.  It’s not my purpose here to refute monism, or Spinoza’s particular presentation of it.  As a Chrsitian, I will simply present MY view, that man’s desire to seek out and utilize truth is an aspect of the “image of God in man,” as well as part of the dominion mandate given by God to Adam in the garden–to work the world and subdue it.