Morgan Brooke Wilkins

Headed to the Sandbox

2009-04-21T12:15:00.000-07:00

Headed to California, Kansas, Minnesota, Indiana, and then Iraq this summer.

No time for the contemplative life right now. :-)

I love you Travis, Jon, Nate, Kaylynne, Mom, Jay, Lily, Grace, Nanny, Papaw, and Tommy-Mac!

J.R.R. Tolkien's Medieval Critique of Modernity

2008-10-12T15:14:00.000-07:00

J.R.R. Tolkien’s life was filled with medieval influences and studies. Tolkien was raised as a Roman Catholic, and he always revered the liturgy in Medieval Latin. He was an avid reader of medieval literature, lover of medieval languages, student of medieval mythology, and even a professor of Old and Middle English Language and Literature at Oxford. He was greatly influenced by medieval philosophy, especially that of Boethius, as well as by his best friend, C.S. Lewis, who was a Professor of Medieval and Renaissance English at Oxford.

Tolkien was, in almost every sense, an ancient. He never wanted to live in the present, rather in times of yore—and eternity. He cherished the Western Tradition of the medieval, but saw in modernity a perversion of all that was good and sacred. This preference for the medieval over the modern is apparent in Tolkien’s books, short stories, essays, and personal life. This paper will attempt to contrast the medieval and modern worlds, explain why Tolkien preferred the old to the new, and why we as his modern-day readers should admire and appreciate the middle ages as well.

Arguably, the most distinct difference between medieval man’s understanding of life and that of modern man is their contrasting views on human limitations. “For the medieval, since the world is finite and human desire infinite, logic dictates that human desire must limit itself in order to conform to the natural world” (Grote: C.S. Lewis’ Medieval Critique of Modernity) In contrast, the modern man believes quite the opposite; he attempts to form the natural world to his desires.

Any student of Tolkien understands that it is hard to know Tolkien completely without mentioning C.S. Lewis. Although I believe that Tolkien grasped the errors and dangers of modernity as capably as Lewis. Indeed, Lewis certainly wrote about the subject in a more straightforward manner. In The Abolition of Man, Lewis writes, “For the wise men of old, the cardinal problem of human life has been how to conform the soul to reality, and the solution has always been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For [the modern mind] the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men and the solution is technique [i.e. technology]” (Lewis: The Abolition of Man)

Like Lewis, Tolkien also “celebrated the arduous human adventure of conforming the soul to reality and feared the moral and environmental consequences of a mindset bent on conforming reality to human desire.” (Grote: C.S. Lewis’ Medieval Critique of Modernity)

As a staunch Roman Catholic, Tolkien understood that a human’s refusal to accept limitation was indicative of the same destructive evil that originally induced the fall of man in the Garden of Eden. In addition to his religious beliefs, many of the medieval stories Tolkien loved so much often concerned the destruction of a man who refused to accept limits.

Yet, modern man deems weak someone who accepts limitation but praises the man who possesses the ambition and so-called “strength” to “have it all.” In his poem, Mythopoeia, Tolkien declares his independence from modernism when he writes:

I will not walk with your progressive grapes

Erect and sapient. Before them gapes

The dark abyss to which their progress tends-

If by God’s mercy their progress ends

And does not ceaselessly revolve

The same unfruitful course with the changing of a name (Lines 117-122).

In other words, Tolkien foresees the emptiness and doom of a man who accepts no limitations; therefore, Tolkien refuses to accept the fruitless mentality of modern man.

Perhaps the most physical, though no less philosophical manifestation of man living with no limits, is the rapid growth of technology over the past century. The modern world’s wealth of technology contrasts starkly with that evident in the medieval world, which lacked almost all material comforts. Unlike most people who view technology and events such as the Industrial Revolution as positive changes, Tolkien believed that these “advancements” would eventually lead to the self-destruction of mankind. Especially as a soldier in WWI, Tolkien witnessed firsthand the evil of mechanized warfare. However, it wasn’t just war technology that Tolkien despised, but automobiles, trains, planes, and even voice recorders.

One of the most amusing Tolkien stories I’ve heard took place in 1952 when a student of Tolkien’s came to him and asked if he could record Tolkien reading some of his poetry. Tolkien had never seen a voice recorder before and because of his medieval hesitation and skepticism of technology, Tolkien refused to allow the recorder in his presence until he had blessed it with the Lord’s Prayer in Old German.

Another great example of Tolkien’s disgust with anything mechanized took place during an interview with Harvey Briet from the New York Times. Briet asked Tolkien, “What makes you tick,” to which Tolkien replied, "I do not tick. I am not a machine. If I did tick, I should have no views on it, and you had better ask the winder.” And that was it; Tolkien ended the interview right there. (Bizer: Lecture: The True King)

Tolkien feared that the ever-increasing glorification of technology would lead to the loss of human value and dignity. Tolkien’s shire from the Lord of The Rings serves as his best representation of an ideal pre-modern, agrarian society; an antipode to modern industrialized society. The Hobbits of the shire simply live the good life, free from the evils of technology. In the prologue to the Fellowship of the Ring, Tolkien writes, “Hobbits are unobtrusive but very ancient people…they love peace and quiet and good tilled earth…They do not and did not understand or like machines more complicated than a forge-bellows, a water-mill, or a hand loom…” (Tolkien: Fellowship of the Ring)

In a sense, the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy is an elegy for the past; a longing for a better age in which the world seems to be moving ever further away. Tolkien’s melancholic longing for days gone by can be heard clearly through the Elf, Legolas, when he mourns, “Alas for us all. And for all that walk in the world after these days.” (Tolkien: Fellowship of the Ring)

Tolkien’s view of technology as being evil derived partly because of technology’s dramatic and damaging effect on nature. The medievalist’s view of nature is virtually the opposite of that held by modern man, and Tolkien believed that this shift in views was certainly a shift for the worse. Modern advancements in technology have resulted in the conquest and destruction of many natural things at the hands of men.

Nature, in medieval times, was viewed as a sacrament. Nature itself was not viewed as being divine but was a product of divine activity, i.e. creation. Like a sacrament, creation reveals and conceals God. For the modern man, however, nature has no spiritual value but is seen merely as raw material or energy to be used for the “relief of man’s estate.” (Bacon: The Advancement of Learning and New Atlantic)

Tolkien believed that through nature man could experience a relationship with the sacred. However, the modern man’s view of nature, Tolkien feared, would turn man into creatures similar to T.S. Eliot’s “Hollow Men” or Lewis’s “Men Without Chests.” Tolkien believed that as men stray further away from the medieval model—the belief that nature contains the divine—and move towards the modern model in which nature contains no divine, man’s view of human nature will follow the same pattern and humans will no longer see the divine in themselves or in others. Tolkien believed that any attack on nature was an attack on man himself.

In a passage from That Hideous Strength, Lewis writes, “You know as well as I do that Man’s power over Nature means the power of some men over other men with Nature as the instrument.” (Lewis: That Hideous Strength) Tolkien also understood that this modern view of nature would lead to the eventual defeat and enslavement of some men over others, with nature as their means.

Though the Middle Ages certainly had its share of barbaric moments, the medievals did not possess the evils of technology that we have today, including the ability to destroy the world with a single bomb.

This impious, modern view of nature may be partially attributed to modern scientific discoveries. Medieval science was a study which, as Aristotle wrote, “…yielded a contemplative appreciation of nature…everything which is by nature, bears in itself something divine” (Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics).

Tolkien certainly agreed with Aristotle, believing everything natural to be living, animated, and containing some aspect of the divine. I often wonder if when Tolkien and Lewis went out on their frequent walks they saw the same things we see. Where we see bark, leaves, and branches, they seem to have seen the face of the Lord.

Tolkien’s medieval love of nature is evident throughout his books and writings.

To see what Tolkien saw in the trees takes a certain kind of imagination, a more medieval imagination. In the modern world, however, such imagination seems to be rarely encouraged or appreciated. The medieval’s ability to see past the physical has been hindered by modern technology and science. Karl Marx brilliantly explains this dilemma:

“Is the conception of nature and of social relations which underlies [medieval] imagination…possible when there are self-acting mules, railways, locomotives and electric telegraphs? What is a Vulcan compared with Roberts and Co., Jupiter compared with the lightning conductor…? All mythology subdues, controls and fashions the forces of nature in imagination and through imagination, it disappears therefore when real control over these forces is established” (Marx: A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy).

To Tolkien, imagination was the most important and valuable human quality. For him, by invoking one’s imagination, he could escape into the world of Faerie. Tolkien describes Faerie like this:

“The realm of the fairy-story is wide and deep and high and filled with many things: all manner of beasts and birds are found there; shoreless seas and stars uncounted; beauty that is an enchantment, and an ever-present peril; both joy and sorrow as sharp as swords. In that realm a man may, perhaps, count himself fortunate to have wandered, but its very richness and strangeness tie the tongue of a traveler who would report them. And while he is there it is dangerous for him to ask too many questions, lest the gates should shut and the keys be lost.” (Tolkien: On Faerie Stories)

Tolkien believed that Faerie allows one to see things for what they really are and to come close to discovering the true beauty of a thing as God intended it. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, and George MacDonald all agreed with Tolkien on the necessity of Faerie stories.

“When properly understood and explored, faerie allows one to escape the drabness of the mechanized world of modernity. It allows one, for example, to see bread and wine as much more than bread and wine.The perilous realm of Faerie reveals truth and beauty beyond normal comprehension; the true and the beautiful lead us to the Good and the One.” (Bizer: J.R.R. Tolkien and the Reclamation)

However, modern society mocks this type of thinking, deeming it primeval or superstitious. Unlike the medieval, modern man has come to equate the word “myth” with the word “false.” Tolkien would disagree vehemently with the modern man in this regard.

This fallacy in modern thinking leads me to what I believe Tolkien considered modernity’s most grave and consequential mistake: separating the cult from the culture; i.e., divorcing religion from culture. Without the cult—the belief in the divine—there is no culture.

Tolkien saw the breakup of religion from society as humanity’s saddest trend; in fact, he longed for the reformation of Christendom. He hoped that his mythology of middle earth would serve as a wakeup call to the West to return to its pre-modern phase. He even wrote in a letter once that the return of King Aragorn to his rightful throne “was far more like the re-establishment of an effective Holy Roman Empire with its seat in Rome.” (Carpenter: Letters of J.R.R. Tolkein)

For me, Tolkien serves as a role model and teacher. In his writings, he has “preserved the best of Western civilization in a century that mocked tradition, desecrated the human person, and ignored the Author of Creation.” (Bizer: J.R.R. Tolkien and the Reclamation) Tolkien longed to return to the traditions of the Medievals. Though he believed it unlikely, he clung somehow to the hope that light will shine through the dark shadow of modernity’s wing. While speaking to a Dutch audience in 1958, Tolkien once said, “I look to the East, West, North, South, and I do not see Sauron. But I see that Sauron has many descendents. We Hobbits have against them no magic weapons. Yet, my gently hobbits, I give you this toast: To the Hobbits. May they outlast the Sarumans and see spring in the trees again.” (Tolkien: Tolkien’s Exceptional Visit to Holland)

Though the Sarumans of the world may outnumber us, we can rest assured that we will outlast them. For those of us who live in the modern world but still follow the One True King, the King whom Tolkien followed, we can be confident that we will also “see spring in the trees again.”

Lest We Forget...

2008-09-04T09:30:00.000-07:00

In the midst of all the political rhetoric thrown at us each election year, it's easy to forget the most basic principles of American politics.

Namely, the concept of freedom.

You hear that word tossed around, but do you ever stop to think about the notion? Have you ever asked yourself where freedom comes from?

Some politicians would like you to believe that government grants our freedoms. However, our founding fathers believed this couldn't be further from the truth. Though they waged many ideological battles, America's founders agreed: government's job is not to bestow our liberties, but to protect them.

John Adams declared, "Let it be known, that British liberties are not the grants of princes or parliaments; that many of our rights are inherent and essential…We have a right to them derived from our maker."

His statement still reigns true. Our freedoms do not originate in Frankfort or Washington, but are innate. Many politicians claim to believe this, but their actions often say otherwise.

From the British tea tax to the gasoline tax, many politicians usurp freedom rather than protect it. So as we watch the ads and listen to the speeches, let us not forget the principles of our first presidents, and let us never forget that our nation's leader should always serve not as a giver of liberty, but as its guardian.

A Conservative's Call for Universal Health Care

2008-08-09T14:10:00.000-07:00

The longer I stay in politics the less I am concerned about how conservative or how liberal a particular candidate is and the less willing I am to accept conventional wisdom about what constitutes a “conservative” or “liberal” policy. Instead, I have begun to care more about whether a candidate has proven to be an effective leader and whether a policy is practical. This isn’t the only way in which my political views have been shifting.

Universal health care is an idea that I have, for many years, abhorred, because I believed it to be so unmistakably “liberal.”

Recently, however, I have come to the view that universal healthcare is neither a despicable idea nor, surprisingly, an inherently liberal policy.

Universal Health Care is not only a practical solution to our health care struggles in the United States, but I contend that it is a conservative solution as well. In 1883, German archconservative Otto Von Bismarck was the first leader to implement a universal health care plan. Bismarck saw, as Americans should today, that access to healthcare, regardless of income, was an important factor in a healthy society.

In an October 2007 Courier Journal (C-J) article I myself lashed out against universal health care, deeming it, “One mile on the road to socialism.” Looking back, I see that this was an exaggeration and a misunderstanding on my part. I mention my previous C-J article to illustrate that I can certainly identify with conservatives’ fear of the potential negative effects that could result from universal access to health care. I appreciate that conservatives are afraid that universal health care will result in more citizens becoming dependent on government handouts; they’re afraid of increasing government regulation and limitation of individual choice. These are all understandable concerns.

Yet an unprejudiced second look at universal health care will reveal that this policy promotes many values that conservatives hold dear: the ability to take care of one’s self and family, the prevention of free-riding, the alleviation of waste and more freedom to pursue entrepreneurial actions. These are all conservative goals which universal access to health care will help to further.

When conservatives shun the idea of universal health care, they are simply overlooking the basic role that health care plays in self-responsibility and individual opportunity. As a conservative myself, I believe that people should, as the cliché goes, “pull themselves up by their bootstraps.” In other words, people should be able to take care of themselves. Rather than entrenching my position against universal health care, as one might expect, this is actually one of the principle reasons I am now in favor of a universal health insurance plan.

Universal access to basic health care is necessary in order to maximize one’s ability to take care of oneself. Without good health, your ability to exercise individual liberty and personal responsibility are compromised; you become dependent on others both physically and financially. In fact, nearly half of all bankruptcies in the U.S. are attributed to citizens’ inability to pay their medical bills. As a single mother, I especially know how daunting medical bills can be.

It should be clear to any thoughtful conservative that basic protection services, such as public police and fire departments are necessary in a society that strives to provide its citizens with equal opportunity to better their lives. Universal access to health care is no exception.

Universal health care is not only a good idea from a philosophical standpoint but from a practical and economic perspective as well. If your goal is to alleviate waste and prevent free-riding, then the current voluntary health insurance system is an unqualified disaster.

Our current health care system requires that anyone who walks into a hospital must be treated, regardless of their ability to pay the bill. Because of this, we have opened the door to massive free-riding and economic waste. Many people never pay their medicals bills and simply dump their debts onto the public system, forcing physicians and hospitals to decide how to work without pay. This is the epitome of free-riding.

Put simply, because hospitals in the U.S. cannot refuse any person care, we are consequently paying more for health care in taxes than any other country – even more than those that do provide universal health insurance. Furthermore, many Americans are paying for private health insurance on top of taxes. In other words, we are paying for universal health care but not getting it. Talk about inefficiency and waste!

Universal access to health care would not only increase individual liberty and alleviate wasteful spending, but would also increase entrepreneurial activity – another value central to conservative thinking. Many entrepreneurs are discouraged from embarking on their new business venture by fears about the high cost of providing employers with health insurance. Small business employers are then forced to make tough decisions about whether to absorb the high costs, pass them on to employees, or not offer benefits at all. A universal health care system would eliminate these concerns and encourage hesitant entrepreneurs to test their innovations and ideas.

Edmund Burke, one is the fathers of conservatism, stated wisely, “A State without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation.”

It is time for conservatives to adopt this change. Universal health care should become a basic tenet in the conservative platform. It enhances individual liberty by increasing one’s ability to care for oneself and one’s family. It significantly decreases the current financial waste and inefficiency of the U.S. present voluntary health care system. It also encourages small business and entrepreneurship.

The conservative case for universal health care is much more compelling than for other public services such as roads, schools, libraries, and parks. For me, the question used to be: how can any conservative support a universal health care system? Now, the question has become: how can any true conservative, with a true appreciation of conservative values, not support universal access to health care?

Conservatives should be ready with an answer.

The Injustice of Sex Laws

2008-08-03T20:17:00.000-07:00

Same sex relationships are illegal in more than 70 countries. In nine the penalty for engaging in such relationships is death. Here in the United States, nearly half of the states — 23 — have some form of law that prohibits sodomy.

I believe that homosexuality is immoral. However, my private religious beliefs are irrelevant to the larger question that these statistics raise: Should any government have the right to punish its citizens for having consensual sex?

The obvious answer should be no.

Laws prohibiting same sex couples or any consenting adult from engaging in sexual activity should be repealed with one exception — incest — which I will discuss later.

Nothing is more personal than the way people choose to shape their sexual relationships. Government has no business intruding into people’s bedrooms or private intimate relationships.

This doesn’t mean everyone must consider all sexual acts acceptable. It simply means that as long as the participants are consenting adults, then the government has no right to use force to try to prevent such behavior or punish people for engaging in certain acts. There is no justification for executing, or imprisoning, peaceful citizens because of their sexual choices.

For sex to truly be considered “consensual,” two conditions must exist. First, everyone involved must willingly agree to participate in the sexual acts. Second, those who agree must understand what they are agreeing to participate in.

The second requirement — that they understand the nature of the act or acts — is why a legal age of consent is necessary. I would propose 16 as a proper legal age of consent, but that is a debate for another time.

Though incest may be consensual sex between two adults, there is the risk that a third party who did not consent to the act will be negatively affected. I am talking, of course, about the child that may be created as a result of the act. The child is highly likely to be born with significant mental disorders, physical defects, or both. Because the non-consenting child is at such a high risk for experiencing such harmful effects as a result of the adults’ actions, incest is an exception to my thesis that all laws regulating sex between consenting adults should be repealed.

In short, as long as the sexual acts between adults are consensual, and do not place a non-consenting third party at a high risk, then the government has no right to regulate or prohibit the actions.

The most common cases of non-traditional (i.e. not between one man and one woman) sexual relationships are homosexual relationships and polygamous relationships. Both types of relationships are punishable by law in many countries, including the United States.

This is an abuse of government power in any society, and particularly in one such as the United States that claims to offer freedom for its citizens. With the exception of those who believe in authoritarianism or anarchism, most people believe that the proper role of government in a free society is to protect individuals’ rights to life, liberty, and property, and not to abrogate these rights. It is accepted that it is fair to have laws against murder, assault, rape, and theft, but that actions that do not intrude on the rights of others should not be restricted.

When a government imprisons or in any way punishes peaceful consenting adults for having sex, that government has stepped outside of its proper boundaries and is acting unjustly.

The debate over government’s proper role in its citizens’ sex lives prompts us to consider what the government’s role is in any private relationship, such as marriage or friendship. I would argue that the government has no role in any peaceful, private relationships, regardless of whether those relationships involve sex, friendship, or marriage.

Any government that presumes it has the power to deem which peaceful human relationships are good and which are bad is acting outside of its proper limits. All people deserve equal treatment under the law, and the easiest way to ensure that this occurs is not to grant marriage licenses to homosexuals or polygamists, but to remove government altogether from marriage and private sexual relationships. Consensual sex, marriage, and friendships are private affairs. The government should have no right to regulate such matters.

Some claim that the government should have the right to deem some consensual sex acceptable and some consensual sex unacceptable, and should also have the power to punish anyone who engages in the “unacceptable” kind of consensual sex. If this were the case, it’s difficult to imagine what the government wouldn’t have the power to regulate and, thus, punish.

The government should not have the right to tell its citizens how to have sex. Nor should the government have the right to decide which sexual positions are legal, or when sex can legally occur. Punishment should not be imposed for engaging in consensual sexual acts.

Everyone has a different concept of morality, and the government should not have the right to impose on its citizens its version of morality. The poet T.S. Eliot once wrote:

They constantly try to escape
From the darkness outside and within
By dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good.

However, no government system can make someone good, and legislating morality doesn’t make a society moral. An act can only be truly moral when someone has the freedom to act immorally, but chooses otherwise.

As stated earlier, same sex relationships are illegal in more than 70 countries and are punishable by death in nine of those countries. This is clearly an injustice and an abuse of government power. Any law regulating sex between consensual adults is wrong and should be repealed.

Discovering Truth through Reading Fiction

2008-07-30T17:57:00.000-07:00

…great literature searches the human heart to find in it the laws of moral existence, distinguishing man from beast.
--Russell Kirk,“The Moral Imagination.”

Humanism is an ethical discipline, intended to develop the truly human person, the qualities of manliness, through the study of great books.
-- Irving Babbitt, “Literature and the American College”

Great literature captures the essence of morality and teaches us what it means to be genuinely human. It places its’ characters at the crossroads of right and wrong, and visually depicts their struggle between the opposing forces of good and evil. As readers, we find ourselves transported into the story, challenged to make sense of the strange new world and the emphatic moral choices presented to its characters. These characters cause us to face truths about ourselves, both ugly and beautiful, and compel us to consider what decisions we would make if confronted with the same situations.

A wonderful example is the Divine Comedy, an epic poem written at the beginning of the 14th century by the exiled Florentine poet, Dante Alighieri, and is considered by most to be a cornerstone of the Western didactic imagination. The epic poem is the story of Dante’s journey through the three realms of the afterlife, each depicted in a separate cantica: Inferno, Purgatorio, and Paradiso.

In the first Canto of the Inferno, Dante establishes the archetypal allegorical situation of the erring pilgrim in a metaphor that resonates throughout Western literature. The poet, now middle-aged, finds himself in a dark forest, where the way ahead is unclear. Pursued by the beast of sin, Dante is rescued by Virgil, the epic poet of imperial Rome. So begins his journey through the underworld.

Dante’s pilgrimage compels us to face the many different kinds of evil within ourselves and the sinister reality of dreadful punishment consequent of our sins. Through his remarkable ability to create clear visual images in the reader’s mind, Dante paints a picture that enables us to see in our mind the punishment of Hell. The reader of Inferno can almost feel the heavy weight of his -- or her -- own sins and the dark reality of their consequences as Virgil leads Dante through the gates of Hell, where he sees the entrance marked with the haunting inscription: “Abandon all hope, you who enter here.” Thereafter, Dante descends through nine concentric circles, each representing an increase in evilness, culminating at the center of the earth, where Satan is frozen in ice. However, Dante’s dark trek through Hell ends with a glimpse of the Paradiso to come. Dante writes:

“We climbed, [Virgil] first and I behind, until,
Through a small round
opening ahead of us
I saw the lovely things the heavens hold
And we came
out to see the stars once more.”(Inferno 136-139)

After surviving the depths of Hell, Dante and Virgil ascend out of the Inferno and into Purgatorio, the second realm of the Catholic afterlife. Once Dante has been completely purged of his sins in Purgatorio, he makes his final accession into Paradiso, now guided by Beatrice, the ideal woman first described by Dante in La Vita Nuova, and who, it is revealed, has interceded, with vigilant prayer, to save Dante; setting him on his corrective path through the afterlife.

From beginning to end, the Divine Comedy symbolizes the spiritual quest of human life, a quest rendered necessary by most all human beings. As with all great literature, any reader of Dante will discover more of what it means to be human.

Over 300 years after Dante wrote the Divine Comedy, a Puritan English poet named John Milton wrote a theologically-themed and vastly influential poem titled Paradise Lost. Paradise Lost is the story of the Fall of Man from Eden. The poem tells the drama of Adam and Eve’s decline from dignity and happiness to shame and selfishness. Milton teaches his readers, “the central drama of human life is temptation, and the best kind of heroism is patient resistance to it.” (Kantor 93) Milton also teaches his readers, as did Dante, that there is forgiveness and redemption for those who have gone astray. This is clear in the last lines of “Paradise Lost” when Milton writes:

“By name to come called Charity, the soul
Of all the rest: then will you not
be loath
To leave this Paradise, but shall possess
A Paradise within
you, happier far” (12.584-87)

Adam and Eve can still lead a fruitful life, though fallen from grace and cast out of Paradise. Exercise of the basic Christian tenets, and ultimately Charity, will allow them to create an inner Paradise.

The themes expressed in Paradise Lost, i.e., temptation, obedience, and forgiveness, still have implications for all who read this epic poem today. Milton, like Dante and all of the greatest literary authors, have much to teach us about the complexity of humanity.

After Dante and before Milton, there was William Shakespeare, an English poet and playwright, who is widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language. Shakespeare’s universal appeal stems from the manner in which his writing reflects human nature in a way unique to all other literature. Most importantly, Shakespeare teaches us, his readers, that there is in fact such a thing as human nature. “Shakespeare’s characters don’t just talk about things, they define them.” (Kantor 64) Whether it is spite, envy, revenge, generosity, greed, humility, love, or death, there is a Shakespearean character that incarnates that human quality. From his tragedies, such as Hamlet and King Lear, to his comedies such as A Midsummer Night’s Dream and Much Ado About Nothing, and onto his sonnets, Shakespeare depicts the immense variety and complexity of human nature and the human experience.

Alexander Pope, considered the greatest English poet of the eighteenth century, contended that, Shakespeare’s “…characters are so much of nature herself…every single character in Shakespeare is as much an individual as those in life itself…” Through his complex characters we reach the heights and depths of the human soul. Shakespeare, more than any other author of notable literature, has a great deal to teach his readers about what it means to be genuinely human.

Whereas Dante, Milton, and Shakespeare’s characters teach their readers lessons about humanity, in Miguel de Cervantes’ novel Don Quixote, it is an excessive imaginative investment in literature that leads the principal character astray. The novel is the story of an old country man living in the town of La Mancha. He becomes obsessed with the books about chivalry, believing every word of them to be true. Quixote eventually appears to have lost his mind when he decides to go out as a knight-errant in search of adventure. He creates makeshift armor, changes his name to Don Quixote de la Mancha, and transforms a peasant girl, Dulcinea del Toboso, into his ideal woman. He calls her his ladylove and claims his adventures are in her honor. Throughout his escapades, Quixote’s delusions become stronger. He believes a run-down inn is a castle, and he even attacks windmills, which he believes to be ferocious giants. The townspeople begin to poke fun at Quixote and take advantage of his delusional state of mind. The novel ends with Don Quixote's complete disillusionment, and his melancholic return to sanity and renunciation of chivalry, and finally, his death.

Don Quixote depicts an exaggerated example of how literature can be a powerful force in guiding its readers’ lives. Books and manuscripts appear everywhere in Don Quixote, symbolizing the importance and influence of fiction and literature in everyday life. By reading Don Quixote, we see that literature can provide an imaginative outlet for characters with otherwise dull lives. On a deeper level, all readers can sympathize with Don Quixote, even in his delusional state. Quixote symbolizes the human being’s longing for that unique, creative, noble kind of human freedom that the world regards as foolishness. Not only was Don Quixote greatly influenced by reading literature, but we, too, can be greatly influenced by the deeper meanings found in reading Don Quixote. Miguel de Cervantes’ novel is another great piece of literary art that teaches us so much about the nature of the human being.

While Don Quixote is a fictional account, C.S. Lewis is a real life example of how reading great literature, more than any other discipline, can teach you about the human experience. C.S. Lewis, the most influential Christian author of modern times, claims that reading fiction was the primary force behind his conversion to Christianity. In reading poets and novelists, Lewis found meaning, dignity, morality, and immortality. Lewis loved to read about other worlds. He once wrote: “In reading great literature I become a thousand men and yet remain myself.” After some time, through his imagination, Lewis found his key to reality: Christianity.

Literature teaches us, through stories, those things that every human ought to know. It teaches us that there is virtue and vice, and that they are opposites. Literature teaches us, through imagination and written words, everything about what it means to be genuinely human. From the most primitive prehistoric ages, to today’s world of technology, the art of story telling will not go away. From Gilgamesh to Flannery O’ Connor, humans have been learning about life through literature. We, the readers, should allow these stories to search our hearts and find the laws of moral existence written within us. In doing so, we will discover what it means to be truly human; and we will find that the reading of great literature prompt us, as it did G.K. Chesterton, to consider that the most remarkable story of all, the story of humanity itself, must also have a Story-teller.

Q:) What makes human material a person?

2008-07-22T09:53:00.000-07:00

This post's title was a question I had on my recent exam in ethics class. I received an F for my response. I don't think it was deserving of such a grade. I'll let you be the judge. This was my answer:

A:)When determining what qualifies human material as a person, I think a logical place to begin is by considering what makes human material different from all other materials.

From what our human minds can perceive, it appears that humans are the only species that possess the ability to reason, to wonder, and to aspire. Humans are the only species to have such a vast vocabulary, such complex grammar, and the ability to have deep and meaningful conversations about topics, such as their origin and their destiny. Humans are the only creatures to establish religions, have a refined aesthetic sense, and a vivid imagination.

Although it cannot be proven that these qualities are exclusive to the human species, it can be confidently assumed, based on simple observation and scientific studies dating as far back as humans can account. Every influential philosopher has asserted or assumed that the human species' ability to reason does, in some regard, set it above all others. Furthermore, this ability to reason is often the element claimed to give the human species its personhood.

It should be noted that nothing I have written thus far about human values is based on any religious belief; rather, I have assumed no creator. However, when examining what makes human material a person, you will find yourself in quite a pickle if you try to dig too deep into the question without attributing some sort of creator to the human species. Let me explain.

If a human, whether because of old age or mental retardation, loses or does not possess the traits I described earlier as being exclusive to the human species, you must then explain why—or why not—that human is a person. If they cannot reason, cannot communicate in any meaningful way and/or have no ability to imagine or wonder, then are they still considered as being a person? Unless one ascribes a creator to the human species, a creator who places within each human an intrinsic value, then you are going to experience quite some difficulty making a case for why a mentally retarded paraplegic is indeed a person. Of course, it is possible that such an individual is not a person, and such an assumption might make sense. However, if you do believe that a mentally retarded paraplegic, who is in no other way discernable from an animal by way of intellect or physical capabilities, is still a person, then you must believe that humans have an intrinsic value that transcends any detectable trait or quality. It follows that one must believe that humans are endowed by a creator with an inherent value, and this is what qualifies human material as a person.

The Immortal Virtues of the War Hero

2008-07-17T20:00:00.000-07:00

Old English literature is replete with themes of bravery and heroism during times of war; and to those who exhibited these virtues was inscribed the highest respect and gratitude. Beowulf and the Battle of Maldon are two famous Old English masterpieces that emphasize these themes.

The poem, Beowulf, begins when the Danish king, Hrothgar, experiences trouble in his kingdom because of a monster named Grendel, who invades his mead hall and kills his people. From across the sea, a brave Geat named Beowulf hears of the monster menacing the Danes and rushes to their aid. He arrives and prepares immediately to fight Grendel. When Grendel finally appears, the monster kills one of Beowulf's men. But when Grendel reaches out to eat Beowulf, he grabs the monster's arm and rips it off. Grendel flees, leaving behind a long trail of blood, and Beowulf and his men rejoice knowing Grendel is dead. Later that night, however, Grendel's mother comes to the mead hall to avenge her son's death. Learning of this, Beowulf sets out to find and kill her. After Beowulf slays Grendel's mother, Hrothgar is ecstatic and bestows gifts upon Beowulf and his men. Fifty years later, when Beowulf is king of the Danes, a dragon begins terrorizing his people. At the end of the poem, Beowulf kills that dragon but ultimately dies in the battle; leaving behind a legacy of the ultimate bravery and heroism. (Beowulf)

Old English literature teaches that war heroes always deserve respect and gratitude. Beowulf, which is often considered the greatest of all the Old English masterpieces, is, above all, a long hymn of praise for the warrior. J. R. R. Tolkien, a famous Old English literature scholar, goes so far as to claim that, "Beowulf is a heroic elegy, in which the first 3,000-plus lines are merely a prelude to Beowulf's funeral dirge." In Old English times, a man was defined by his valor in battle. Possessing a high level of courage in battle is what deemed him a hero and, consequently, deserving of respect and gratitude.

However, the war heroes of Old English literature were not admired only because of their bravery but also because their service was critical for the survival of the country. In Beowulf’s time, brave warriors were needed to protect one Germanic tribe from another. Furthermore, it was understood that if Beowulf had not risked his life to kill Grendel and his mother, then the two monsters would have killed many more people. The same holds true today. Valiant military men and women are still necessary to ensure our nation’s freedom. For having the courage to answer this call, they too deserve the respect and gratitude of every American.

In Old English literature, the war hero respected his enemy. In Beowulf, for example, Beowulf did not consider his enemy, the Heathobards, as bad men; rather, he thought of them as greathearted warriors. Beowulf understood and respected the fact that the Heathobards were too prideful to forego a chance at battle. In the culture of the time, being a war hero meant that you had the gusto to fight; it didn’t matter whose side you were fighting on. Elizabeth Kantor, an English PhD and the editor of the Conservative Book Club, writes:

“There were many men living in the heroic-age culture who didn't easily take offense, who didn't consider revenge a duty, and who didn't think their reputations were worth defending with their lives: they were known as slaves.”

According to Old English literature, the dignity and worth of a man was based upon his valor in battle.

However, there have always been those members of society who shun the war hero and do not believe that he—or she—deserves either respect or gratitude. In Beowulf's time, there was Unferth, a Thyle, who, out of envy, mocked Beowulf and questioned the authenticity of Beowulf’s alleged acts of heroism. Unferth's underlying motivation for attacking Beowulf was envy, which may be the same underlying motivation among many modern liberal intellectuals who snub today's soldiers and claim that their lives are spent in vain. However, the majority of those who lived in Old English times believed steadfastly that all war heroes deserved respect and gratitude and that too should hold true today.

Another epic Old English poem, The Battle of Maldon, tells the story of a battle between the English and the Vikings. Byrhtnoth, the Earl of Essex, orders his men into battle after refusing to accept the Vikings’ peace offers. The Vikings then ask Byrhtnoth if he would allow them to cross a narrow ford without being attacked so that the battle could be held more fairly on the mainland. The poet explains that because of Byrhtnoth's excessive pride, he agrees to the Vikings’ request. In the end, this poor decision led to the deaths of Byrhtnoth and his men at the hands of the Vikings. After Byrhtnoth's death, some of the English soldiers fled; but others, despite their leader's poor decision, remained true to the vows they made to their lord and pursued the battle until it ended. (The Battle of Maldon)

Old English literature also informs us that the war hero should be admired even if his death is caused by a mistake. In the Battle of Maldon, the English soldiers died because of their leader's poor decision based on his pride. Yet, the author never implies that this diminishes the warriors' heroism. I believe the Iraq War could be likened to the Battle of Maldon. Although many believe it was a mistake to invade Iraq, this certainly does not diminish the heroism displayed daily by the soldiers fighting in that war. Clearly, the author of The Battle of Maldon would unequivocally deem Iraq War veterans worthy of respect and gratitude.

Old English Literature teaches that the war hero always deserves respect and gratitude, and this virtue should still ring true today. We should all strive to be like the Old English war hero because within such a hero can be found the spirit of a man—or woman—who is stronger, braver and better than any other; someone who is willing to face death with courage to ensure the freedom of others. Whether you live in the 9^th or the 21^st century, the war heroes from Old English literature still have a lot to teach us about what it means to be virtuous.

A Rootless Society

2008-07-14T17:17:00.001-07:00

Often times in nature we witness occurrences that reflect truths in human life.

Not long ago I observed a storm outside my family's living room window. My family had recently planted a dogwood tree in the front yard. The tree had only been rooted for about two weeks. Planted near the dogwood was a large oak tree that had been living there for over twenty years.

As the wind of the storm roared it yanked at both trees, attempting to rip them from the earth. The oak's branches rattled furiously but the tree itself stood firm. The dogwood, on the other hand, with its shallow roots, was no match to the storm’s fury and within minutes it was carried off into the neighbor's yard.

People, like trees, need strong roots if they hope to survive life's storms.

Wendell Berry, a well-known Kentucky farmer and writer, often expressed in his writings this connection between having roots and living a healthy human life. He believed that a community is not just a group of people living in the same vicinity but a group of people living side by side with interdependence upon each other.

Today’s tragic breakdown of community is in part due to our modern day’s emphasis on placing individual rights before individual responsibilities. This contemporary individualist mentality tells people to live for themselves and themselves only. Humans today are told that they are the ruler of their own lives and they should go where they want to go and be who ever they want to be.

This individualist mindset removes any sense of duty to a certain piece of land or group of people.

As Americans, we are restless. We are constantly moving, constantly searching for something better: a new job, a bigger home, or a better school.

Oswald Chambers, a renowned Christian author and minister, writes in one of his books that “when we are in an unhealthy state physically or emotionally, we always want thrills,” we seek constant change. Living in a nation that seeks change as much as ours, this is a claim for us to seriously consider.

Despite praises of modern technology, modern convenience, and our ever increasing ability to have the world at our fingertips, I’m not so sure that these "advancements" are such a good thing. Globalization is turning humans into economic units and causing us to forget that we are also spiritual beings.

I don’t know exactly how to stop this fatal trend, but I do know that if true community is to be preserved we must stop treating humans as mere biological, economical, or political creatures, and instead treat them as if they have souls capable of love, labor, and ultimately worship.

Today, there are temptations lurking around every corner to uproot ourselves. Temptations to take that new job, move into that bigger home, or attend that better school. However, I believe we must reject modern individualist thinking and once again recognize that we have a duty to look after our own community and the people in it.

My fear is that this traditional concept of community may only be an attribute of the past. And if I am accurate in my concern than we, like the tree with shallow roots, can not and will not survive life’s imminent storms.

You have to Prioritize

2008-07-07T06:46:00.001-07:00

My writings will most likely be fewer and farther between from now on.

Why? Because I am taking two summer classes at my university. I have Student Government Association and College Republican responsibilities. My five year old son is about to start Kindergarten. I have ROTC several days a week. Not to mention I work at the University Coffee shop.

In other words, I will not have much time to write for pleasure. However, anytime I do get the chance I certainly will.

Just check back periodically. :-)

Every Generation Has Its Pontius Pilate

2008-07-06T12:52:00.000-07:00

Politicians have always struggled with Pontius Pilate’s dilemma: should they act on the basis of principle or on the basis of political expediency? The modern-day Pontius Pilate is easy to spot. He is always studying the latest Gallup polls and shifting his opinion and policies accordingly. He is the one whose principles disappear the moment the going gets tough. You can spot him in almost every state house, almost every White House, and in every generation.

Pilate’s dilemma haunted the White House during the Clinton administration, when President Clinton lied about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. President Clinton, like Pilate, was too fearful of the public’s reaction to place his ethics first. In the 2000 presidential campaign Pilate’s dilemma made another appearance when Senator John McCain refused to speak out against South Carolina for flying the Confederate Flag over its State House. Although McCain believed that flying the flag was wrong, he was too fearful of losing the South Carolinian vote to place his moral convictions first. More recently, Governor Mitt Romney showed Pilate-like behavior. An ABC News article written by Marcus Baram describes Romney’s run for Governor in liberal Massachusetts and then his campaign to become the Republican presidential candidate:

"One candidate believes abortion should be legal, endorses embryonic stem cell research, supports a minimum wage increase, believes gays and lesbians deserve full equality and should be allowed to serve openly and honestly in the military, and opposes capital gains tax cuts.

The other candidate is firmly against abortion, opposes stem cell research, vetoed a minimum wage increase as governor of his state, vehemently opposes gay marriage and wants to maintain the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, and supports capital gains tax cuts.

It's the old Mitt Romney versus the new Mitt Romney."

Clearly, political expediency trumped Romney’s own principles, whatever they may be. Pilate struggled with this conflict in A.D.26 and politicians have the same dilemma nearly 2000 years later.

Pilate's story has come to echo a core political dilemma - the choice between what is right and what is convenient. Tony Blair, former Prime Minister of Britain, spoke very clearly of Pilate’s dilemma in The Sunday Telegraph:

"It is a timeless parable of political life. It is possible to view Pilate as the archetypal politician, caught on the horns of an age- old political dilemma. We know he did wrong. Yet his is the struggle between what is right and what is expedient that has occurred throughout history."

Obviously Blair, like many politicians, can identify with Pilate’s struggle.

However, it is hard not to sympathize with Pilate. I have had my own battles between doing what was popular versus what I believed to be morally right. At those moments I feel what Pilate must have felt. Pilate knew that Jesus had done no wrong and desired to release him but the pressure of the crowd was too strong. Doing the right thing despite the opinion of the majority is something everyone faces and many people choose the same path that Pilate chose. Pilate’s conflict, in short, transcends time.

The spirit of Pilate will never go away. Sam Cage of the Associated Press wrote that according to Swedish myth, every time the Romans tried to dispose of Pilate’s body a fierce storm would erupt until the corpse was recovered. Finally, they took his corpse to the top of an isolated mountain in Switzerland, then known as Frakmont, and submerged it in a dark lake. Pilate’s ghost is said to haunt the region even today. Pilate’s predicament is one of human nature. It seems that, as long as there are politicians, the ghost of Pontius Pilate will continue to haunt them.

Conservative, not to be confused with GOP.

2008-06-17T23:13:00.000-07:00

Note: This is an old article written June 2007. I happened to find it when I was doing some research for a piece I am currently working on. I thought I might as well throw it up here.

There is a saying that goes, "A young conservative has no heart, and an old liberal has no brain." While I agree that the latter part of the phrase holds some truth, the former part I must argue.

As a twenty-year-old conservative activist, I have been the subject of much criticism and controversy over the past couple years because there is ignorance in our society as to what a conservative truly is. Many of my peers believe a conservative is one whom espouses more freedom for big corporations and elites, while espousing an individual's personal and moral freedom less.

It disheartens me when the media, liberals, and uninformed citizens deduce my way of life -- my conservatism --to greed and religious fascism. The people of the United States, particularly the GOP, need to be taught or reminded what real conservatism represents.

Although I am a College Republican leader, I will confidently make the claim, though controversial, that Americans are ignorant to what true conservatism is because the term, conservative, is too closely associated with the Republican Party. This causes many to believe that a conservative and a Republican are one in the same. However, today's GOP leaders have diluted the meaning of conservatism with their hypocrisy.

Since Republicans gained control of the White House and Congress they have done anything but 'conserve.' The United States has experienced the biggest spending increases and expansion of entitlement programs since Lyndon B. Johnson. Also, the federalizing of education, the McCain-Fiengold restrictions on political speech, and most recently, Republican support for a bill that would grant amnesty to illegal immigrants: all of which is a far cry from the conservative principles that so many of these same Republican's campaigned on.

With the combination of our universities left-wing biases, and our supposedly "conservative" leaders being anything but conservative, it is no wonder young people today are liberal.

I encourage all sincere conservatives to expose the politicians whom adopt the word conservative for their own political gain, and then degrade all that it stands for. I encourage young people to study American history and read the works of great conservative thinkers such as Edmund Burke, Russell Kirk, and TS Eliot. It is necessary that the youth educate themselves on the proper meaning of conservatism, since it's teaching seems to be forbidden in the contemporary classroom.

In contradiction to the modern day stereotype, conservatism is actually a philosophy of the heart. It is rooted in the love and respect of individuality, opportunity, responsibility, and most of all, freedom.

So long as the GOP continues to lose sight of this, then the GOP, will indeed, continue to lose.

Kentuckians, raise your Rebel Flag

2008-06-12T17:12:00.000-07:00

Once, while waiting to meet a friend at the Ritz Carlton bar in New Orleans, I struck up a conversation with a couple sitting a few stools down. We ended up chatting about everything -- from history and politics to books and college. The husband was a professor at a small local Catholic college, and before the night was over, the nice couple asked my friend and me over for dinner.

When we arrived at the couple's house (which was more of a mansion), it was obvious they were very well to do. Their yard was clearly the handiwork of a professional landscaper; two luxury cars were parked behind a yacht in the driveway, and everything about the place oozed affluence. Well, everything except the Confederate Battle Flag fluttering at the end of a long pole off the front of their house.

"What would a wealthy, educated couple like this be doing with a Rebel Flag in their front yard?" I asked myself. "Isn't that more suitable for some racist redneck's trailer?"

That night at dinner, I asked the couple why they flew the Rebel Flag over their home. The professor quickly replied as if he had answered this question a million times:

"My ancestors shed their blood under that flag and several were even awarded the Medal of Honor. That flag represents my heritage, my distinct Southern culture, and a hallowed fragment of American history. I have as much reason to fly the Confederate Battle Flag over my door as I do Old Glory herself."

We discussed the subject for hours, and ever since then, I have held an entirely different view of the Confederate Flag. Not only am I no longer offended by it, but I also encourage people to raise their Rebel Flags without shame or fear of the militant multicultural factions of American society attacking them.

Kentucky played one of the most essential roles of any state during the Civil War. An estimated 130,000 Kentuckians fought in the war and President Lincoln famously declared, "I think to lose Kentucky is nearly the same as to lose the whole game." Like it or not, Kentucky's history is indelibly marked with the scars of the Civil War; and those soldiers fighting in the Confederacy were simply fighting for the freedoms of the U.S. Constitution. Honoring their bravery by waving a Confederate Battle Flag in your yard is a celebration of your family's heritage and should not be twisted by modern interpretations. Slavery was an American issue, not merely a Southern issue.

In fact, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote, "The prejudice of the race appears stronger in the States that have abolished slavery than in the States where slavery still exists. White carpenters, white bricklayers, and white painters will not work side by side with blacks in the North but do it every day in the Southern States..."

As Southern Americans, and particularly as Kentuckians, we should not allow the Confederate Battle Flag to be reduced to a racist symbol just so that, as one columnist put it, "professional guilt-mongers can point and say, 'see...see, racism is alive and well so let's throw more money at the phony idea of social equality.'"

Social equality should not mean that blacks can take pride in any part of history they choose (even if their self-proclaimed leaders such as Nelson Mandela and Malcolm X were murderers), whereas whites can only honor those parts of history which minorities and the Left deem politically correct.

However, racism towards the South continues to exist and does not appear to be going away anytime soon. It is no wonder that the Left is so prejudiced towards the South: it's conservative, Christian, traditionalist, and resistant to cultural revolution. In other words, Southern attitudes stand in the way of Leftists' agendas. Thus, as usual, the Left finds it necessary to censor the South or berate it into submission by throwing guilt at its people.

As I was leaving the couple's house that night in New Orleans the professor warned me, "If the Left succeeds in removing the Confederate Battle Flag from the public sphere they will no doubt declare war against another emblem of American history: Old Glory herself."

I believe he is right. After all, shouldn't the Left consider the Stars and Stripes the ultimate symbols or slavery, racism, and sedition?

We must not allow the Left to make any more progress than they already have in this battle. They have succeeded in pulling the Rebel Flag from our State Houses, banning it from our schools, and removing its image from several State flags. We cannot allow the Left to outlaw this part of our American history and Southern heritage.

Pat Buchanan said it best when he wrote, " [If people] believe that the only folks who cherish this symbol are 'white trash' and 'yahoos,' that tells us more about them than it does about the South, of which they know nothing."

Good to Be Back

2008-05-26T15:57:00.000-07:00

After thousands of push-ups, countless miles of marching, and almost six long months of military training, I returned home to Louisville, Kentucky this weekend as Private First Class Wilkins. After much sweat, many doubts, and a lot of anticipation, I can finally claim the title of American Soldier.

The unit to which I will belong is the 125th Transportation Company Detachment 1, located in Bardstown, Kentucky. I will work there as an 88M; i.e., a Motor Transport Operator. Put bluntly and in childlike terms, my job consists of driving big trucks and firing big guns.

Shortly after arriving home and reporting to my new unit, I was informed by my Master Sergeant that I will be deploying to Iraq around June of 2009. When I learned this, I felt a combination of fear and relief. The fear was there because of my realization that graduating from training in no way represented the end of my journey, but rather the beginning. My reality is that the most challenging times of my military career are not behind me; they lie ahead. However, I felt relief knowing that my deployment is still twelve months away. That delay will allow me to complete another year of college and it will give my family an entire year to prepare.

Hands down, the best part about returning home from training was seeing my five-year-old son's eyes light up when I walked through the front door. "Mommy, Mommy, Mommy!" he kept shouting, while he hugged me as tight as he could.

I realize more and more everyday what a profound sacrifice my family has made--and will continue to make--because of my decision to join the Armed Forces. My eyes fill with tears when I reflect on the magnitude of their unconditional support and their willingness to care for my son during my absence, even though they didn't agree with my decision to enlist. The family members of servicemen and women deserve a great deal of credit and respect because with out them, most soldiers would be incapable of serving at all.

So, with a year before my first deployment and my big enlistment bonus in the bank, I look forward to spending the next twelve months not working in the traditional sense. I, instead, will focus on spending time with my family, maintaining a high GPA in school, strengthening my writing, and staying in shape.

I already miss a lot about the training life, even the Drill Sergeants and their 4 AM physical training. Still, I look forward, with excitement and with nervous energy, to what my future in the military will bring.

Goodbye...for now

2008-01-07T14:49:00.000-08:00

On Wednesday, January 9th I will be boarding a plane headed to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. I’m shipping out for Basic Training.

Yup, call me crazy, but I enlisted in the Army during war time. As insane as it may sound it was far from a rash decision. I’d thought about it for many years before finally deciding to take the plunge. For a much more detailed explanation of my decision click here.

This means I will be taking a break from writing until I return in June. (Unless, of course, blogging is now a part of boot camp; but I am not counting on that.)

So this is goodbye for now and my last post as a civilian – I shall return a soldier.

Considering Catholicism - Part IV Sola Fide

2008-01-04T10:09:00.000-08:00

Most of my life I have been told that Catholics believe you are saved by works, not by faith. Of course, while growing up it scared me to hear this. All I could think about were the Pharisees whom Jesus so clearly despised. Besides, I was always shown scriptural passages which made it clear—or so I thought—that faith and faith alone is what saves us.

One popular example is: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no-one can boast" (Eph 2. 8,9).

And of course, the most famous scripture of all says: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" (John 3.16).

Despite these scriptures, the idea of faith alone saving us has always been a bit puzzling to me, but I have been afraid to question it for fear of, well, sounding like a Pharisee— or even like a Catholic.

While I certainly believe that we cannot be saved without faith, it seems unreasonable and unscriptural to me to say we are saved by faith alone. The scripture makes it clear that "we shall know them by their fruits."

James says: "faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead (2. 14-17)." So, after reading that how could I believe that works have nothing to do with salvation?

Jesus says: "I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me….Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life (Matthew 25: 45)." How could I interpret that to mean works count for nothing in salvation?

But I believe no one makes it clearer than Paul does when he says: "God will give to each person according to what he has done. To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life (Romans 2: 6-7)."

While I believe that faith is a necessary beginning for the process of salvation, and faith helps to sustain it, I am beginning to believe works are also essential for salvation. This is frightening for me to say—it is even hard to write or think it, because it goes against everything I have ever been taught.

Yet when I read the scriptures, I find nothing which tells me that faith alone saves me. I only find scriptures which tell me that faith is necessary for salvation, but not that salvation is made up of faith alone. I do however find scriptures which tell me that "a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone" (James 2:24).

Besides, if faith means simply believing, that doesn't seem to be enough for salvation. After all, the Bible says, "You believe that there is one God, Good! Even the demons believe that - and shudder (James 2. 19)."

It seems to conclude that faith must be followed by good works, or else it is truly dead.

Recently, on a Catholic apologetics website I read what I feel is a very beautiful way to answer the question, "Are you saved?"

"Are you saved?" asks the Fundamentalist. The Catholic should reply: "As the Bible says, I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8), but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:8, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15). Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13)."

I expect this will offend my Protestant friends, as well as my Protestant family. But this is what I have discovered through study and prayer, and to go against conscience is neither right nor safe.

Considering Catholicism - Part III Sola Scriptura

2008-01-01T17:21:00.000-08:00

I have often been told that Catholicism greatly devalues the scriptures and puts more faith in what the Pope says than in the Word of God. This seemed credible at first. I believed that the scripture alone, as interpreted for us by the Holy Spirit, was all we needed – and anyone who preached differently was dreadfully misguided.

Yet, the doctrine of sola scriptura has created many obvious problems: there are now thousands of different Protestant churches, all of which preach a different doctrine based on their own interpretation of the scriptures.

It seems increasingly clear to me that relying solely on our own personal interpretation of scripture, without the aid of any authoritative guide, will lead us to confusion and the spreading of unbelief.

In fact, the Bible talks of such confusion: “Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’ Philip asked the man. ‘How can I’ he said ‘unless someone explains it to me?’ So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. (Acts 8:30-31)”

Accordingly, unless someone explains the scriptures to us how can we really understand them?

I am now beginning to believe that it is neither unreasonable nor unscriptural to suppose that the Lord would have given us something or someone in addition to the scriptures to help guide us.

Protestants often recite 2 Timothy 3:16 as confirmation of their sola scriptura teachings:

“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.”

However, that passage only proves that the scriptures are useful, not that they are wholly sufficient in themselves -- I can find no scripture which states such a thing as that.

John Henry Newman, a famous adult convert to Catholicism explains the error of sola scriptura teachings clearly. He says,

"Surely then, if the revelations and lessons in Scripture are addressed to us personally and practically, the presence among us of a formal judge and standing expositor of its words is imperative. It is antecedently unreasonable to suppose that a book so complex, so unsystematic, in parts so obscure, the outcome of so many minds, times, and places, should be given us from above without the safeguard of some authority; as if it could possibly from the nature of the case, interpret itself. Its inspiration does guarantee its truth, not its interpretation. How are private readers satisfactorily to distinguish what is didactic and what is historical, what is fact and what is vision, what is allegorical and what is literal, what is [idiomatic] and what is grammatical, what is enunciated formally and what occurs, what is only of temporary and what is of lasting obligations. Such is our natural anticipation, and it is only too exactly justified in the events of the last three centuries, in the many countries where private judgment on the text of Scripture has prevailed. The gift of inspiration requires as its complement the gift of infallibility."

Like it or not, when Protestants preach the doctrine of sola scriptura, they are essentially putting their faith in the Catholic Church’s ability to originally determine which scriptures would even make up the Bible. Since, after all, the Catholic Church is the authority which initially formed the canon of scripture.

Without an authoritative guide, i.e. the Catholic Church, it seems to me that Christians will inevitably splinter into thousands of opposing fragmentary groups, as we have already witnessed in great proportion.

I am beginning to believe that if we are to truly understand the scriptures then there must be an apostolic unity of teaching.

Neoconservatism becoming casualty of Iraq War

2007-12-30T17:35:00.001-08:00

NOTE: This article was written Aug. 2006.

Neoconservatism has been taking some serious blows lately, but Francis Fukuyama's piece in The New York Times, "After Neo-conservatism," may have been the knockout.

For years Fukuyama has openly declared his status as a neoconservative, but he officially renounced that label, declaring that neoconservatism has evolved into something he can no longer support. As a body of thought, it is dead.

"As we pass the fourth anniversary of the onset of the Iraq war, it seems very unlikely that history will judge it kindly. By invading Iraq, the Bush administration created a self-fulfilling prophecy: Iraq has now replaced Afghanistan as a training ground for jihadist terrorists, with plenty of American targets to shoot at."

He goes on to describe how the Bush doctrine of transforming the Middle East has backfired. Rather than weakening terrorists, Bush has strengthened them. Shiites swept the Iraq elections, Ahmadjinejad became president of Iran, Hamas achieved electoral victory in Palestine, Hezbollah reigns in Lebanon. As a consequence, Americans, including right-wingers, are beginning to think the United States should mind its own business.

And guess who gets all the blame for this?

"More than any other group, it was the neoconservatives both inside and outside the Bush administration who pushed for democratizing Iraq and the broader Middle East. They are widely credited (or blamed) for being the decisive voices promoting regime change in Iraq."

Now hold on a second. You have to cut me, oops, I mean neo-conservatives some slack here. The neocons' intentions were good; there was logic behind their ideas.

Neoconservatives noticed that Democrats were talented when it came to the idealistic motives of liberal internationalism and that Republicans were skillful when it came to yielding power. Logically, it seems to follow that combining the two would result in, for lack of a better phrase, the best of both worlds. In the neo-con dream world, the entire Middle East would be democratized in the belief that this would eliminate a prime breeding ground for terrorists. In their view, the world can achieve peace only through strong U.S. leadership backed by credible force, not weak treaties to be disrespected by tyrants.

Fukuyama's commentary claims that Reagan's total victory over communism gave the current generation of neocons this irrational exuberance toward foreign policy.

"The way the cold war ended," he said, "seems to have created an expectation that all totalitarian regimes were hollow at the core and would crumble with a small push from outside." In retrospect, the neocons have learned several things.

First, that the Bush administration and its neoconservative supporters did not simply underestimate the difficulty of bringing about good-natured political outcomes in places like Iraq, but also misunderstood the way the world would react to the use of American power. Neocons now see that the global reaction to the Iraq war has instead united much of the world into a frenzy of anti-Americanism. Many neocons now realize that the root cause of terrorism doesn't lie in the Middle East's lack of democracy, but rather in something much deeper. And by exerting an American "benevolent hegemony" over them, it is actually increasing the problem. Ouch, that was painful for this neocon to write.

So what do we do now? Whether you are conservative, neoconservative, liberal or neoliberal, we are now in this war, like it or not. We need to realize that this is not a war like we have ever fought before.

Fukumaya perfectly explains the situation we are in when he says, "Meeting the jihadist challenge is more of a long, twilight struggle whose core is not military campaign but a political contest for the hearts and minds of ordinary Muslims around the world."

Although it may be a bit late for this, neocons are realizing that they need to rethink the place of democracy promotion in American foreign policy. We must remember that the United States has helped many countries with their democratic transition, including the Philippines, South Korea and Taiwan. But the difference was that those countries were politically and economically ripe for democracy.

Neoconservatives have famously been described as "liberals who were mugged by reality." And it looks like you could say that neoconservatives have once again been mugged by reality. Does this mean they go all the way to calling themselves paleoconservatives, or does it mean they modify their ideas and call themselves neo-neoconservatives? (Which I'm pretty sure would be another way of saying we don't know what the heck to do anymore.)

Considering Catholicism (Part II)

2007-12-26T05:39:00.000-08:00

As a Protestant who has been told so often about the “errors of the Catholic Church,” I have always taken it for granted that the Catholic Church was indeed in error—until now.

I will now explain some of the major charges brought against the Catholic Church by my Protestant teachers, family, and friends, as well as why I no longer accept them as legitimate.

The Saints and the Sacraments

I have been told that the adoration of the saints, the sacraments, and all the rituals of the Catholic Church do nothing but distract from Jesus. Like everything else I was told, I once accepted this as true. I thought it was horrible that Catholics would spend so much time thinking about anyone or anything other than Jesus Himself.

I now find something very desirable and honorable in these Catholic practices: rather than as distractions, I began to see them as similar to my taking a walk in the woods or along the beach to look at the beautiful things the Lord has created. If I reflect on them, and I appreciate them, that doesn’t mean I am taking my eyes off Jesus—not at all. Instead, I am being drawn closer to Him through His wonderful creations and through the symbols of Him that I see everywhere. The same can be said for the many paintings, statues, and rituals you will find in Catholic churches. They merely serve as reminders of heavenly things, not as distractions.

To call the sacraments a distraction from Christ is equivalent to calling sex a distraction from marriage. Both are wonderful, beautiful parts of a relationship. Just as sex brings you closer to your spouse and gives you a greater love and appreciation for him or her, so the sacraments bring you closer to Christ.

As for praying to the saints: I would once have considered this heresy. It now seems so clear to me that praying to the saints is no different from a Protestant asking another person to pray for them. If Protestants claim that there is only one mediator between God and man, and that that mediator is Jesus Christ, why ask another Christian to pray for you? When a Catholic prays to the saints, they are simply asking the saints to pray for them. Not only do I find this to be a good thing to do, but it is something I believe would be pleasing in the Lord’s eye.

Protestants often take pride in the fact that they can go straight to God; they love to claim that they need no mediator between themselves and God. While I believe this to be true--you can go straight to God—I do not think it is wise to deny your reliance on the Church as a whole. Paul makes the dangers of this clear when he says, “For the body is not one member, but many…And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you” (1 Cor. 12, 21). Just as an eye cannot tell the hand that it is not needed, we cannot deny our need for the entire body of Christ, including those who came before us and those who will come after us.

Considering Catholicsm (Part I)

2007-12-21T20:23:00.000-08:00

Growing up Protestant

Before I attempt to explain my current predicament, I should give you a bit of background information. My grandparents left the Catholic Church before I was born. I was raised Protestant, and I can’t even begin to describe how blessed I am to have a family as wonderful as mine. Though I am now beginning to question some of the fundamental tenets of Protestantism, I must make it undoubtedly clear that my family did teach me the most important thing I could ever learn: they taught me that Jesus is not only real, but that He loves me. As a result of understanding His love for me, I fell in love with Him in return.

The winds of life have carried me many places—both good and bad—but my family, particularly my grandfather, has always been my anchor. I don’t mean to offend the rest of my family by highlighting my grandfather, but I believe they would agree that he is the head of the family. At least, that's how I've always perceived things.

Even though my grandfather is our family's “rock,” each member has taught me something invaluable. My grandmother, or my nanny, as I like to call her, has shown me how to love the poorest and weakest among us. She has shown me how to stand up for what I believe in, even when no one else stands with me. My Mom has shown me how to be totally selfless and to love your children utterly. My grandfather has shown me how to be prudent and wise, how to stay rooted in the Lord and the scriptures—even though the world constantly does its best to tear me from that ground.

As is clear from the title of this piece, I am considering Catholicism. But before I pursue that idea any further, I first want to say that I do not view the Protestant faith as altogether bad – nothing could be further from the truth. The things I have learned from the Protestant faith are priceless. For example, Protestants have a great understanding of the power of the Lord’s grace and mercy--something which is very hard for many people to fully accept. Yet I truly know that without the Lord’s grace and mercy I am hopeless. I can thank my Protestant ministers for this deep understanding.

I have also come to live in awe of the pure saving power of the blood of Jesus. I know that without His blood I cannot be saved. I have come to adore the power and mystery of the cross, along with the shedding of His holy blood. I can thank Protestantism for this insight as well.

I have learned what it means to have a personal relationship with Jesus. I have learned that Jesus alone can save me. I have learned what it means to walk with him, and talk with him. I can thank Protestants for this experience.

I have learned the power of reading his Word. I have learned the scriptures backwards and forwards. I have learned the importance of reading the Bible daily. For this, too, I can thank my Protestant teachers.

Examining all things

So, you are probably wondering, what's the problem then?

The problem, if it is a problem at all, is this: despite all the great things I have learned and experienced as a Protestant, I am beginning to feel called to something else. I am feeling myself called into the Catholic Church.

When this thought first crossed my mind, I totally shrugged it off. I knew that my family had been there and done that, and had still chosen to leave. For a long while, that was all the proof I needed in order to be convinced that the Catholic Church was definitely the wrong place to be. So I attempted to just move beyond the thought.

However, my heart and mind were continually brought back to the Catholic Church. I began to try to learn more. My time working in the pro-life movement has led me to befriend many Catholics, and my political work has led me to an organization called the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, which has introduced me to such great Catholic authors as GK Chesterton, Russell Kirk, and John Paul II.

I just can’t stop thinking that there is something in the Catholic Church that I am missing out on. When I look at the Church, I see something beautiful. I see a reverence for the Lord and all his mystery that I do not see in the Protestant churches. I see a unity and a deep connection among all the Church’s members that I do not see in the Protestant churches. I see order and continuity there, whereas I often find Protestants to be quarreling and divided about what they truly believe. I see tradition and history.

I used to think, as a Protestant, that I knew something Catholics didn’t. Almost arrogantly, I thought I was free of all the legalistic rituals and sacraments. I pitied Catholics for being bound by such things, and I would think, “Oh, if only they could be free to really know and love the Lord the way I do, they would be so much happier.”

I no longer think or feel that way, and I am grateful.

I am now at a crossroads. I am not confident about which road to take. I know I have several disagreements with Protestant doctrine, and I know I am still leery of much Catholic doctrine. However, I know the Lord is commanding me to continue searching. After all, Paul told us, in 1 Thessalonians, to “examine all things.”

Maintaning integrity on Kentucky's horse tracks

2007-12-20T20:18:00.000-08:00

In the wake of the Mitchell Report, baseball fans everywhere have a great deal to be disappointed about. After all many of their heroes' "love of the game" was revealed to be nothing more than lust – lust for fame, glory and wealth.

Nevertheless the recent steroid scandals within Major League Baseball should serve to remind us that -- here in Kentucky -- we do have something to be thankful for.

Kentucky Horse Racing, for the most part, has managed to remain extremely stern and exceptionally honest when it comes to the prohibition of performance enhancing drugs.

Other states with much lower regulatory standards have experienced the fatal consequence of allowing performance enhancing drugs on the track.

The use of steroids not only threatens the horses’ lives, but also hurts the game. Arguably, fair play is much more important in horse racing than in other sports like baseball, since wagering by the public is not only legal but is the lifeblood of the sport.

Fortunately intentional medication abuse on Kentucky race tracks is extremely rare.

According to Dr. Thomas Tobin from the Gluck Equine Research Center at the University of Kentucky, "Horse racing actually has much more stringent and effective control of medication abuse than most other sport organizations such as the NCAA, NFL and NBA."

The new standards put in place by the Kentucky Racing Authority combined with the advancement of drug testing technology, has allowed the detection of performance enhancing drugs to be increasingly accurate and precise; even capable of detecting minute amounts of substances over long periods of time.

Dr. Tobin also pointed out that given the high technology and increased accuracy of drug testing, one might assume more medication abuse would be discovered. The reality is quite the contrary. Dr. Tobin found that, "Increased technology has actually revealed racing as a clean, upstanding industry."

Given this high level of technology Dr. Tobin can see how many people would assume that more medication abuse might be discovered. On the contrary the reality as Dr. Tobin found is that, “Increased technology has actually revealed racing as a clean, upstanding industry.”

Yet on the rare occasion that foul play is found, the punishment is swift and harsh. Recent examples include veterinarian Rodney Stewart and trainer Patrick Biancone – both of whom were immediately suspended from their respective positions upon being found guilty.

My stepfather Jay Wilkinson is a horse trainer in Kentucky, and founder of the new Equine Program at Father Maloney's Boys' Haven. He expressed to me his thoughts on the matter saying, "In an industry so competitive, the people of Kentucky should be proud that owners and trainers place the safety and well-being of the equine athlete ahead of personal gain. In my opinion that is one reason why Kentucky is -- and will remain -- the horse capital of the world.”

The significance of Kentucky Horse Racing maintaining its strict policies and upholding its integrity becomes all the greater as Kentucky prepares to host the 2010 World Equestrian Games. These high standards are themselves greatly responsible for the games being staged in the US for the first time ever.

According to the event's website, the World Equestrian Games are expected to generate an estimated $90 million in revenue for the state.

Trainers, owners, riders and fans alike know that we cannot jeopardize our respected position as the horse capital of the world by tolerating any type of cheating. So far we have succeeded.

Perhaps more than any other sports, horseracing and baseball revere their record books above all else. Neither sport has changed significantly in over 100 years and the records are considered sacrosanct. While baseball's record book has been unquestionably tarnished by questions about sluggers such as Barry Bonds and Mark McGuire, horse racing records have no such blemish.

So while we may have lost confidence in a number of our baseball heroes, we can take comfort in knowing that our heroes on four legs are still playing by the rules.

Economics and Life.

2007-12-12T18:40:00.000-08:00

As a lowly third-year literature major, I can’t even pretend to be nearly as schooled in the area of economics or math as an economist is, but I have spent some time studying culture. When I listen to economists talk about cultural and social issues as if they are things only fit for simpletons to discuss, I can’t help but be reminded of Oscar Wilde’s description of a cynic: the man who knew the price of everything and the value of nothing.

The intrinsic value of real things, their essential character which remains unchanged even when their price on the market fluctuates, doesn’t appear to concern most economists.

(And I know, I know. You are probably saying to yourself, “I can't determine the intrinsic value of things, this is why the market must decide.”)

Yet, since the market always needs consumers in order to grow, it will tend to court those in the population who are restless, dissatisfied, or in need of artificial stimulants to cheer up their lives. As consequence, an item's market price may be a flawed reflection of its real value.

I am currently reading a book entitled, “Small is Still Beautiful,” by Joseph Pearce. In it he writes:

“Few would dispute that most people in the developed world are better off in monetary terms or in terms of the number of things they possess. The problem arises once one goes deeper than the monetary or the material. Other questions must be asked before a judgment can be reached on the benefits or otherwise of economic growth, for example:

• What is wealth?
• Is it quantitative or qualitive?
• If it is qualitive, can it be measured economically?
• If it is quantitive, what does wealth cost? Does it cost more than it is worth?
• Does money buy happiness?
• Can material possessions prevent personal sorrow or suffering?
• Does everything have its price or are some things priceless?
• Is there a difference between price and value? If there is, does price distort value?

At root, the problem lies with the mechanistic materialism of most economists. Implicitly at least, they work on the assumption that, as a general rule, if someone is 10 percent richer in monetary terms, they will be approximately 10 percent richer in qualitive terms.”

It seems to me that the worth of an act cannot be judged solely on how economic or uneconomic it is. For example, a family who generally cooks meals at home certainly contributes less to the overall economy than a family who generally eats out. Same goes for the adult-child who chooses to care for their elderly parents inside their own home instead of putting them in a nursing home. However, the degree to which those decisions enhance the quality of each family’s lives cannot be calculated.

The more self-sufficient a family is and the more they enjoy life’s simple pleasures, over pleasures produced by expensive and artificial stimulants, the happier they may be as persons, but they are considered bad consumers.

While it seems more obvious to me that economic freedom is connected to happiness, I am not so sure that economic growth is. Nor does it seem accurate to measure every good or service's right to exist based on the effect that it has on economic growth.

“The growth it measures is often malignant and it is worshiped by those who know how to count but have forgotten how to see. They have forgotten that it is not the quantity of things possessed but the quality of life that matters.”

Things such as natural beauty, self-respect, simplicity, and love within families seem to be of no relevance to the concept of economic growth; yet, I believe they are immeasurably relevant to the quality of life.

The Pill: a gift or curse?

2007-12-05T12:47:00.000-08:00

Disavowing the use of contraception, namely the contraceptive pill (“The Pill”), has typically been considered to be only a concern of the Catholic Church — one that is not even shared by many of its own adherents.

However, lately I have been thinking that Pope Paul VI made an important point in the encyclical, Humanae Vitae. I believe he tried to bring into the open something that most people refuse to consider or at least fail to realize.

It is undeniable that the introduction of oral contraception has had a profound impact on our culture. You need not be religious to recognize that.

To believe that we could completely separate the act of sex from reproduction without any major cultural consequences is unreasonable and naïve.

When birth control became available, most people, religious and non-religious alike, viewed it as simply another gift of medicine, something akin to a vaccine or an antibiotic. There was the sense that we now had a solution to the problem of unintended pregnancy, and I believe that this is how most people today view oral contraception.

However, more than one fallacy arises when thinking about contraception in purely medical terms. (Though, I could write an entire article about its negative medical effects alone.) The first is that when we do so, we fail to acknowledge that sex, pregnancy, and relationships are not simply health issues but also issues concerning family, gender, religion, and values. The second fallacy is that we view pregnancy as something that needs to be treated or cured, as if it were a disease, which, I certainly believe, is a disturbing way to view it.

When we deliberately remove the possibility of procreation from sex, I believe something inexpressibly valuable is lost. With a “contraception mentality,” a husband is much more likely to begin viewing his wife as a mere sexual object meant purely for sexual gratification then he would have otherwise.

Dr. Albert Molher, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary here in Louisville, stated, “By any estimation, the Pill, in all of its forms, has led to a radical transformation of America’s moral landscape. It has facilitated extramarital and premarital sex on a scale unprecedented in human history.”

Artificial contraception leads people to view their body as mere instruments. I believe that to sever the act of reproduction from sex altogether is profoundly anti-humanistic. This is a mentality we must change.

In closing, let me make clear that I am in no way proposing any type of legislation banning the sale of oral contraception or saying that oral contraception is morally wrong for all people in all circumstances. I am simply asking people to re-examine how they think and feel about the use of contraception and prompting them to bear in mind the moral and cultural implications of such a drug.

There are some answers you can have, even at 19.

2007-11-25T19:49:00.000-08:00

(NOTE: I WROTE THIS ARTICLE WHEN I WAS 19. YET, I STILL THINK IT IS RELEVANT. SO, I THOUGHT I WOULD GO AHEAD AND PUT IT BACK OUT THERE.)

Bigot, hypocrite, narrow-minded, prejudice, intolerant, ignorant, condemning, and judgmental. Because of my conservative Christian beliefs I have been called them all more than once on this campus. I have been told that because of people like me the world will never make any progress.

Most of the time I deal with these comments person-to-person, I do my best to explain my beliefs to them and dispel any negative impressions that they may have of Christians. But after a recent conversation with Mark Woods, an English professor, I felt the need to speak a little louder.

In reference to the weekly Bible study I host on campus, Professor Woods said, "When a young person comes up to me and tells me that they aren't sure what they believe, I tell them that they are brilliant; but when a 19 year-old girl is sure she has all the answers, I call that an idiot."

Professor Woods, I completely understand, and I agree with you that college is a time to learn. It is a time to be open-minded and to find out what you believe. I agree that there are a lot of things at 19 that you cannot know, simply because you haven't lived long enough. I would even agree that there are some questions that people will never know the answers to.

But to Mr. Woods, and to anyone out there who feels the same way, I have this to say…

Although there are many things you cannot be sure of as a young person, there is one thing you can know for sure. And despite the fact that many people consider it ignorant, I believe that at 19 you can know for sure that Jesus Christ is the one and only way to salvation, joy, freedom, truth, and life.

When I write, I write in order to bring awareness of something, or to encourage people. I am writing this to bring awareness to the unfortunate misconception, which seems to be spreading, that Christians are narrow-minded and intolerant. I am also writing this as an attempt to encourage any young person who is skeptical of proclaiming Jesus as the only answer, for fear of being small-minded, to no longer be afraid.

Being a Christian and having a relationship with Jesus couldn't make you further from small-minded or intolerant. Any prejudice that I held before I knew Jesus vanished once I came to really understand Jesus, his love, and his acceptance of us all. Rather than blinders being put on, my eyes were opened. I like the way C.S. Lewis (a former atheist) puts it when he says "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."

Now that I am a Christian, now that I have accepted Jesus as the only way, is my mind shut off? Can I not still learn, and grow, and mature, make mistakes, and experience life? Of course I can, in fact, I have just begun to experience life -- my mind has finally been opened.

I understand exactly how Thomas Merton felt when he wrote, "By reading the scriptures I am so renewed that all nature seems renewed around me and with me. The sky seems to be a pure, a cooler blue, the trees a deeper green. The whole world is charged with the glory of God and I feel fire and music under my feet."

Christians should (and notice that I said should) be the most compassionate and accepting people alive. Because of my relationship with Jesus I understand that if there is equality for all people that it is found in His love, not in us. Jesus does love us all; therefore, I know that we are all equal. I know that we are all the apple of His eye, whether we're black, white, rich, poor, gay, straight, Democrat, or Republican; and he wants all to come to the knowledge of him.

I hope that people will begin to see Christians in a better light. I love every person on this campus and if I bother people with my passion then I make no apologies for it. I cannot just sit back and keep what I have found all to myself. If I have accomplished anything with this column, I hope that I have encouraged at least one person to stand firm in their beliefs that Jesus is real, and that he really is the only answer to life; and that does not make you close-minded or intolerant or ignorant.

Suprised by Joy

2007-11-23T14:14:00.000-08:00

Fifteen-years-old, unwed, and pregnant is not exactly the kind of stuff fairy tales are made of. However, this was my life.

I will never forget the moment it dawned on me that I may be pregnant or that long night in the hospital when my suspicions were confirmed by a brunette nurse who came over to my ER cubicle around 2 a.m. and said, “Well, hon, it looks like you are pregnant.”

Instantly, all of my options ran through my head: abortion, adoption, or keep it.

Despite growing up in a very Christian, pro-life home, I couldn’t completely rule out abortion as an option. Actually, because I grew up in a Christian home, I was even more concerned about my family finding out I was pregnant. I knew it would be a huge disappointment for them.

Not only, I thought, would I disappoint my family, but I wondered what everyone at school would think. I was only a sophomore in high school. I had seen other pregnant girls at school, and they seemed so different from me. I couldn’t believe I was going to be one of them.

I looked up abortion clinics online, found one here in Louisville, and called to find out more information. The lady on the phone asked, “Do you want to have an abortion?”

I answered, “Yes.”

To this day, and probably for the rest of my life, I will remember what it felt like to hear myself answer yes to that question. It felt like a hundred bricks were pressing on my heart.

Then the lady at the clinic went on to tell me the procedure would cost $600 and that they only perform abortions on Saturday mornings.

Yet, I never went to that clinic, and I never had that abortion. Instead, I confessed to my family that I was pregnant and despite their sadness, they were loving and compassionate. I’m positive that teenage pregnancy wasn’t something my parents would have planned for their daughter, but in reality, it was their daughter’s life and they loved me through it.

Just last night I watched the movie “Bella.” At the beginning, the narrator states, “If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.” This made me smile.

I never planned for my life to go the way it has. I never planned to become a mother at such a young age—but I also never knew I’d be so happy that I did.

The famous author, C.S. Lewis, often used the phrase, “surprised by joy,” and I believe that phrase could be the theme of every teenage mother’s life.

Getting pregnant at 15 and raising my son has not been an easy experience. Although I have had amazing support from family members on both sides, it has still been the source of many struggles and tears. However, it has also been the source of countless joys and laughter.

Of course, there are some difficult days when I am frustrated and just wish I could have a so-called “normal life.” But it is times like these that my son, Jonathan, tells me he loves me, learns to count to a higher number than he could before, tells me a new joke he has memorized, or learns how to write a new letter of the alphabet, and once again, I am surprised by joy.

You can’t always plan your life or understand it. Teenage pregnancy is definitely one of those things you don’t plan for or understand.

If you are struggling as a young mother or father, you’re the family member of a young parent, or you are pregnant now, I want assure you that although things may seem hopeless at the moment and you may feel that your life is ruined, you are wrong.

Every day I look at my son, and I thank God that I did not abort him.

No matter how tough raising a child can be as a teenager, you will be amazed by how often you find yourself “surprised by joy.”