Dashed Good Book, This One

Originally it was called Alec Forbes of Howglen.

Instead of the one, near perfect (but somehow still likeable) character I encountered in his The Shepherd’s Castle pitted against narrow minded, hypocritical “Calvinists,” MacDonald has here a whole array of imperfect characters simply living (or not living) their faith and growing in it. He never expressly says “this is the wrong doctrine” or this is “right,” whereas in Shephard’s Castle his attacks on what he considers wrong is sometimes almost rabid. Thomas Crann the stonemason thinks it’s his duty to “dangle souls over the hell-fire” and frighten them into repentance and love, but for all that, he is a very lovable character, as is Mr. Malison, the school master who beats his pupils up quite badly. I won’t say why I love him – would spoil the story and ruin a truly MacDonaldian moment in the book. There’s old Mr. Cowie, Robert Bruce (no, not that one), Curly, blind Tibbie, and, of course, Alec Forbes and Annie Anderson. But the character who outshines them all is old Mr. Crupples the alcoholic librarian. And Crann wouldn’t even call him a Christian! Well, he doesn’t attend the Missionary Church, which is a great pity, if not a minor sin in the stonemason’s reckoning. You just enjoy all these characters, and see how they change as the story goes on. There’s something hobbitish or Austenian about their lives and about Glammerton and the countryside about. The rest of the world exists, they don’t deny that, but somehow it doesn’t effect them overly. They are quiet self-contained with their two churches, four seasons and converted and unconverted on their doorstep. Only when Alec goes off to University do we catch a glimpse of the rest of the world, but it is still only that which pertains directly to events and people in Glammerton. It would make a great BBC drama, if only they kept it faithful to the strong Christian message and themes throughout (is that asking too much?)

I still can’t decide whether the fact that it has been edited is to be mourned over or blessed. The editor, Michael Phillips, I think (to hear him tell it) has done a pretty good job. but I've never been able to get my hands on an unedited novel of MacDonald's. If he has actually changed anything essential, I don’t know. But one of the chief edits he has done is remove the heavy Scots dialect of the dialogue and replace it with English most everyone can understand. (In his introduction he includes a piece of the original for comparison. Does anyone know what a “clanjamfrie” is? Or what it means to “sook o’ the tappit hen?”)
In his books (that I’ve read) George MacDonald really does attempt to show the love of God. Not just the “God loves you anyway” approach or assume that everyone is at least a nominal christian as many nineteenth century authors seem to do, but he has a real John-Piper-reminiscent “God delights in you, and calls you to delight yourself in Him” message, which is always very edifying.

If you've read Tolkien and Lewis, then you really must explore MacDonald, if you haven't already. His novels are remarkably good, but his fairytales and fantasies are simply incredible.

Vampires? Oh Yes.

I feel I owe some of you an explanation on vampires, vis. why I read and enjoy Dracula, if not positively rave about it, while I decidedly turn up my nose at the very idea of Twilight. There is, of course, more to it than the latter’s being a “girl’s book.” I read Jane Austen. Hopefully I can gather up my very scattered thoughts and make them intelligible, and perhaps even convincing.

Stories, essentially, tell us how to live. They also entertain us. These are the two greatest points of a story. For a long while I have been part of the school that can’t see why we have to analyze a story so deeply that we take it beyond what the author meant. Can’t we just enjoy it at face value? Enjoy it for the story’s sake? Never mind if it has a moral or a meaning, if it is not an obvious allegory, leave it alone. Don’t dissect it. Then I began to realize that this doesn’t quite hold water. Not all the time. Every story has underlying prepositions imputed consciously or unconsciously by the author, and we need to have some idea of what those are, because, whatever we say, every story we read or watch does affect us in some way or other. I certainly do not mean we must destroy the story to examine its cogs and wheels and veins and atoms. That would rob it of the entertainment. With some stories, such as George MacDonald’s Golden Key, that is impossible. What I mean is we should be aware of what is being subtly suggested to us. We should choose entertainment that influences us for the good.
What does this have to do with Vampires? Some would say to steer clear of them at all costs. They are evil. Read about real stories. Read a biography. Or at least an historical fiction. True. Vampires are evil. Fantasy isn’t real. But they are true. Or, at least, they communicate truths about reality.
In Dracula the Count is portrayed as evil through and through. His victims, once they too become vampires, are damned. Without the choice of whether they want to be evil or not. The book says they cannot enter heaven, that their souls are lost. (It does hint that there might be some sort of redemption at the Judgement, on account of the state of their hearts before they were turned into vampires.) But what is important is that he represents an evil that, like Sauron, needs to be fought against. Because he is evil by his nature. The same is true with dragons, goblins, werewolves, ogres and all those “conveniently ugly creatures.” They may not be allegorical, but they do represent a truth. That truth is that there is real evil in the real world, maybe not so obvious or initially so ugly, but it needs to be fought against all the same. This is where the Devil comes into it. Aren’t we meant to fight him? To fight our own temptations? That is a war. Isn’t it?
Now, Twilight. I confess I have not read the books, nor seen the film. But I have tried to find out about it a little. It seems there are two groups of vampires. One who are traditionally evil, and another who take a more modern, enlightened approach. They are “vegetarian.” That is, they only prey on animals. Not only that, but they are model citizens, protecting humans from the first group, and more importantly, falling in love with them (with the humans, that is.) Hmmm…. that doesn’t sound so awful. Sounds almost noble. Very noble. But remember what vampires traditionally represent? Evil. The Devil. Yet here we have a good vampire. A family of them. I don’t mean to mock this story. It is serious.
Maybe this inversion is put down to originality. But I can’t help but regard it more like to heresy. It seems to hint at dangerous ideas. Something that has always been thought of as evil is being portrayed as good, even desirable. Once again, the line between good and evil is being blurred. How bad can bad be before it is evil? Maybe evil can be tamed, loved and just plain gorgeous. Is that a truth? Can the Devil be tamed? Will he fight against his own kind?
When evil is presented as attractive, don’t we often desire it? What then if the idea of living eternally with the person we love (Apart from God. We make the rules.) is presented to us? In Dracula it is shown to be a terrible alternative. In Twilight it is, I believe, shown in quite a different light, if not at all explicitly. It is a falsehood. But if we instead desire to stand along side the aged Dr. Van Helsing, Frodo, King Peter, Desperaux and all the others and fight evil – both in the world and in our own lives – is that not a truth?

G. K. Chesterton said: “Fairy tales are more than true: not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten.” But who would want to slay the dragon or the vampire if he/ she is a cute, noble heart throb?

Alien: A Response

I wrote this in response to my friend's assertion here that we should not rule out the possibility of the existence of aliens.

--------------------------------

No, I think we can rule out the possibility of aliens altogether. Where do they fit in with God's plan? Where is the biblical allowance for them? True, we might say that about many things - birthdays, computers, and other things the Bible doesn't mention. But if there were alien life forms, this other race of beings would have to be damned in the fall of man. They Bible says that as a result of Adam’s sin "We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of child birth right up to the present time" (Romans 8:22) God holds them accountable for our sin?

And what of their relationship to their Creator? If they were cursed by the fall of Adam, are they saved by Christ’s coming to earth as a man and dying as a man to redeem man save them also? Or must He come to Mars in the body of a Martian to bring the Martians salvation also? Of course not, “For Christ died for sins once for all” (1 Peter 3:18).

Could he have created them at a later date, or an earlier? No, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1) And if you believe in six day creation, as I do and I know you do, Andy, here is the “beginning” of the first day. Then six days later “Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in their vast array. By the seventh day God had finished the work He had been doing; so on the seventh day He rested from all His work. And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because he rested from all the work of creating He had done.” (Genesis 2:1-3) So if God made aliens, as I see it, He would have had to have done it in those six days, they would have to come under the curse of Adam, and Christ’s death as a man would have had to save them from God’s wrath. Does this agree with the Bible theologically? I may not have made myself very clear, but Andy, you at least know the context within which I am arguing.

Another point, isn’t the search for alien life spurred at least partly from the fear of man “being all there is”? We are corrupt, perverse, immoral, degraded. Humanity presents a grim picture to the most optimistic of people – those who are optimistic hope we’ll get better, we’ll find world peace or make poverty history. Only the completely deluded are content with humanity as it is right now.

Who would want current man to be the pinnacle of evolution? Those who search for extra-terrestrials want to find them because if man was “it”, there is no hope, for man would be the highest rational power in the universe.

But man isn’t “it”. He isn’t the highest power. If by “aliens” we mean “rational beings other than man” they do exist. But they don’t inhabit some distant planet, nor will billions of dollars find them.

The Bible speaks of angels, of demons, of Satan, and of course, of God. Man is not alone.