Thursday, July 15, 2010
Hood Paper 3
"An empiricist always must divert to a nihilist-esque view of proof, perhaps even precluding a definitional ideology of proof - while a rationalist relies on experience to garner a sort of proof that can explicate one’s sensory experience and thus gain knowledge. Epistemologically, an empiricist ultimately must recant any notion of proof due to the fact that all notions of knowledge and understanding rely on some sort of belief based on experience (86) – repeated experience having the most credence per the scientific method. The consistent empiricist must, then, reject proof as being empirical and take on some form of skepticism in order to demonstrate that anything with the slightest chance, given an infinite amount of time, is entirely possible. A rationalist similarly relies on experience – both a priori and a posteriori – in order to come to conclusions, yet given similar situations, the rationalist and empiricist can come up with the same conclusion, yet with semantically and philosophically different views of that conclusion. If one were to go to an orchard, and see that an apple is about to break off from a branch, an empiricist and rationalist would both (hopefully) conclude that the apple will fall. A rationalist, however, can say that the fruit absolutely will fall (90) while the consistent empiricist cannot preclude the possibility that it will not fall. The rationalist relies on experience to judge what will happen, while the empiricist relies on experience to judge what is likely to happen, and this makes all the difference."
Hood Paper 2
"Plato and Aristotle came to a similar conclusions concerning universal. If I am eating Wheaties, then Plato would argue that there is a perfect type of Wheaties out in the universe somewhere, and the bowl I am enjoying is just a model of the Wheaties archetype. Everything in our sensory world is modeled after some archetype that exists in the heavens as a Form (56) which is perfect compared to everything we understand. Aristotle also believed in an archetypal Wheaties. Conversely, he accepted the idea of the universal being practically theoretical. The perfect bowl of Wheaties exists in the mind of the individual imagining it, but the sensory world is all that we have to work with. Though he believed that, Aristotle also assumed everything was working towards this universal perfection (72) –Wheaties have an organic purpose of being digested, so they are edible. The difference between Plato and Aristotle’s views affects how either one will perceive teleology. Plato thought it important to understand Forms as it would change the way we lived in light of understanding the universal (56). Aristotle’s teleology was something more akin to Fate or determinism in that he suggested that as everything had a specific goal (universal) to work towards, then its purpose was simply to become like the universal. These differences can affect the thinking of the believer to an extreme – perhaps an Aristotelian becomes a hedonist because he sees it as his inescapable purpose, while a Platonist becomes a free will Baptist?"
Introduct/Hood Paper 1
Having had an interesting conversation with someone recently about the nature of putting a price on knowledge, I thought I would continue to publish that which I've been writing for my classes in order to weakly protest the hindrance in the free flow of information caused by textbook manufacturers and billion dollar conglomerates and corporations. Here's my first paper written for my Systems of Psychology course which I will follow with the second and third I've already written and then continue to publish the others weekly:
“…we know, as did Aristotle, Francis Bacon, and many others, that we are always biased,” (Malone 6). This line sets the tone for Malone’s differentiation between what is important – ideas rather than people. These ideas are a line to be drawn through the middle of modern history which are constantly emphasized and thus have merit over that which singular people have to say. One doesn’t look for people not to have an end game. In looking holistically at what is important to people, one decides what appears to be true for the majority. The questions that are asked are just as important as the answers received because how questions are framed changes what answers are acceptable and possible. When talking of someone’s new car, the questions, “How nice is it?” and “How terrible is it?” have entirely different connotations. Malone recognizes the paradox of what he is trying to do and characterizes the series of questions as his biases: they are what he has deemed important for the purpose of this text and his evaluation of ideological history. He sees that, as someone who is biased, his exact words in questioning existing ideologies are just as much a part of the answer as the response that he receives because his words can be exclusive. It follows that he determines that refutability, and not verifiability, is the “criterion for objectivity,” (8). Verifiability indicates whether something can happen and refutability whether it is the only thing which can happen."
“…we know, as did Aristotle, Francis Bacon, and many others, that we are always biased,” (Malone 6). This line sets the tone for Malone’s differentiation between what is important – ideas rather than people. These ideas are a line to be drawn through the middle of modern history which are constantly emphasized and thus have merit over that which singular people have to say. One doesn’t look for people not to have an end game. In looking holistically at what is important to people, one decides what appears to be true for the majority. The questions that are asked are just as important as the answers received because how questions are framed changes what answers are acceptable and possible. When talking of someone’s new car, the questions, “How nice is it?” and “How terrible is it?” have entirely different connotations. Malone recognizes the paradox of what he is trying to do and characterizes the series of questions as his biases: they are what he has deemed important for the purpose of this text and his evaluation of ideological history. He sees that, as someone who is biased, his exact words in questioning existing ideologies are just as much a part of the answer as the response that he receives because his words can be exclusive. It follows that he determines that refutability, and not verifiability, is the “criterion for objectivity,” (8). Verifiability indicates whether something can happen and refutability whether it is the only thing which can happen."
Friday, May 28, 2010
Etymological History of the Word Arm
Evan Coley
Dr. Rehyansky
Modern English Grammar
4/15/2010
Etymological History of the Word Arm
Etymological histories tend to be a bit drab. All you do for several thousand words is talk about one specific word and different ways it has been used throughout history, showing by examples galore and then vivisecting forms and discussing in detail that which would already bore the most patient of men. It is sad to say that this is not much different. The word arm has a lengthy history which traces its roots across several continents, has seen several relevant transitions, and has lasted for over a thousand years. Over the course of its usage, arm has been used as a noun, as a verb, and even as an adjective, albeit it was used adjectivally an ephemeral amount of time comparatively. All this time, arm has shown remarkable longevity and consistency in the ways in which it has been used, compared to the obsoletion which many words face in a battle with time. This timeless word has shown up in Christian apologetics, calls to war, poetry, and many of the government documents various countries have used over the course of time. It’s always best to start at the beginning, so let’s begin at the word’s inception, around the middle of the 10th Century AD.
The first known use of the word in a somewhat modern form of the word arm is the same way that is used most commonly today. That is, it is used simply as a biological identifier to talk about the appendage that extends from our shoulders down to our hands – but excluding the hand itself (Oxford English Dictionary arm, n.1). To talk about the origins of this word geographically is to trace a long and complicated history. Essentially, though, different forms of the word moved across Europe on a westward track as a series of affixes followed by a series of actual full morphemes. It originated in ancient Sanskrit – one of the oldest Indo-European languages – from the Aryan root ar- meaning “to join” (Oxford English Dictionary arm, n.1). From there, we see its movement from eastern Europe into Greece and then slightly more westward into the boot of Italy. We will see much more of its history in these places in further uses. Where it begins to move westward towards its use in England, and subsequently America, is its movement into the Germanic languages. We see forms of arm in multiple different Germanic languages such as Old Teutonic, Gothic, Old Norse, Old High German, Old Frisian, and Old Low German (Oxford English Dictionary arm, n.1). The languages were fairly prominent in modern day Germany as well as surrounding Scandinavian countries. We know that these Germanic languages had a huge influence on Old English, as well as Middle English and Modern Day English. It is this influence which has essentially generated many commonplace words that we use consistently today. Our biological term arm is one of these words.
One of the earliest places that this use can be seen is in the Lindisfarne Gospel of Luke. The Lindisfarne Gospels are a series of books composed in the 8th century which had the entire Vulgar translation of the four canonical gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) of the Bible as well as ornate, colorful decorations throughout to accompany the text (citation). At a later date, around 950 AD, the Gospels were translated into Anglo-Saxon and were then included as parts of the modern day Lindisfarne Gospel. In the Lindisfarne version of Luke 2:28, it reads, “He onfeng him on armum his” (Oxford English Dictionary arm, n.1). In the KJV, this has been translated as, “Then took he him up in his arms” (Luke 2:28 King James Bible). Here, one can see that though the obvious denotation is that of taking another in one’s arms, there is an underlying connotation of immediate intimate closeness in taking someone in your arms. This becomes a pattern through much of this word’s usage. There are the obvious physical meanings but somehow implied in the word itself is a reaction which indicates closeness or indicates a lack of trust or intimacy.
In yet another religious reference, one can see the closeness being associated with being in another’s arms. In the 14th century poem An Orison of Our Lord, the poet writes, “hwine warpe ich me bitweone the ilk earmes swa swith wide to-spradde. / he openeth swa the moder hire earmes hire leoue child for to cluppen… / hwi nam ich in thin earmes. In thin earmes swa istrahte and isprad on rode” (Hannaford and Jobling). This translates (from Anglo-Saxon) to, “Oh, that I might cast myself between those same arms, so very wide outspread! He openeth them as doth the mother he arms to embrace her beloved child. O that I were in thy arms, in the arms so outstretched and outspread on the cross!” (Hannaford and Jobling) Here again we see arms in a form very similar to the one which it takes today. The spelling is not as modern but it follows from that same root and has both the same denonotation and connotation as it did almost 400 years before.
Obviously there are times when arm does not have this connotation of closeness (or for that matter denial of closeness). We can see this in Shakespeare’s Cymbeline when Iachimo is trying to convince Posthumus that he slept with Imogen. Iachimo is talking about Imogen’s bracelet that he took while she was sleeping and he says, “Sir, I thank her, that. / She stripped it from her arm; I see her yet” (Shakespeare). There is no underlying connotation in this sentence – just the arm as it is. This biological definition appears everywhere, because the language for bodyparts has changed so little over time. We’ve seen its use in both Anglo-Saxon, Middle English, and Early Modern English. An example of its use in modern English can be found in the staple biology book Henry Gray’s Anatomy of the Human Body in which he has a full section dedicated to the “The Muscles and Fasciæ of the Arm” (Gray). One cannot get more empirical than diagramming something and labeling its parts, and that is exactly what Gray did. It is obviously a part of our vocabulary today. One can see an obvious example in Frank Miller’s depiction of the battle at Thermopylae between Persians and Spartans in the movie 300. In the scene in which a Persian ambassador comes to talk to King Leonidas, his limb is cut off when trying to whip a Spartan for disrespecting him and King Xerxes. At the loss of his limb, in shock all he can scream is, “My ARM!” (Snyder)
Before moving on to its other uses, it is important to discuss the connotation I mentioned before. The arms have long carried a connotation of being able to welcome someone or deny someone an intimate place close to oneself. This is evident in the passage above which talks of being in the arms of Jesus as well as many passages yet to come. Significant others often talk of being in each other’s arms as if that is a place where they are close to one another and that is a privilege they alone possess. We can see a similar idea in the radio hit “Right Here in These Arms” by Finnish rock band HIM: “She'll be right here in my arms / So in Love / She'll be right here in these arms / She can't let go” (HIM). This connotation of closeness is obviously present in this song. This specific usage is somewhat restricted to romantic relationships, however there are many different phrases employed in this manner to describe both friendship and romantic relationships. “Arm-in-arm” is an example of a phrase which has both literal and figurative meaning (Oxford English Dictionary arm, n.1). This phrase itself traces its roots to at least the 14th century, around 1374, when it was used by Geoffrey Chaucer in Troilus and Cressida. “With that they wenten arm in arm y-fere / in-to the gardin from the chaumbre doun,” (Chaucer). On the one hand, it indicates that two people are walking and have linked their arms together, but on the other it seems to indicate that these people are not only in close proximity to one another, but also communing closely with one another. In other words, they are good friends and aren’t being forced to walk so close with one another.
On their 1999 album Human Clay, American rock band Creed had a song entitled “With Arms Wide Open.” This song, with its idiomatic title, is from singer Scott Stapp to his then-unborn son about being positive and essentially “grabbing the bull by the horns.” You can get this sense of welcoming what comes by looking at some of the final lyrics in the song. “…he can take this life / And hold it by the hand / And he can greet the world / With arms wide open...” (Creed). Obviously, this is not a reference to greeting the physical world itself with arms spread wide, but an expression of welcoming what comes one’s way. We see this type of greeting as prevalent in various cultures, from handshakes to hugs, because we make signs in real life which can only fit into language through metaphor and symbolism. This is because we try to ascribe familiar physical and linguistic characteristics to ideas and feelings. We can see it not only in greetings, but in the way people respond when they feel threatened. Idiomatically, we can see how this connotation is employed in linguistics when we look at phrases like “stay at arm’s length” when talking to someone about not getting too close to you or when we talk about the “long arm of the law” in speaking about how a police force maintains a presence in any given area. This connotation is not only extremely interesting, but also integral when trying to understand the history of such a commonplace word and the many different attributes which one ascribes to and specific functions and cultural signs that one reserves for even parts of his own body.
Before moving on to the more action-oriented denotations of “arm” we can look at it in terms of biology also as a verb. Essentially, there are several meanings which are somewhat rare or completely obsolete in their usages which indicate action done with one’s arm. Again, in Shakespeare’s Cymbeline, it is used when Lucius is talking to Imogen and he says, “Come, arm him” meaning essentially “take him in your arms” (Shakespeare). Another instance of it being used as a verb yet still referring to a physical movement of the arm is in Lancaster’s Præter where it says, “ The princess arm'd his neck” (OED arm, v.2) which means “to put one’s arm round” (OED arm, v.2). Lastly, it can mean to walk arm-in-arm as was mentioned earlier when talking of idioms. None of these uses are common in modern English, though some are not considered obsolete at this point.
Its second prominent meaning is more sinister and more violent. “Arma virumque cano” wrote the great Latin poet Vergil in the first line of the epic poem The Aeneid (Vergil). The translation of this is, “I sing of arms and of a man” (Mandelbaum) and Vergil was not singing of someone’s limbs, but of war. For that is what the books are about: war (the Trojan war) and the wanderings of Aeneas – the Trojan hero: a man. One can see how “arms” was derived from this Latin root “arma.” The structure is almost exactly the same aside from the neuter “-a” which ends the word. Similarly, the meaning of the word has not changed much over time aside from its encompassing the inevitable improvements in weapon technology which occurred over the next couple millennia. One can see this use spring into the history of English in the late 13th century and early-to-mid 14th century by Chaucer as well as many of his contemporaries. We can see the multiple ways in which it is used to reference weaponry – both generally and specifically. In Shakespeare’s Richard II, published around 1611, Scroop is talking to Richard and says, “Boys with women’s voices / Strive to speak big, and clap their female joints / In stiff unwieldy arms against thy crown” (Shakespeare, Richard II). In this passage, arms means defensive armour. Try to think of a suit of armor in the Arthurian sense. However, arm can also mean to take a defensive or offensive position against and enemy. This is simply to be at arms. This is one of the more general meanings ascribed to arms - battle. There are however, more specific items which “arm” may refer to.
Arms can be extended from a general fighting definition to a more specific meaning which is used to indicate specific types of weaponry. In a wartime situation, a soldier’s M4A1 assault rifle and USP45 handgun are each considered to be small arms (compared with artillery, mortars, etc) and together are called a stand of arms (OED arm, n.2). As military technology advanced and gunpowder became a staple of warfare, fire-arms became a common word which referred to guns in combat (OED arm, n.2). These weapons are wholly offensive in that they are meant to harm someone else rather than defensive armor like that found in Richard II. A controversial use of the word which is consistently seen in American life is concerning that which is mentioned in the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America which states that citizens have the “right to bear arms.” In this instance, it’s talking about citizens defending themselves from those threatening their well-being by taking up arms or using weapons – likely referencing guns. The “right to bear arms” is likely the most prevalent use of the word as gun control is a hot topic political issue.
Once again, as a word so commonplace as arms is prone to, there are many different forms which it will take as phrases used in everyday life. For instance, someone of, at, or in-arms is someone who fights as a soldier, warrior, or other type of person in a violent job. Another Shakespearian example can be found in Henry VI, Part 3 when Prince Edward is talking to Queen Margaret, the Duke of Somerset, and the Earl of Oxford and says, “Infuse his breast with magnanimity / And make him, naked, foil a man at arms” (Shakespeare, The Third Part of Henry the Sixth). Here one can see how during this period of time, a man at arms was essentially a man trained for war – someone who knew how to fight and the phrase retains that meaning to this day. This leads to another usage that is quite similar in nature. Arms can also mean the “profession of arms” or “service as a soldier” (OED arm, n.2). It can be seen first in Shakespeare’s Henry VI, Part 1, when Alencon says, “Of all exploits since first I followed arms / Ne’er heard I of a warlike enterprise / More venturous or desperate than this” (Shakespeare, The First Part of Henry the Sixth). And once more it can be seen in Edmund Spenser’s The Faerie Queen in Canto 4, “Young knight, what ever that does armes professe… beware of fraud, beware of ficklenesse” (Spenser). These two quotations both indicate that “arms” was not merely battle, or the weapons used in battle but also a skill that should be sought after by military professionals and warriors.
Arms is used with combinations of other words as a call to prepare for battle. In these different battle cries, arms takes on that meaning of generalized war, defense, or offense. In the mid-to-late 15th century Sir Thomas Malory’s Morte Darthur was a fascinating work as it contained many different fictitious stories about King Arthur. In one, Merlin is about to attack the camp of Arthur when a scout catches sight of the attackers and shouts, “Lords! At arms! For here be your enemies at your hand!” (Malory) One can see that “arms” or “armes” when preceded by a preposition often means to be ready to fight, fight, or be on guard. Even in the deuterocanonical book of 1st Macabees, we see the translation (dating to around 1611) as, “Ionathan commanded his men.. to be in armes” (OED arm, n.2) which implies that his men are to be ready to fight. Simply shouting “Arms!” is an equivalent of the modern day, “ATTACK!” as it used by Shakespeare’s sentinels in Henry VI, Part 1 who shout, “Arm! Arm! The enemy doth make assault!” (Shakespeare, The First Part of Henry the Sixth).
Another example of an idiom which is commonly used is to “put” or “lie down arms.” This can be used literally as a means of talking about surrendering in battle or it can be used figuratively. In his 1960 benchmark work on “evil and the question of God,” The Problem of Pain, C.S. Lewis writes, “We are not merely imperfect creatures who must be improved: we are, as Newman said, rebels who must lay down our arms” (Lewis). In this passage Lewis is talking about man’s rebellion against God and has used a war metaphor to indicate that instead of rebelling, man must surrender to God. In this sense, arms are not necessarily physical weapons – but emotions and intentions as well as human action. Once again, one sees how flexible the English language is in the hands of someone who knows how to wield it correctly.
Aside from the actual physical weaponry, defensive armours, and language based in war metaphors there some other ways in which arm can be used as a noun. Arm can be used to represent authority. This seems to be an interesting combination of the two primary noun types which have been talked about. Take the following verse for instance from the 1611 translation of the KJV (Ezekial 30:21), “Son of man, I have broken the arm of Pharaoh king of Egypt; and , low, it shall not be bound up to be healed, to put a roller to bind it, to make it strong to hold the sword” (King James Bible). There is definitely a metaphor which relies on the imagery of an actual physical arm, but at the same time, the arm is meant to represent power in war – that is how it holds onto the war metaphor of the second type of noun. The presence of the sword, or lack thereof, is meant to bring that idea of the arm securing national power to the forefront of the mind.
In its last verbal form, one can see arm as an extension of its second noun form. It still has to do with weaponry and battle but it has much more to do with getting ready for battle and picking up the aforementioned weapons. To arm oneself is to get ready for battle and secure one’s fire-arm. It can also be doing the same to another person – for example, in Genesis 14:14, when Abram’s brother Nahor is in trouble it says, “And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house” (King James Bible). This seems to indicate that he went to taken vengeance on the person who had taken Nahor and had prepared his servants to help in the battle to free his brother. Another example of arm as a verb meaning to prepare for battle is in Shakespeare’s Macbeth when Macduff and Macbeth’s other opponents are marching on Macbeth’s home at Dunsinane and Macbeth is telling all the people in his castle to prepare to battle and says, “and now a wood / Comes toward Dunsinane. Arm, arm, and out!” (Shakespeare). Macbeth is giving an imperative command to get ready for battle.
Lastly, the only completely obsolete form of arm is its adjectival form. In the Anglo-Saxon Bible, which was completed around 1000 AD, there is an example in Mark 12:42 which reads, “ a com án earm wuduwe” (OED arm, a.) which translates to, “And there came a certain poor widow” (King James Bible). Here “earm” means poor. There are also times in 12th and 13th centuries when it or a similar form was translated as “miserable or wretched” (OED arm, a.). These forms have been completely obsolete since this time and have shown no sign of resurgence at all.
For longevity’s sake, all of the different individual meanings of arm have not been covered, though many more exist. The word has been around for quite a long time in English and has seen little significant change other than a dropped vowel or two. Furthermore, it bears a strong resemblance to Latin, Greek, and even Sanskrit forms to which its etymology is related. As a word which has been around for so long, arm has become a significant part of the phrasology which is distinct to our culture. However, I believe the most interesting thing about “arm” is the fact that it has two different strong forms which both seem to be interconnected with one another in multiple ways. This takes place in both nominal and verbal forms. This gives arm a lot of room to be bent to fit whatever mold it needs to. As it were, arm probably is not going anywhere, but if it does the change will be welcomed with open…
Works Cited
300. Dir. Zack Snyder. 2006.
Chaucer, Geoffrey. Troilus and Cressida. eBookMall, n.d.
Creed. "With Arms Wide Open." Human Clay. 1999.
Gray, Henry. IV. Myology. 7d. The Muscles and Fasci; of the Arm. Gray, Henry. 1918. Anatomy of the Human Body. 1918. 14 April 2010.
Hannaford, Robert and J'annine Jobling. Theology and the Body: Gender, Text and Ideology. Gloucester: Short Run Press Ltd., 1999.
HIM. "Right Here in My Arms." Razorblade Romance. 2000.
"King James Bible." Tuscaloosa, AL: Inspirational Gift Company, 2003. 303,253.
Lewis, C.S. The Problem of Pain. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2001.
Malory, Sir Thomas. Morte Darthur. London: Macmillan and Co., 1868.
Mandelbaum, Allen. The Aeneid of Vergil. Bantam, 1971.
OED arm, a. 15 April 2010.
OED arm, n.2. 1989. 15 April 2010.
OED arm, v.2. 1989. 15 April 2010.
Oxford English Dictionary arm, n.1. 1989. 14 April 2010.
Shakespeare. Macbeth. New York: Dover Publishers, 1993.
Shakespeare, William. "Cymbeline." Orgel, Stephen and A.R. Braunmuller. The Complete Pelican Shakespeare. New York: Penguin Books, 2002. 661.
—. Richard II. New York: Penguin Books, 2002.
—. The First Part of Henry the Sixth. New York: Penguin Books, 2002.
—. The Third Part of Henry the Sixth. New York: Penguin Books, 2002.
Spenser, Edmund. The Longman Anthology of British Literature: The Faerie Queen. Ed. David Damrosch. Vol. A. New York: Pearson-Longman, 2004.
Vergil. Vergil's Aeneid: Selections from Books 1, 2, 4, 6, 10, & 12. Ed. Laurie Haight Keenan. Wauconda: Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers, Inc., 2001.
Dr. Rehyansky
Modern English Grammar
4/15/2010
Etymological History of the Word Arm
Etymological histories tend to be a bit drab. All you do for several thousand words is talk about one specific word and different ways it has been used throughout history, showing by examples galore and then vivisecting forms and discussing in detail that which would already bore the most patient of men. It is sad to say that this is not much different. The word arm has a lengthy history which traces its roots across several continents, has seen several relevant transitions, and has lasted for over a thousand years. Over the course of its usage, arm has been used as a noun, as a verb, and even as an adjective, albeit it was used adjectivally an ephemeral amount of time comparatively. All this time, arm has shown remarkable longevity and consistency in the ways in which it has been used, compared to the obsoletion which many words face in a battle with time. This timeless word has shown up in Christian apologetics, calls to war, poetry, and many of the government documents various countries have used over the course of time. It’s always best to start at the beginning, so let’s begin at the word’s inception, around the middle of the 10th Century AD.
The first known use of the word in a somewhat modern form of the word arm is the same way that is used most commonly today. That is, it is used simply as a biological identifier to talk about the appendage that extends from our shoulders down to our hands – but excluding the hand itself (Oxford English Dictionary arm, n.1). To talk about the origins of this word geographically is to trace a long and complicated history. Essentially, though, different forms of the word moved across Europe on a westward track as a series of affixes followed by a series of actual full morphemes. It originated in ancient Sanskrit – one of the oldest Indo-European languages – from the Aryan root ar- meaning “to join” (Oxford English Dictionary arm, n.1). From there, we see its movement from eastern Europe into Greece and then slightly more westward into the boot of Italy. We will see much more of its history in these places in further uses. Where it begins to move westward towards its use in England, and subsequently America, is its movement into the Germanic languages. We see forms of arm in multiple different Germanic languages such as Old Teutonic, Gothic, Old Norse, Old High German, Old Frisian, and Old Low German (Oxford English Dictionary arm, n.1). The languages were fairly prominent in modern day Germany as well as surrounding Scandinavian countries. We know that these Germanic languages had a huge influence on Old English, as well as Middle English and Modern Day English. It is this influence which has essentially generated many commonplace words that we use consistently today. Our biological term arm is one of these words.
One of the earliest places that this use can be seen is in the Lindisfarne Gospel of Luke. The Lindisfarne Gospels are a series of books composed in the 8th century which had the entire Vulgar translation of the four canonical gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) of the Bible as well as ornate, colorful decorations throughout to accompany the text (citation). At a later date, around 950 AD, the Gospels were translated into Anglo-Saxon and were then included as parts of the modern day Lindisfarne Gospel. In the Lindisfarne version of Luke 2:28, it reads, “He onfeng him on armum his” (Oxford English Dictionary arm, n.1). In the KJV, this has been translated as, “Then took he him up in his arms” (Luke 2:28 King James Bible). Here, one can see that though the obvious denotation is that of taking another in one’s arms, there is an underlying connotation of immediate intimate closeness in taking someone in your arms. This becomes a pattern through much of this word’s usage. There are the obvious physical meanings but somehow implied in the word itself is a reaction which indicates closeness or indicates a lack of trust or intimacy.
In yet another religious reference, one can see the closeness being associated with being in another’s arms. In the 14th century poem An Orison of Our Lord, the poet writes, “hwine warpe ich me bitweone the ilk earmes swa swith wide to-spradde. / he openeth swa the moder hire earmes hire leoue child for to cluppen… / hwi nam ich in thin earmes. In thin earmes swa istrahte and isprad on rode” (Hannaford and Jobling). This translates (from Anglo-Saxon) to, “Oh, that I might cast myself between those same arms, so very wide outspread! He openeth them as doth the mother he arms to embrace her beloved child. O that I were in thy arms, in the arms so outstretched and outspread on the cross!” (Hannaford and Jobling) Here again we see arms in a form very similar to the one which it takes today. The spelling is not as modern but it follows from that same root and has both the same denonotation and connotation as it did almost 400 years before.
Obviously there are times when arm does not have this connotation of closeness (or for that matter denial of closeness). We can see this in Shakespeare’s Cymbeline when Iachimo is trying to convince Posthumus that he slept with Imogen. Iachimo is talking about Imogen’s bracelet that he took while she was sleeping and he says, “Sir, I thank her, that. / She stripped it from her arm; I see her yet” (Shakespeare). There is no underlying connotation in this sentence – just the arm as it is. This biological definition appears everywhere, because the language for bodyparts has changed so little over time. We’ve seen its use in both Anglo-Saxon, Middle English, and Early Modern English. An example of its use in modern English can be found in the staple biology book Henry Gray’s Anatomy of the Human Body in which he has a full section dedicated to the “The Muscles and Fasciæ of the Arm” (Gray). One cannot get more empirical than diagramming something and labeling its parts, and that is exactly what Gray did. It is obviously a part of our vocabulary today. One can see an obvious example in Frank Miller’s depiction of the battle at Thermopylae between Persians and Spartans in the movie 300. In the scene in which a Persian ambassador comes to talk to King Leonidas, his limb is cut off when trying to whip a Spartan for disrespecting him and King Xerxes. At the loss of his limb, in shock all he can scream is, “My ARM!” (Snyder)
Before moving on to its other uses, it is important to discuss the connotation I mentioned before. The arms have long carried a connotation of being able to welcome someone or deny someone an intimate place close to oneself. This is evident in the passage above which talks of being in the arms of Jesus as well as many passages yet to come. Significant others often talk of being in each other’s arms as if that is a place where they are close to one another and that is a privilege they alone possess. We can see a similar idea in the radio hit “Right Here in These Arms” by Finnish rock band HIM: “She'll be right here in my arms / So in Love / She'll be right here in these arms / She can't let go” (HIM). This connotation of closeness is obviously present in this song. This specific usage is somewhat restricted to romantic relationships, however there are many different phrases employed in this manner to describe both friendship and romantic relationships. “Arm-in-arm” is an example of a phrase which has both literal and figurative meaning (Oxford English Dictionary arm, n.1). This phrase itself traces its roots to at least the 14th century, around 1374, when it was used by Geoffrey Chaucer in Troilus and Cressida. “With that they wenten arm in arm y-fere / in-to the gardin from the chaumbre doun,” (Chaucer). On the one hand, it indicates that two people are walking and have linked their arms together, but on the other it seems to indicate that these people are not only in close proximity to one another, but also communing closely with one another. In other words, they are good friends and aren’t being forced to walk so close with one another.
On their 1999 album Human Clay, American rock band Creed had a song entitled “With Arms Wide Open.” This song, with its idiomatic title, is from singer Scott Stapp to his then-unborn son about being positive and essentially “grabbing the bull by the horns.” You can get this sense of welcoming what comes by looking at some of the final lyrics in the song. “…he can take this life / And hold it by the hand / And he can greet the world / With arms wide open...” (Creed). Obviously, this is not a reference to greeting the physical world itself with arms spread wide, but an expression of welcoming what comes one’s way. We see this type of greeting as prevalent in various cultures, from handshakes to hugs, because we make signs in real life which can only fit into language through metaphor and symbolism. This is because we try to ascribe familiar physical and linguistic characteristics to ideas and feelings. We can see it not only in greetings, but in the way people respond when they feel threatened. Idiomatically, we can see how this connotation is employed in linguistics when we look at phrases like “stay at arm’s length” when talking to someone about not getting too close to you or when we talk about the “long arm of the law” in speaking about how a police force maintains a presence in any given area. This connotation is not only extremely interesting, but also integral when trying to understand the history of such a commonplace word and the many different attributes which one ascribes to and specific functions and cultural signs that one reserves for even parts of his own body.
Before moving on to the more action-oriented denotations of “arm” we can look at it in terms of biology also as a verb. Essentially, there are several meanings which are somewhat rare or completely obsolete in their usages which indicate action done with one’s arm. Again, in Shakespeare’s Cymbeline, it is used when Lucius is talking to Imogen and he says, “Come, arm him” meaning essentially “take him in your arms” (Shakespeare). Another instance of it being used as a verb yet still referring to a physical movement of the arm is in Lancaster’s Præter where it says, “ The princess arm'd his neck” (OED arm, v.2) which means “to put one’s arm round” (OED arm, v.2). Lastly, it can mean to walk arm-in-arm as was mentioned earlier when talking of idioms. None of these uses are common in modern English, though some are not considered obsolete at this point.
Its second prominent meaning is more sinister and more violent. “Arma virumque cano” wrote the great Latin poet Vergil in the first line of the epic poem The Aeneid (Vergil). The translation of this is, “I sing of arms and of a man” (Mandelbaum) and Vergil was not singing of someone’s limbs, but of war. For that is what the books are about: war (the Trojan war) and the wanderings of Aeneas – the Trojan hero: a man. One can see how “arms” was derived from this Latin root “arma.” The structure is almost exactly the same aside from the neuter “-a” which ends the word. Similarly, the meaning of the word has not changed much over time aside from its encompassing the inevitable improvements in weapon technology which occurred over the next couple millennia. One can see this use spring into the history of English in the late 13th century and early-to-mid 14th century by Chaucer as well as many of his contemporaries. We can see the multiple ways in which it is used to reference weaponry – both generally and specifically. In Shakespeare’s Richard II, published around 1611, Scroop is talking to Richard and says, “Boys with women’s voices / Strive to speak big, and clap their female joints / In stiff unwieldy arms against thy crown” (Shakespeare, Richard II). In this passage, arms means defensive armour. Try to think of a suit of armor in the Arthurian sense. However, arm can also mean to take a defensive or offensive position against and enemy. This is simply to be at arms. This is one of the more general meanings ascribed to arms - battle. There are however, more specific items which “arm” may refer to.
Arms can be extended from a general fighting definition to a more specific meaning which is used to indicate specific types of weaponry. In a wartime situation, a soldier’s M4A1 assault rifle and USP45 handgun are each considered to be small arms (compared with artillery, mortars, etc) and together are called a stand of arms (OED arm, n.2). As military technology advanced and gunpowder became a staple of warfare, fire-arms became a common word which referred to guns in combat (OED arm, n.2). These weapons are wholly offensive in that they are meant to harm someone else rather than defensive armor like that found in Richard II. A controversial use of the word which is consistently seen in American life is concerning that which is mentioned in the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America which states that citizens have the “right to bear arms.” In this instance, it’s talking about citizens defending themselves from those threatening their well-being by taking up arms or using weapons – likely referencing guns. The “right to bear arms” is likely the most prevalent use of the word as gun control is a hot topic political issue.
Once again, as a word so commonplace as arms is prone to, there are many different forms which it will take as phrases used in everyday life. For instance, someone of, at, or in-arms is someone who fights as a soldier, warrior, or other type of person in a violent job. Another Shakespearian example can be found in Henry VI, Part 3 when Prince Edward is talking to Queen Margaret, the Duke of Somerset, and the Earl of Oxford and says, “Infuse his breast with magnanimity / And make him, naked, foil a man at arms” (Shakespeare, The Third Part of Henry the Sixth). Here one can see how during this period of time, a man at arms was essentially a man trained for war – someone who knew how to fight and the phrase retains that meaning to this day. This leads to another usage that is quite similar in nature. Arms can also mean the “profession of arms” or “service as a soldier” (OED arm, n.2). It can be seen first in Shakespeare’s Henry VI, Part 1, when Alencon says, “Of all exploits since first I followed arms / Ne’er heard I of a warlike enterprise / More venturous or desperate than this” (Shakespeare, The First Part of Henry the Sixth). And once more it can be seen in Edmund Spenser’s The Faerie Queen in Canto 4, “Young knight, what ever that does armes professe… beware of fraud, beware of ficklenesse” (Spenser). These two quotations both indicate that “arms” was not merely battle, or the weapons used in battle but also a skill that should be sought after by military professionals and warriors.
Arms is used with combinations of other words as a call to prepare for battle. In these different battle cries, arms takes on that meaning of generalized war, defense, or offense. In the mid-to-late 15th century Sir Thomas Malory’s Morte Darthur was a fascinating work as it contained many different fictitious stories about King Arthur. In one, Merlin is about to attack the camp of Arthur when a scout catches sight of the attackers and shouts, “Lords! At arms! For here be your enemies at your hand!” (Malory) One can see that “arms” or “armes” when preceded by a preposition often means to be ready to fight, fight, or be on guard. Even in the deuterocanonical book of 1st Macabees, we see the translation (dating to around 1611) as, “Ionathan commanded his men.. to be in armes” (OED arm, n.2) which implies that his men are to be ready to fight. Simply shouting “Arms!” is an equivalent of the modern day, “ATTACK!” as it used by Shakespeare’s sentinels in Henry VI, Part 1 who shout, “Arm! Arm! The enemy doth make assault!” (Shakespeare, The First Part of Henry the Sixth).
Another example of an idiom which is commonly used is to “put” or “lie down arms.” This can be used literally as a means of talking about surrendering in battle or it can be used figuratively. In his 1960 benchmark work on “evil and the question of God,” The Problem of Pain, C.S. Lewis writes, “We are not merely imperfect creatures who must be improved: we are, as Newman said, rebels who must lay down our arms” (Lewis). In this passage Lewis is talking about man’s rebellion against God and has used a war metaphor to indicate that instead of rebelling, man must surrender to God. In this sense, arms are not necessarily physical weapons – but emotions and intentions as well as human action. Once again, one sees how flexible the English language is in the hands of someone who knows how to wield it correctly.
Aside from the actual physical weaponry, defensive armours, and language based in war metaphors there some other ways in which arm can be used as a noun. Arm can be used to represent authority. This seems to be an interesting combination of the two primary noun types which have been talked about. Take the following verse for instance from the 1611 translation of the KJV (Ezekial 30:21), “Son of man, I have broken the arm of Pharaoh king of Egypt; and , low, it shall not be bound up to be healed, to put a roller to bind it, to make it strong to hold the sword” (King James Bible). There is definitely a metaphor which relies on the imagery of an actual physical arm, but at the same time, the arm is meant to represent power in war – that is how it holds onto the war metaphor of the second type of noun. The presence of the sword, or lack thereof, is meant to bring that idea of the arm securing national power to the forefront of the mind.
In its last verbal form, one can see arm as an extension of its second noun form. It still has to do with weaponry and battle but it has much more to do with getting ready for battle and picking up the aforementioned weapons. To arm oneself is to get ready for battle and secure one’s fire-arm. It can also be doing the same to another person – for example, in Genesis 14:14, when Abram’s brother Nahor is in trouble it says, “And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house” (King James Bible). This seems to indicate that he went to taken vengeance on the person who had taken Nahor and had prepared his servants to help in the battle to free his brother. Another example of arm as a verb meaning to prepare for battle is in Shakespeare’s Macbeth when Macduff and Macbeth’s other opponents are marching on Macbeth’s home at Dunsinane and Macbeth is telling all the people in his castle to prepare to battle and says, “and now a wood / Comes toward Dunsinane. Arm, arm, and out!” (Shakespeare). Macbeth is giving an imperative command to get ready for battle.
Lastly, the only completely obsolete form of arm is its adjectival form. In the Anglo-Saxon Bible, which was completed around 1000 AD, there is an example in Mark 12:42 which reads, “ a com án earm wuduwe” (OED arm, a.) which translates to, “And there came a certain poor widow” (King James Bible). Here “earm” means poor. There are also times in 12th and 13th centuries when it or a similar form was translated as “miserable or wretched” (OED arm, a.). These forms have been completely obsolete since this time and have shown no sign of resurgence at all.
For longevity’s sake, all of the different individual meanings of arm have not been covered, though many more exist. The word has been around for quite a long time in English and has seen little significant change other than a dropped vowel or two. Furthermore, it bears a strong resemblance to Latin, Greek, and even Sanskrit forms to which its etymology is related. As a word which has been around for so long, arm has become a significant part of the phrasology which is distinct to our culture. However, I believe the most interesting thing about “arm” is the fact that it has two different strong forms which both seem to be interconnected with one another in multiple ways. This takes place in both nominal and verbal forms. This gives arm a lot of room to be bent to fit whatever mold it needs to. As it were, arm probably is not going anywhere, but if it does the change will be welcomed with open…
Works Cited
300. Dir. Zack Snyder. 2006.
Chaucer, Geoffrey. Troilus and Cressida. eBookMall, n.d.
Creed. "With Arms Wide Open." Human Clay. 1999.
Gray, Henry. IV. Myology. 7d. The Muscles and Fasci; of the Arm. Gray, Henry. 1918. Anatomy of the Human Body. 1918. 14 April 2010
Hannaford, Robert and J'annine Jobling. Theology and the Body: Gender, Text and Ideology. Gloucester: Short Run Press Ltd., 1999.
HIM. "Right Here in My Arms." Razorblade Romance. 2000.
"King James Bible." Tuscaloosa, AL: Inspirational Gift Company, 2003. 303,253.
Lewis, C.S. The Problem of Pain. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2001.
Malory, Sir Thomas. Morte Darthur. London: Macmillan and Co., 1868.
Mandelbaum, Allen. The Aeneid of Vergil. Bantam, 1971.
OED arm, a. 15 April 2010
OED arm, n.2. 1989. 15 April 2010
OED arm, v.2. 1989. 15 April 2010
Oxford English Dictionary arm, n.1. 1989. 14 April 2010
Shakespeare. Macbeth. New York: Dover Publishers, 1993.
Shakespeare, William. "Cymbeline." Orgel, Stephen and A.R. Braunmuller. The Complete Pelican Shakespeare. New York: Penguin Books, 2002. 661.
—. Richard II. New York: Penguin Books, 2002.
—. The First Part of Henry the Sixth. New York: Penguin Books, 2002.
—. The Third Part of Henry the Sixth. New York: Penguin Books, 2002.
Spenser, Edmund. The Longman Anthology of British Literature: The Faerie Queen. Ed. David Damrosch. Vol. A. New York: Pearson-Longman, 2004.
Vergil. Vergil's Aeneid: Selections from Books 1, 2, 4, 6, 10, & 12. Ed. Laurie Haight Keenan. Wauconda: Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers, Inc., 2001.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
God at the Door [George Macdonald quote]
from C.S. Lewis's George Macdonald: An Anthology:
"Nor will God force any door to enter in. He may send a tempest about the house; the wind of His admonishment may burst doors and windows, yea, shake the house to its foundatins; but not then, not so, will He enter. The door must be opened by the willing hand, ere the foot of Love will cross the threshold. He watches to see the door move from within. Every tempest is but an assault in the siege of Love. The terror of God is but the other side of His love; it is love outside, that would be inside - love that knows the house is no house, only a place, until it enter."
"Nor will God force any door to enter in. He may send a tempest about the house; the wind of His admonishment may burst doors and windows, yea, shake the house to its foundatins; but not then, not so, will He enter. The door must be opened by the willing hand, ere the foot of Love will cross the threshold. He watches to see the door move from within. Every tempest is but an assault in the siege of Love. The terror of God is but the other side of His love; it is love outside, that would be inside - love that knows the house is no house, only a place, until it enter."
Friday, February 19, 2010
The Rapture: How Dubious Exegesis Leads to Shoddy Theology and Bad Living (Engl 410)
Let me be clear that this is not a personal attack on anyone that I know, any church group I've been a part of, or any sect of Christianity for that matter. It is simply an analysis of a particular eschatological belief, and it is very critical. For that I am unapologetic. Even if one's personal studies lead one to Rapture theology, hopefully the point of this paper is fully realized by those reading it.
Once again, this paper is largely unedited and hasn't been touched since June 4th of last year.
Written in English 410, Summer 2009.
-------------------------------------
The Rapture: How Dubious Exegesis Leads to Shoddy Theology and Bad Living
When Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins released the first book in the Left Behind series back in 1995, they might not have realized the possible impact it would have on Christianity in America or how the presentation and possible interpretation could lead to carelessness concerning creation. Alliteration aside, the Left Behind series as a whole is based on one eschatological, or end-of-the-world related, event. The Rapture. For those of you who have been isolated in a bubble for the past 14 or so years, the Rapture is an event that some Christians believe will happen before, during, or after the time when God's wrath is poured out on the earth as described in the book of Revelation. This wrath is described as seven years of hardship for mankind and is called the Tribulation. The Rapture is when all of the Christians in the world at the time ascend into heaven to live there “forever”. The view that LaHaye and Jenkins espouse is called the Pre-Tribulation Rapture ( Pre-Trib for short) and it supposes that the Christians on earth will ascend into heaven before God's wrath is poured out on the Earth. This view was practically underheard of prior to the 19th century and didn't gain a real following until the late 20th century.
Pre-Trib folks like to exegete (interpret) one verse to support their eschatological ideals. That verse, 1st Thessalonians 4:17, says, “Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” (KJV). This interpretation has led many, like LaHaye and Jenkins, to believe in the Pre-Tribulation Rapture even though this verse doesn't say anything specific to support that exegesis. While Pre-Trib, Mid-Trib, Prewrath, and Post-Trib believers all have their own reasons for believing what they believe that is not what I am writing to you about. Biblical Scholarship and firmly-grounded doctrine are certainly important things when it comes to religious belief but rather than using belief in a Pre-Trib rapture to live in a more Godly way, the conservative Christian culture has used this as an excuse to live how they want to live. This is a problem that I do not believe is Biblically supported and affects more than just the believer's theology.
As always, I think it's important to maintain a bird's eye view when having any type of discourse about issues that tend to affect not only our religious views but also political policy and legislation. I believe that this focus on one event has led many Christians to neglect to take care of the earth. According to a poll by Dominion Post, 44% of American Christians believe Jesus Christ will return within the next 50 years. I don't believe there is a thing wrong with that view. But because of books like those of LaHaye and Jenkins and the challenge that the modern church has not put forth concerning Pre-Trib theology, the “imminent return” has led some Christians to unbiblical habits – neglecting ecological care as well as making purchases that are not environmentally friendly. As far as recent political trends are concerned, it should not come as a surprise to anyone that the Republican party and Christians in America have been commonly associated with one another recently. I sympathize with many views of the Republican party, and my faith often informs my political decisions but the two should be mutually exclusive and the decisions of the Republican party should never reflect the views of the church and especially church policy.
When global warming started becoming a bigger hot topic issue and “going green” became the trend for all the hipsters and Starbucks-goers, the Republican party resisted because in their view, global warming was just “part of the earth's climate cycle.” I'm not here to debate whether or not global warming is a real situation, but when this view became the unofficial view of the Republican party, it seemed like it was just a matter of time before the church followed suit. With the church often turning a skeptical eye to global warning and with 2 out of 5 Christians expecting Jesus' imminent return, much of the church began to neglect to take care of the earth in simple ways. I have seen more fellow churchgoers litter than any other group of people and that worries me. Church cookouts being only partially cleaned up, people throwing paper plates on the ground at VBS functions, students throwing coke cans out of car windows. The church often doesn't encourage the importance of taking care of what God has given us. Even if a student doesn't think about how Jesus is coming back soon when littering, maybe WWJD can become a “going green” trend as well. The interconnectedness goes much deeper than even that though.
Throughout his ministry, Jesus encouraged the Jews and Gentiles of the time to act in a way that I believe would be considered “overzealous” by the modern Christian culture in America. When a rich young man came to Jesus and told him he had kept the letter of the law and wanted to know what else he could do, Jesus told him to sell all his possessions and follow Him because Jesus knew the young man was wealthy. American religious climate says the exact opposite. There is an endless supply of proponents of the prosperity gospel here who preach that wealth is God's reward for good faith. Joel Osteen. Kenneth Copeland. Joyce Meyer. These are just a few of the people who say life is just about overcoming obstacles and reaping the reward for trusting in God during troublesome times. But this isn't a Biblical message at all! Jesus told his followers not to store up treasures where moth and rust could consume but to store up treasures in heaven. Is this really what we should be worried about teaching in the churches?
I'm sure you're wondering how in the world these preachers can be tied to Pre-Trib theology and how this focus on prosperity is related to it as well. This is where the message of the church and significance of the prosperity gospel comes into play. The message of the prosperity gospel has negatively impacted the church in three main ways that I believe has been ruinous to the ministry of the church in a postmodern society. I think that the first message that it has sent out is in blatant opposition to scripture and that is its strong emphasis on materialism. In my opinion, there is a difference between someone who enjoys having nice things or getting something nice from time to time and someone who puts all his money into extraneous things. Joyce Meyer has been criticized for owning multiple expensive homes as well as flying to the different places where she is speaking on a private jet. I believe that is extraneous. When faced with the criticism she defended herself and said there is nothing wrong with being blessed.
This leads me to my next point. The prosperity gospel is an unbiblical way of defining faithfulness. When Joyce Meyer says that God has blessed her with multiple homes and a private jet and Kenneth Copeland says that God wants us to be healthy and wealthy, what are they saying about people who aren't as affluent or are in deteriorating health in their 40s or 50s? Are these people the faithless? And what about the missionaries in Africa who only get $10 a month to live on? Are they the faithless, too? This isn't to say at all that God may not bless a family or individual's monetary situation(s), but to say that God wants us to be that way and that if we are faithful it will happen is unbiblical. Ravi Zacharias tells a story of a missionary friend of his who lived among the people of Thailand, ministering. After a while, some Thai Buddhist Monks were upset that Ravi's friend was converting many Buddhists to Christianity and he was shot in the head and killed instantly. Was he faithless because he didn't live a long full life?
What about Paul? Who was stoned and later martyred? Did he not have faith because he didn't get a chance to live out his life. Or Peter and his wife, who were both crucified? Peter was even crucified upside down because he did not believe he should be killed in the same manner as Jesus! It is not a Christian ideal in the LEAST to say that God simply wants us to be faithful and in turn live long healthy lives with a lot of money. There are numerous verses I could quote to support this position, but all I have to point the reader to is how Jesus said not to store up treasures on earth but to store up treasures in heaven again. Within the problem of “faithfulness based on possessions” lies another problem. If a Christian believes that making money means they are living in a Godly way, then to them it would follow that everything they buy with that money is a blessing! So when they see that $70,000 Hummer H1 at the local dealership and purchase it, it's almost like they believe that the hole in the o-zone that they own is a blessing from God!
Here is where all the connections come together and the point of this article can come to its fruition. While the megachurches in America are learning about health and wealth and not learning what Jesus of Nazareth said, the bad theology is spreading like wildfire. The prosperity gospel has put so much emphasis on the positive individual experience of each American Christian, that it has forgotten and/or neglected to teach Biblical theology where the Christian takes good care of the Earth because it is God's earth . The lethal combination of Pre-tribulation Rapture Theology, the imminent return of Jesus, and the Prosperity Gospel is toxic even if some of the ingredients are not harmful by themselves. The Prosperity Gospel leads Christians to believe that everything they get with the money they've made is a blessing from God, even if it harmful to our ecological systems. These people, who often believe in Pre-Tribulation Rapture Theology, often do not mind damaging the earth or inhabitants thereof with their massive SUVS because Jesus will be back within the next 50 years and they will be raptured before God does any damage to the Earth as it is now. The combination of those three things and the way the Christian Right has interpreted them has led massive inaction related to environmental conservationism.
Here's the thing, though, guys. Even if Pre-Tribulation Rapture theology is true and even if the prosperity gospel were biblically based and even if Jesus comes back in the next 50 years, it is still not even a Biblical way to live one's life despite the potential veracity of all three concepts. Christians have been mandated to take care of the Earth we have been given and to deny that is to mock the very one who has granted us that gift. The modern church must show that it cares about what God has given us or it will damn every chance of having any sort of witness to those outside the church.
Once again, this paper is largely unedited and hasn't been touched since June 4th of last year.
Written in English 410, Summer 2009.
-------------------------------------
The Rapture: How Dubious Exegesis Leads to Shoddy Theology and Bad Living
When Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins released the first book in the Left Behind series back in 1995, they might not have realized the possible impact it would have on Christianity in America or how the presentation and possible interpretation could lead to carelessness concerning creation. Alliteration aside, the Left Behind series as a whole is based on one eschatological, or end-of-the-world related, event. The Rapture. For those of you who have been isolated in a bubble for the past 14 or so years, the Rapture is an event that some Christians believe will happen before, during, or after the time when God's wrath is poured out on the earth as described in the book of Revelation. This wrath is described as seven years of hardship for mankind and is called the Tribulation. The Rapture is when all of the Christians in the world at the time ascend into heaven to live there “forever”. The view that LaHaye and Jenkins espouse is called the Pre-Tribulation Rapture ( Pre-Trib for short) and it supposes that the Christians on earth will ascend into heaven before God's wrath is poured out on the Earth. This view was practically underheard of prior to the 19th century and didn't gain a real following until the late 20th century.
Pre-Trib folks like to exegete (interpret) one verse to support their eschatological ideals. That verse, 1st Thessalonians 4:17, says, “Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” (KJV). This interpretation has led many, like LaHaye and Jenkins, to believe in the Pre-Tribulation Rapture even though this verse doesn't say anything specific to support that exegesis. While Pre-Trib, Mid-Trib, Prewrath, and Post-Trib believers all have their own reasons for believing what they believe that is not what I am writing to you about. Biblical Scholarship and firmly-grounded doctrine are certainly important things when it comes to religious belief but rather than using belief in a Pre-Trib rapture to live in a more Godly way, the conservative Christian culture has used this as an excuse to live how they want to live. This is a problem that I do not believe is Biblically supported and affects more than just the believer's theology.
As always, I think it's important to maintain a bird's eye view when having any type of discourse about issues that tend to affect not only our religious views but also political policy and legislation. I believe that this focus on one event has led many Christians to neglect to take care of the earth. According to a poll by Dominion Post, 44% of American Christians believe Jesus Christ will return within the next 50 years. I don't believe there is a thing wrong with that view. But because of books like those of LaHaye and Jenkins and the challenge that the modern church has not put forth concerning Pre-Trib theology, the “imminent return” has led some Christians to unbiblical habits – neglecting ecological care as well as making purchases that are not environmentally friendly. As far as recent political trends are concerned, it should not come as a surprise to anyone that the Republican party and Christians in America have been commonly associated with one another recently. I sympathize with many views of the Republican party, and my faith often informs my political decisions but the two should be mutually exclusive and the decisions of the Republican party should never reflect the views of the church and especially church policy.
When global warming started becoming a bigger hot topic issue and “going green” became the trend for all the hipsters and Starbucks-goers, the Republican party resisted because in their view, global warming was just “part of the earth's climate cycle.” I'm not here to debate whether or not global warming is a real situation, but when this view became the unofficial view of the Republican party, it seemed like it was just a matter of time before the church followed suit. With the church often turning a skeptical eye to global warning and with 2 out of 5 Christians expecting Jesus' imminent return, much of the church began to neglect to take care of the earth in simple ways. I have seen more fellow churchgoers litter than any other group of people and that worries me. Church cookouts being only partially cleaned up, people throwing paper plates on the ground at VBS functions, students throwing coke cans out of car windows. The church often doesn't encourage the importance of taking care of what God has given us. Even if a student doesn't think about how Jesus is coming back soon when littering, maybe WWJD can become a “going green” trend as well. The interconnectedness goes much deeper than even that though.
Throughout his ministry, Jesus encouraged the Jews and Gentiles of the time to act in a way that I believe would be considered “overzealous” by the modern Christian culture in America. When a rich young man came to Jesus and told him he had kept the letter of the law and wanted to know what else he could do, Jesus told him to sell all his possessions and follow Him because Jesus knew the young man was wealthy. American religious climate says the exact opposite. There is an endless supply of proponents of the prosperity gospel here who preach that wealth is God's reward for good faith. Joel Osteen. Kenneth Copeland. Joyce Meyer. These are just a few of the people who say life is just about overcoming obstacles and reaping the reward for trusting in God during troublesome times. But this isn't a Biblical message at all! Jesus told his followers not to store up treasures where moth and rust could consume but to store up treasures in heaven. Is this really what we should be worried about teaching in the churches?
I'm sure you're wondering how in the world these preachers can be tied to Pre-Trib theology and how this focus on prosperity is related to it as well. This is where the message of the church and significance of the prosperity gospel comes into play. The message of the prosperity gospel has negatively impacted the church in three main ways that I believe has been ruinous to the ministry of the church in a postmodern society. I think that the first message that it has sent out is in blatant opposition to scripture and that is its strong emphasis on materialism. In my opinion, there is a difference between someone who enjoys having nice things or getting something nice from time to time and someone who puts all his money into extraneous things. Joyce Meyer has been criticized for owning multiple expensive homes as well as flying to the different places where she is speaking on a private jet. I believe that is extraneous. When faced with the criticism she defended herself and said there is nothing wrong with being blessed.
This leads me to my next point. The prosperity gospel is an unbiblical way of defining faithfulness. When Joyce Meyer says that God has blessed her with multiple homes and a private jet and Kenneth Copeland says that God wants us to be healthy and wealthy, what are they saying about people who aren't as affluent or are in deteriorating health in their 40s or 50s? Are these people the faithless? And what about the missionaries in Africa who only get $10 a month to live on? Are they the faithless, too? This isn't to say at all that God may not bless a family or individual's monetary situation(s), but to say that God wants us to be that way and that if we are faithful it will happen is unbiblical. Ravi Zacharias tells a story of a missionary friend of his who lived among the people of Thailand, ministering. After a while, some Thai Buddhist Monks were upset that Ravi's friend was converting many Buddhists to Christianity and he was shot in the head and killed instantly. Was he faithless because he didn't live a long full life?
What about Paul? Who was stoned and later martyred? Did he not have faith because he didn't get a chance to live out his life. Or Peter and his wife, who were both crucified? Peter was even crucified upside down because he did not believe he should be killed in the same manner as Jesus! It is not a Christian ideal in the LEAST to say that God simply wants us to be faithful and in turn live long healthy lives with a lot of money. There are numerous verses I could quote to support this position, but all I have to point the reader to is how Jesus said not to store up treasures on earth but to store up treasures in heaven again. Within the problem of “faithfulness based on possessions” lies another problem. If a Christian believes that making money means they are living in a Godly way, then to them it would follow that everything they buy with that money is a blessing! So when they see that $70,000 Hummer H1 at the local dealership and purchase it, it's almost like they believe that the hole in the o-zone that they own is a blessing from God!
Here is where all the connections come together and the point of this article can come to its fruition. While the megachurches in America are learning about health and wealth and not learning what Jesus of Nazareth said, the bad theology is spreading like wildfire. The prosperity gospel has put so much emphasis on the positive individual experience of each American Christian, that it has forgotten and/or neglected to teach Biblical theology where the Christian takes good care of the Earth because it is God's earth . The lethal combination of Pre-tribulation Rapture Theology, the imminent return of Jesus, and the Prosperity Gospel is toxic even if some of the ingredients are not harmful by themselves. The Prosperity Gospel leads Christians to believe that everything they get with the money they've made is a blessing from God, even if it harmful to our ecological systems. These people, who often believe in Pre-Tribulation Rapture Theology, often do not mind damaging the earth or inhabitants thereof with their massive SUVS because Jesus will be back within the next 50 years and they will be raptured before God does any damage to the Earth as it is now. The combination of those three things and the way the Christian Right has interpreted them has led massive inaction related to environmental conservationism.
Here's the thing, though, guys. Even if Pre-Tribulation Rapture theology is true and even if the prosperity gospel were biblically based and even if Jesus comes back in the next 50 years, it is still not even a Biblical way to live one's life despite the potential veracity of all three concepts. Christians have been mandated to take care of the Earth we have been given and to deny that is to mock the very one who has granted us that gift. The modern church must show that it cares about what God has given us or it will damn every chance of having any sort of witness to those outside the church.
Home Isn't (Engl 410)
I've decided to post up all of what I wrote for last summer's English 410 class. Much of it is controversial and there are some things which I no longer believe. Nonetheless, these are my writings in their entirety. Given the opportunity, they would be edited for months, but the opportunity doesn't present itself to me.
The first assignment was to write a paper about "Home" whether abstracted or about our actual, physical homes. This was largely experimental for me as I wrote about what Home is NOT to me. Feel free to critique it roundly, but I had a lot of fun with this.
[Sidenote: there was nearly a page of footnotes which I have included at the bottom for the references]
Home Isn't
Home isn't the comfort zone. It isn’t a high salary or the end of monetary woes. It isn’t being able to buy whatever you want. Home isn't the people we surround ourselves with, the clothes we wear, the pets we own, or the security some find in a Ph.D and tenure. It's not our wife; our parents; our job. No matter how glamorous any of these things are or appear to be, we all find ourselves craving more. more. More. MORE. It's as if there is something we are trying to achieve or some sort of standard we think we have to shoot for... but no matter what we do, it is always barely out of reach. Money. Fame. Possessions. Eventually, they all come crashing down. The money runs dry, the fame is temporal, and our things become outdated. They all fall down and the moths and rust [1] seem to come for all of it.
Is Home a house? Is living there for 20, 30, or 40 years what defines home? Does it change? We talk about our “homes” as if they are some permanent place of security where everything is right. We talk about our homes and how we can't wait to get back to them. Is everything in our home good, worthwhile and fair? Divorce often starts in our homes. And so does infidelity. People are even murdered in these secure fortresses. Are we free of pain and suffering in this suburban wasteland? Are we lost without these upscale gaudy tombs? Without them would we really be vagabonds – looking for place to call home? Or would we be lost at all? It's hard to be when there is nowhere to go. No where to look forward too and no where to feel nostalgic for. Surely there are long-lasting benefits to living in a home. Right? We get to live there and lay our heads there and feel safe.
But is that really what I want?
To drain the American economic system, to denounce social Darwinism but proclaim to the world that “These colors don't run!” all the while preparing myself for some life spent not knowing what it even means to follow you or take up my cross at all? To remain in this stifling free-market wonderland and practice this Pharisaic life – this persecution of those away from you, is that really what you want?
Driving downtown, the mountains split like an open invitation to go further – to go farther and leave this all this behind. The clouds are like seeds of some giant dandelion drifting slowly across the sky as the atmosphere burns blue behind them. Father, your handiwork is inescapable and I can't help but imagine... as I cross the Atlantic, aircraft carriers prepare for battle, ships dock, the blood at Normandy [2] silently shouts, “Is this really what we wanted?” while the church choir still rings in my ear - “this world is not my home, I'm just a stranger passing through.” Beneath the mist, I see the Mediterranean and a bit past the shore a car bomb goes off. I leave Gaza [3] behind. In the distance, I see the Jordan [4] – once buried. Near me is Golgotha [5] and closer, a tomb – twice buried. Then, Jerusalem. I see the ruins of Tyre [6] and Babylon [7] in the distance, nets spread out; never touched again. Alexander the Great wonders aloud, “What happened?” Sidon[8] flourishes, but it's people cry from the grave. As I float above it all, with my eyes focused on history and my heart focused on home, I struggle to keep my mind on the road. You left me with just these words, “I go to prepare a place for you... that where I am, there ye may be also.” I wish I could just get there already.
My brakes squeak as I pull into the nearly empty gravel lot and park my car. Sometimes its all just too much. With an exasperated sigh, I grab my things and prop open the door. The car shifts beneath me as I get out of it and prepare for another day waiting patiently for home.
------------------------------------------------------------------
[Footnotes]
1. Reference to Jesus' words in Matthew 6:19, “Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon the earth, where moth and rust consume, and where thieves break through and steal.”
2. During World War II, one of the major turning points in the war was the Allies' victory at the beaches of Normandy. It was also one of the most bloody battles of the whole war.
3. Palestinian city less than 40 miles southwest of Jerusalem.
4. River in the middle east located between Jordan and the West Bank. Jesus Christ was baptized in the waters of the Jordan by John the Baptist.
5. Hill in Jerusalem where Christ was said to be crucified. Literally, “The place of the skull.”
6. City in present day Lebanon mentioned in Ezekiel 26:19-21 which prophesied the city would be torn down and in Ezekiel 26:4-5, 12-14 that the city would be laid in the waters and fisherman would lay their nets across the top of her rocks. Historically, Nebuchanezzar destroyed the mainland city of Tyre and when Alexander the Great laid siege to it in 332 BC he used the remnants of mainland Tyre to reach the island of Tyre off the coast of Phoenicia. There are still nets laid on the rocks in the new city of Tyre to this day.
7. Ancient city in what is present day Iraq. Babylon was surrounded by gigantic thick walls. Jeremiah the prophet said, “The broad walls of Babylon shall be utterly broken... none shall remain in it, neither man nor beast, but that it shall be desolate for ever.” (Jeremiah 51:58, 62). In the 4th century Julian the Apostate destroyed the remaining walls.
8. In Ezekial 28:21-23, it describes how the city's inhabitants will be destroyed but the city itself will continue on. The city was sacked an incredible amount of times by multiple conquerors but is the third most populated city in Lebanon today.
The first assignment was to write a paper about "Home" whether abstracted or about our actual, physical homes. This was largely experimental for me as I wrote about what Home is NOT to me. Feel free to critique it roundly, but I had a lot of fun with this.
[Sidenote: there was nearly a page of footnotes which I have included at the bottom for the references]
Home Isn't
Home isn't the comfort zone. It isn’t a high salary or the end of monetary woes. It isn’t being able to buy whatever you want. Home isn't the people we surround ourselves with, the clothes we wear, the pets we own, or the security some find in a Ph.D and tenure. It's not our wife; our parents; our job. No matter how glamorous any of these things are or appear to be, we all find ourselves craving more. more. More. MORE. It's as if there is something we are trying to achieve or some sort of standard we think we have to shoot for... but no matter what we do, it is always barely out of reach. Money. Fame. Possessions. Eventually, they all come crashing down. The money runs dry, the fame is temporal, and our things become outdated. They all fall down and the moths and rust [1] seem to come for all of it.
Is Home a house? Is living there for 20, 30, or 40 years what defines home? Does it change? We talk about our “homes” as if they are some permanent place of security where everything is right. We talk about our homes and how we can't wait to get back to them. Is everything in our home good, worthwhile and fair? Divorce often starts in our homes. And so does infidelity. People are even murdered in these secure fortresses. Are we free of pain and suffering in this suburban wasteland? Are we lost without these upscale gaudy tombs? Without them would we really be vagabonds – looking for place to call home? Or would we be lost at all? It's hard to be when there is nowhere to go. No where to look forward too and no where to feel nostalgic for. Surely there are long-lasting benefits to living in a home. Right? We get to live there and lay our heads there and feel safe.
But is that really what I want?
To drain the American economic system, to denounce social Darwinism but proclaim to the world that “These colors don't run!” all the while preparing myself for some life spent not knowing what it even means to follow you or take up my cross at all? To remain in this stifling free-market wonderland and practice this Pharisaic life – this persecution of those away from you, is that really what you want?
Driving downtown, the mountains split like an open invitation to go further – to go farther and leave this all this behind. The clouds are like seeds of some giant dandelion drifting slowly across the sky as the atmosphere burns blue behind them. Father, your handiwork is inescapable and I can't help but imagine... as I cross the Atlantic, aircraft carriers prepare for battle, ships dock, the blood at Normandy [2] silently shouts, “Is this really what we wanted?” while the church choir still rings in my ear - “this world is not my home, I'm just a stranger passing through.” Beneath the mist, I see the Mediterranean and a bit past the shore a car bomb goes off. I leave Gaza [3] behind. In the distance, I see the Jordan [4] – once buried. Near me is Golgotha [5] and closer, a tomb – twice buried. Then, Jerusalem. I see the ruins of Tyre [6] and Babylon [7] in the distance, nets spread out; never touched again. Alexander the Great wonders aloud, “What happened?” Sidon[8] flourishes, but it's people cry from the grave. As I float above it all, with my eyes focused on history and my heart focused on home, I struggle to keep my mind on the road. You left me with just these words, “I go to prepare a place for you... that where I am, there ye may be also.” I wish I could just get there already.
My brakes squeak as I pull into the nearly empty gravel lot and park my car. Sometimes its all just too much. With an exasperated sigh, I grab my things and prop open the door. The car shifts beneath me as I get out of it and prepare for another day waiting patiently for home.
------------------------------------------------------------------
[Footnotes]
1. Reference to Jesus' words in Matthew 6:19, “Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon the earth, where moth and rust consume, and where thieves break through and steal.”
2. During World War II, one of the major turning points in the war was the Allies' victory at the beaches of Normandy. It was also one of the most bloody battles of the whole war.
3. Palestinian city less than 40 miles southwest of Jerusalem.
4. River in the middle east located between Jordan and the West Bank. Jesus Christ was baptized in the waters of the Jordan by John the Baptist.
5. Hill in Jerusalem where Christ was said to be crucified. Literally, “The place of the skull.”
6. City in present day Lebanon mentioned in Ezekiel 26:19-21 which prophesied the city would be torn down and in Ezekiel 26:4-5, 12-14 that the city would be laid in the waters and fisherman would lay their nets across the top of her rocks. Historically, Nebuchanezzar destroyed the mainland city of Tyre and when Alexander the Great laid siege to it in 332 BC he used the remnants of mainland Tyre to reach the island of Tyre off the coast of Phoenicia. There are still nets laid on the rocks in the new city of Tyre to this day.
7. Ancient city in what is present day Iraq. Babylon was surrounded by gigantic thick walls. Jeremiah the prophet said, “The broad walls of Babylon shall be utterly broken... none shall remain in it, neither man nor beast, but that it shall be desolate for ever.” (Jeremiah 51:58, 62). In the 4th century Julian the Apostate destroyed the remaining walls.
8. In Ezekial 28:21-23, it describes how the city's inhabitants will be destroyed but the city itself will continue on. The city was sacked an incredible amount of times by multiple conquerors but is the third most populated city in Lebanon today.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Global Warming
This past summer, I had the unique opportunity to read a paper on Global Warming which basically dismissed it but which at the same time gave credence to the hype surrounding it simply because it promotes ecologically sound practices. As a Christian, this may raise some problematic ethical questions as far as deception and lying are concerned but at the same time I can certainly relate. I have many friends (good friends at that) who believe that global warming is a hoax that is meant to bring in money. I won't step out on that limb, because I'm no meteorologist, geologist, ecologist, physicist, or hard science buff of any type. What I do feel I may be qualified to talk about is theology and ethics, so I'm going to take that angle - but I believe it is VERY closely relatable to this topic and should be considered by all those on the fence or on whichever side.
Keep in mind, I am no vegeterrorist, no "green-goer," or anything of the sort. My identity is in Christ alone and for his purposes alone do I write any of this - solely to bring glory to HIS name and for the sake of the truth which is found in him.
Also, regardless of your certainty on the truth or falsehood of evolution, young earth creation, old earth creation, or any subsequent doctrine this is wholly-based on simple biblical truths. I am open to debate on the issue and I welcome it.
-------
In Genesis 1, God gave man and man alone dominion over the earth and over the creation. Birds of the air, fish of the sea, everything that creeps on the ground - man has dominion. Note in Genesis 1:30 man is described as vegetarian in nature [prior to the fall] and in Genesis 3:21, man is given clothes of [animal] skin by God out of necessity (the fall had occured, sickness was a reality, etc). As a gift from God, man is to take this dominion - this responsibility - quite seriously. God's gift is not to be squandered, abused, or denied for that matter. A quick reading of Proverbs will assuredly enforce that view.
As humans [and Christians/New Covenant Jews], we still maintain dominion despite the fall - things are just falling apart now. It is clear, then, that we are to take absolutely the best care of the creation that is possible and not be wasteful or stagnate in shifting to more environmentally sound technology. In context of global warming - even IF it is a hoax, even if the earth is "cycling" (which is based on OE doctrines mind you), then we are to do the VERY best we can to take care of that creation, even if it involves serious ecological work as well as personal sacrifice. The Christian life isn't to be shut off, stagnant, or opposed to things that are unquestionably good.
Something tells me that polluting our waterways (indescriminately hurting marine wildlife), emitting harmful carbonic chemicals (birds of the air), and littering and dumping (creeping things) isn't exactly how God intended for us to operate in a post-Industrial Revolution era. Nor is compromising in order to "help make things a little better." We need to be discerning in avoiding that which is self-promoting capitalist trend-garbage and focus on what is true and unfalsiable. To not do everything in our own lives that will allow us take care of the wonderful gift of creation is to not exercise our own authority properly and, I believe, is potentially damaging to the Gospel. As a young moderate-to-conservative idealist, I believe that polarizing legislation on this issue is dangerous. We shouldn't say, "It is either cap and trade or a carbon tax because those would definitely be better than current legislation." No, we should be doing our best to exercise our authority over this world: ceasing compromise, holding on to idealism, and standing immutable in the face of opposition.
-------
More to come.
Keep in mind, I am no vegeterrorist, no "green-goer," or anything of the sort. My identity is in Christ alone and for his purposes alone do I write any of this - solely to bring glory to HIS name and for the sake of the truth which is found in him.
Also, regardless of your certainty on the truth or falsehood of evolution, young earth creation, old earth creation, or any subsequent doctrine this is wholly-based on simple biblical truths. I am open to debate on the issue and I welcome it.
-------
In Genesis 1, God gave man and man alone dominion over the earth and over the creation. Birds of the air, fish of the sea, everything that creeps on the ground - man has dominion. Note in Genesis 1:30 man is described as vegetarian in nature [prior to the fall] and in Genesis 3:21, man is given clothes of [animal] skin by God out of necessity (the fall had occured, sickness was a reality, etc). As a gift from God, man is to take this dominion - this responsibility - quite seriously. God's gift is not to be squandered, abused, or denied for that matter. A quick reading of Proverbs will assuredly enforce that view.
As humans [and Christians/New Covenant Jews], we still maintain dominion despite the fall - things are just falling apart now. It is clear, then, that we are to take absolutely the best care of the creation that is possible and not be wasteful or stagnate in shifting to more environmentally sound technology. In context of global warming - even IF it is a hoax, even if the earth is "cycling" (which is based on OE doctrines mind you), then we are to do the VERY best we can to take care of that creation, even if it involves serious ecological work as well as personal sacrifice. The Christian life isn't to be shut off, stagnant, or opposed to things that are unquestionably good.
Something tells me that polluting our waterways (indescriminately hurting marine wildlife), emitting harmful carbonic chemicals (birds of the air), and littering and dumping (creeping things) isn't exactly how God intended for us to operate in a post-Industrial Revolution era. Nor is compromising in order to "help make things a little better." We need to be discerning in avoiding that which is self-promoting capitalist trend-garbage and focus on what is true and unfalsiable. To not do everything in our own lives that will allow us take care of the wonderful gift of creation is to not exercise our own authority properly and, I believe, is potentially damaging to the Gospel. As a young moderate-to-conservative idealist, I believe that polarizing legislation on this issue is dangerous. We shouldn't say, "It is either cap and trade or a carbon tax because those would definitely be better than current legislation." No, we should be doing our best to exercise our authority over this world: ceasing compromise, holding on to idealism, and standing immutable in the face of opposition.
-------
More to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
