“Bringing children up in the education of the Lord involves far more than being worried about their friends, or having a chat every six months or so about how things are going at school.  Even if a child wanted, he couldn’t adequately answer such questions precisely because he has not received a biblical education in the first place.  In other words, the child has not been equipped to give an accurate report on the education he is receiving because he has not received the biblical education that would enable him to give such a report.  If he doesn’t know what an anti-supernatural bias is, he won’t know when it hits him alongside the head, much less know how to tell Mom or Dad that he has a splitting headache from the whole episode.”

(Douglas Wilson, Excused Absence, (Mission Viejo, CA:  Cruxpress) pg. 58.)

So much for letting your untrained child be a salt and light in the government schools while you simply correct any errors during Sunday School or family devotions.  It is impossible to determine what errors there are when the child cannot recognize them as errors!

–
mattb

WARNING!  THIS POST MAY CONTAIN SOME SPOILERS FOR HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS! 

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ben at Orthodox Deviation has posted a critical review of the Harry Potter series, and specifically of Deathly Hallows.  It is not a review of his own, he has admittedly not read the series, but it is a review he found interesting.  As a fan of the series, I want to respond to some of the complaints in the review, responses not directed at Ben but the author.  So, the review’s author states:

Rowling had the opportunity to make the Harry Potter series a work of serious fiction with this last book. Sadly, she opted to turn the Harry Potter series into nothing more than a child’s fairytale. “Deathly Hallows” is filled with plot holes and inconsistencies, which Rowling shamelessly employs Deus ex Machina to remedy multiple times. Indeed, the principles of wand ownership, rules governing elf and goblin magic, and the Deathly Hallows themselves are just some of the examples of this.  These examples were never foreshadowed in any previous book and their constructions were arbitrary relative to the framework of magic already setup by Rowling. They were added for the sole purpose of fixing plot holes that could have otherwise been avoided through better writing.

This is patently false.  It may be that some readers may not remember such things from book to book because of the amount of time that passed between them.  Having read all seven books back-to-back within the span of four weeks, I may have made connections others have missed.  While Rowling never directly stated that elf/goblin magic was different than wizard magic, there were examples of it that the reader should have wondered about well before Deathly Hallows.  For example, Dobby the house-elf is apparating around Hogwarts (which is impossible for wizards) as early as the second book.  Rowling never comes out and says that their magic differs, but the careful reader should have wondered why Dobby could do what others could not.  

In addtion to this, almost every character undergoes a deconstruction and becomes marginalized to scarcely more than idiotic stereotypes. The most prominent examples are Dumbledore and Voldemort. Dumbledore’s character is assassinated in this book; and never actually redeemed. In the end, you are left with the impression that Albus was a cunning manipulator and are never given any real proof that he viewed Harry as anything more than a tool to complete a task.

This is nothing more than an opinion that can be dismissed.  As I read through the books, I saw Dumbledore as a God the Father type character.  Throughout the series, he always showed a tendency to know things that others did not and prepared Harry Potter to face those tasks.  I was constantly reminded of Joseph’s reply to his brothers, “You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good.”  There were things that Harry and others meant for their own purposes that Dumbledore used for good–one specific example would be Harry’s use of the Mirror of Erised in book one.  The deconstruction of Dumbledore was similar to the deconstruction of God by unbelievers that Christians face every day.  Harry persevered through that and was able to come to see how Dumbledore worked all things together for good to those who are “Dumbledore’s man.”

Voldemort’s character also was a grave disappointment. I was hoping that Rowling would give this character some more depth in this book; but instead, she reduces him to a comic book villain who essentially dies via his own stupidity and a technicality of wand ownership. Make no mistake, in this book, Voldemort is reduced to a power-hungry idiot who only has a mastery of incompetence and cruelty.

While I can’t disagree with someone being disappointed in how a character turned out or was developed, it doesn’t mean that the author failed to develop him properly or without enough depth.  The fact that Voldemort dies of his own stupidity and a technicality of wand ownership, the fact that he is revealed to be a power-hungry idiot who has mastered only incompetence and cruelty, does not make Rowling’s development of him poor writing.  If anything, it reveals how like she is to the master storyteller, YHWH.  It is God Himself who develops the wicked in such a way in His telling of Esther’s story.  Haman dies of his own stupidity, a power-hungry idiot who is master only of incompetence and cruelty.

The key point that degrades this series to the point of being nothing more than a children’s fairytale is how Rowling decided to deal with consequences in “Deathly Hallows”… The idea that Dumbledore can communicate with Harry in a dream and with Serverus through a painting marginalizes the power of death as it is no longer permanent (you can’t talk with the dead) nor unknown. The fact that Harry can use a deathly Hallows to talk to his parents AGAIN, further marginalizes the power and literary value of death. Also, the fact that every single death in the HP series is directly do to a deatheater and not a result of ANY decisions made by Harry or his friends further kills off the literary value of death as a consequence of a hard decision one may have to make.

This may be the one argument I might see as valid.  Death is something that should not be marginalized, as it makes the story so much more powerful, it stirs the emotions of the reader like no other event can.   However, the deaths in this story aren’t necessarily marginalized in the way that the author believes them to be.  First, many of the characters that died did die final deaths.  Only a few returned to speak to Harry, and these few had literary value to their return.  First Dumbledore, again he plays a God the Father like character, thus, his character requires a continued presence in the story–it was necessary to see how God works all things together for good in history.  Additionally, an appearance by important characters (like Harry’s parents using the Deathly Hallows) plays an essential role in the story as it validated what Harry was doing.  This is similar to the appearance of Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration.  They appeared there to validate to Peter, James, and John who Jesus of Nazareth was–the Christ.  Using the Deathly Hallows, people important to Harry re-appeared and comforted and encouraged him in his upcoming mission.  Additionally, it supports the finality of death more than marginalizing it because Rowling emphasized that they were not truly alive–they were caught somewhere between being whole/bodily and mere apparitions.

In all, I think Rowling did a superb job throughout the whole series, especially in the concluding volume, Deathly Hallows.  Whether the review’s author likes it or not, Harry Potter will stand alongside the likes of The Chronicles of Narnia and The Lord of the Rings in the years to come.

–
mattb

As theologian Cornelius Van Til has poignantly shown, the unbeliever vacillates between rationalism and irrationalism.  In the same way, the unbeliever careens between a fixed ethic and a flexible ethic–whichever suits him.  Because our government schools are institutions dedicated to the propagation of unbelief, we find this patter there, swinging away like a pendulum.

This is why we find a jihad against racism, pollution, or global warming in the government schools at one moment, then seconds later, we find the same absolutist zealots insisting that there is no such thing as absolute good or evil when it comes to homosexuality or other “alternative lifestyles.”  And further, the kids are told that if they do not believe in the relativism dished out to them, they will find themselves doing bad things.  Follow this argument closely:  It is bad to reject relativism because such rejection suggests that there might be such a thing as “bad.”  That would be bad.

(Douglas Wilson, Excused Absence (Mission Viejo, CA:  Cruxpress) pg. 44-5.)

Read this at the Reformed Covenanter:

John Gill’s Theonomy

–
mattb

From John Barach:

Harry Potter and the Penny Dreadfuls

–
mattb

The fact is that the popular modern conception of the individual is derived from Greek thought rather than from the Bible, and may even be regarded as anti-Biblical.  We tend to think of our bodies giving us our individuality and separating us, one from the other.  In the Old Testament it is our flesh–a word for body hardly exists in Hebrew–that binds us to our fellow-men; it is our personal responsibility to God that gives us our individuality.  Since man (’adam) is bound to the ground (’adamah) from which he has been taken, and through it to all who live on the same ground, he cannot help influencing them by his actions.  Abominable conduct causes “the land to sin” (Deu 24:4; cf. Jer 3:1, 9).  That is why drought, pestilence, earthquake, etc., are for the Old Testament the entirely natural punishment of wickedness (cf. Psa 107:33 f.).  If a man dwelt in a polluted land, he could not help sharing in its pollution.  The chief terror of exile was not that the land of exile was outside the control of Jehovah–a view that was probably held by very few–but rather that it was an unclean land (Amos 7:17).

(H.L. Ellison, Ezekiel:  The Man and His Message (Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 1956), p. 72, as quoted by R.J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (The Craig Press, 1973), p. 428.)

You may recall a previous discussion where it was pointed out how people are inclined to justify their behavior because the same behavior is seen in animals, specifically, homosexuality.  It is argued that since animals show homosexual tendencies, and humans are just more evolved animals, then homosexuality must be a legitimate lifestyle for man.

Well, let’s add male chauvinism to the list of allowable behaviors.

–
mattb

Jeff Myers has been dealing with some questions posted at his blog regarding the recent Joint Statement on the Federal Vision.

The following is a reply of his regarding the debate over decretal election and covenantal election.

Jeff’s Response

–
mattb

Read more in the upcoming issue of Credenda/Agenda, which is dedicated to the Federal Vision controversy.

(HT:  Douglas Wilson)

–
mattb

If only the mainstream media would report on him!

Apparently, Iowa has not been the only straw poll to take place, and, all told, Ron Paul isn’t doing half bad!

Counting first, second, and third place finishes, Ron Paul has finished in the top three a total of 16 times in various straw polls.  That ties Mitt Romney for first, and is two ahead of the next guy, Fred Thompson!

Read more here.

–
mattb