My current literary effort is to re-read The Brother’s Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoyevsky. Of the literary classics I had to read in high school, this one was probably my favorite. However, it’s not light reading, so I have picked it up a number of times since then without much success. This time, I’m about 300 pages in, so maybe I’ll finish it. I’m happy it was assigned in high school, but like so many other books of this caliber, a lot of it was wasted on a 17 year old.
I am, however, at a point in the book that decidedly was not wasted on me when I was a kid. One of the characters, Ivan, spoke about how the young have to wrestle with the great, momentous issues — the existence of God, the meaning of life, etc. Once you’ve aged, it’s apparently easier to focus on the more mundane problems of making things work here on earth. In the book, I am in the middle of Ivan’s lunch conversation with his brother Alyosha: The Grand Inquisitor and the conversation leading up to that conversation. The Grand Inquisitor is a story that Ivan shares with Alyosha about Jesus coming back to earth, briefly, much to the consternation of The Grand Inquisitor at the height of the Spanish Inquisition.
During the conversation leading up to The Grand Inquisitor, Ivan shares some items in a catalog of horror stories he has collected wherein adults torture innocent children. He describes a lord who sets a pack of hunting dogs on an eight year old because the boy accidentally hurt the lord’s favorite hunting dog. He describes rampaging Turks who like to torture children in front of their parents. And, he describes “disciplinarian” parents who beat their daughter half to death, then throw her in the outhouse to cry it out, crying in particular to “sweet, gentle Jesus.” Ivan then goes on to posit that, maybe in the end God’s plan will become evident to all. Everybody will be in harmony and will finally understand why all the pain was necessary. Consequently, all will be forgiven. The mother of the boy killed by the Lord’s hounds will forgive the Lord, etc.
But, Ivan asks Alyosha (his spiritual brother), if Alyosha was creating a world where all could be perfect, but first Alyosha would have to torture the girl and allow her to cry out in the stinking, freezing outhouse to sweet, gentle Jesus, could he possibly use the girl’s tears as the foundation to his master plan? Alyosha allows as how he could not do it.
The subject of original sin comes up somewhere during this discussion. And, I recall reading the book in high school, becoming even more pissed off at the theologians who conjured up original sin as justification for the existence of the suffering of innocents and an excuse for them to go to hell absent proper clerical intervention.
Next up, as I mentioned, is The Grand Inquisitor. Perhaps I will have more to say on that later. But, generally, it tells a story of the Grand Inquisitor lecturing Christ for his refusal of the Devil and his three temptations in the desert – the temptation to turn stones into bread, the temptation to cast Himself from the Temple and be saved by the angels, and the temptation to rule over all the kingdoms of the world. By giving people freedom instead of the various types of security offered by these things, Christ has chosen poorly. Fortunately, in the opinion of the Inquisitor, the Church has come along and provided the appropriate types of security. For the moment, it occurs to me that we have recently seen the temptation of people to reject freedom in favor of the illusion of security under “strong” leadership. This is not a new thing. Freedom is hard.
A last concept I’ll mention from the book is Fyodor Karamazov’s statement that he never hated anybody for what they had done to him. He always hated them for something outrageous he himself had done to them. Once he had done something to them of which he was ashamed, he’d make up reasons to hate them and continue to treat them horribly.
It seems one of the common things I hear athiests say is “I can’t beleive in a god that would allow XYZ to happen”
Do you protect your children from every hurt? Come to school with them and make sure they are never made fun of? Make sure they never have too much to drink?
Sure, it might make life easier for us, but we would give up the freedoms we have. If God is going to protect us from the things hurt us, he is going protect us from others AND ourself.
While some pain in my life has not been earned, some of the worst as been because of my own choices. I would rather have the choice and the pain than no choice at all.
Earth is not heaven. I do not know why anyone expects it to be.
If God is omniscient and omnipotent, he bears responsibility for everything that happens. Omniscience necessarily precludes the existence of free will — if God knows in advance with certainty what we will choose, then there really isn’t a choice to be made. In such a scenario, the only one who really ever had a choice is God himself. Omnipotence means he has the power to stop it. As a parent, I do not have the benefit of either omniscience or omnipotence. Since my power is infinitely less, my responsibility is infinitely less.
Now, it could very well be that the overall plan is so magnificent that the torture of little, utterly innocent children pales in comparison. But, my puny human mind (the one created by God — in his omnipotence, he could have created me so that I was capable of comprehending the plan, but didn’t) can’t conceive of such a thing. So, I won’t. I’ll go right along thinking that no God is preferable to a God who would choose to build his plan, at least in part, upon the suffering of innocent kids.
Ive never been afraid to appear to be in over my head intellectually so I’ll comment on the commentary of Brothers Karamasov.First I’ve not read the book except maybe by exerpts,but I will comment on the universality of the ideas. What makes a masterpiece a masterpiece is that it maintains relevance through the ages and gives insight no matter who reads it or when,or with a painting,who sees it or when. Insights can on the level of a 17 year old or on the level of a retiree,and anywhere in between.My first literary insights were with the works of John Steinbeck when I was about 16.Every seed that is planted,sprouts something sometime.
The concept of original sin is one of my favorites concepts.On one hand it explains to us personally our human inability to overcome our little personal agendas,and may urge us to seek a broader perspective,and at the same time it gives the institution of the church a means to control individudal freedom in the promise of a pathway with the chosen righteous along the church’s special pathway to Heaven.Taken onn the indiviual basis, original sin could make us humble and help us see the universal humble state of us all as human beings,but it more often serves to divide us into parochial groupings, each walking a separate ‘path to God’or to whatever we see as an ultimate goal in life..We’d all rather be saved and privileged than universal with others.That’s maybe why Communism didn’t work out. The church has always known this;the politicians know this and advertising for corporate America knows this.Choose the right path and we will be ‘saved’!
No institution is enlightented beyond the enlightment of those in charge.God is always on a string. We always need to be careful what we believe to be true;belief leads us along.
To me ‘endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights’has always meant that we can throw off the yoke of any church and see God in a personal way.It absolutely does not mean that we are a ‘Christian nation’and this country was founded on ‘Christian principles’At least that quote above does not indicate so.
I think your logic is incorrect here:
Precognition != Predetermination, at least that is my take on it. Check out wiki’s article on Compatibilism.
There are, of course, different ideas on the subject.
Again, I can blame my puny human mind. But, if God knows in advance what I will choose, then one of two things must happen – either I must make the particular choice (signifying that this was nothing more than the illusion of choice) or I choose in a way that God has not foreseen, implying that God is not, in fact, omniscient.
But, going back to another point raised by Dostoyevsky, these questions used to be of burning importance to me. They no longer are, particularly. Nowadays, my attention is more likely to be consumed by more mundane concerns – keeping my business going, feeding my kids and raising them right. And, I’m pretty sure I’m happier just adoring my little girl “hugging” and “kissing” the food she “loves” than I ever would have been wrestling with the universal issues.
Doug,
You must have taken “Russian Liturature” also at RHS. That was my favorite quarter of English lit, too. You have challenged and encouraged me to read “The Brothers K” again.
One thing you must keep in mind theologically as you read any Russian liturature is that the Eastern and Western churches have been split since around 1000 AD. I will not make a theological comment right now, since the last time I read this book I was 16. Also I would be making a Lutheran response to a book that speaks to the Russian Orthodox understanding of God.
In the meantime I encourage you to read the Book of Job and to listen to some African-American spirituals from the time of slavery. Sometimes those who are in the midst of suffering are the ones who are able to best find true hope in God.
The sample size is a bit small here, but it seems unbecoming for Christians to crawl out of the woodwork and start proselytizing just because someone mentions that they’re reading a literary masterpiece that has religious (specifically, Christian) themes. Why in particular do we need a Lutheran rebuttal to the teachings of Russian Orthodoxy? Such a thing might be pretty interesting on its own merits as an exercise in comparative religion, but it seems pretty tangential to a discussion of Dostoyevsky, whose religious insights are best appreciated on their own merits.
That is, if our aim is to read literature [i]as[/i] literature; not as a gamepiece in some sectarian religious struggle; and not as some sort of test of one’s own faith.
Atheists and agnostics don’t read literature because they’re “seeking”, or trying to fill a “spiritual void”. I daresay most of us read masterworks because we want to appreciate great art, and elevate our minds to grapple with that of the author.
Speaking for myself (and in a different art form), I deeply appreciate the music of J.S. Bach. Much of it strikes me as genius (and since I can’t hear music in my head by reading it from score, I must also give credit to the talented performers who make his work accessible to me), and moves me.
That Bach, by all accounts, was a deeply religious man doesn’t matter to me. His brilliance is impressive to me [i]because[/i] it’s human. From my perspective, to regard him as a vessel for the divine spirit belittles his greatness.
Keep going on Dostoyevsky, Doug — I look forward to reading your further insights, as I haven’t read it myself and the number of books already in my queue to read is daunting.
Hoo boy. The Book of Job. If anything, Job pisses me off even more than original sin. Here is a guy who is doing everything right. So, what happens to him? God pisses all over him just to win a bet with the Devil.
Like I said, this stuff doesn’t keep me awake at night. But, back in the day, this kind of thing could get my blood boiling.
And, yup, I took Russian Literature at RHS. Seems like maybe I took that class, then they disbanded it and did something with a less specialized literature class, and I ended up reading it twice. In any case, I was a lucky person to have Mrs. Thompson at RHS. Whenever I hear someone bagging on public education, I think back to the stable of outstanding teachers at Richmond High School like her, and I don’t know whether I just got lucky or what.
For what it’s worth, Rev AJB is a Lutheran reverend; so I think it’s fair game for him to focus on the Lutheran implications of just about anything. After all, I don’t want to get knocked around if I suddenly start talking about the legal implications of whatever.
Doug,
I have troubles with the view of God in Job; I mean playing games with a man’s life. In the end, however, Job is the only one who gets it. Certainly not his bone-headed friends who come to sit with him! Somehow in the midst of all his sufferings hope never dies. That’s what I get from Job.
By the way, thanks for reminding me that it was Mrs. Thompson who taught that class. In my mind I could remember where the room was-but could not remember her name.
Branden,
I am not trying to convert Doug, or anyone for that matter. (I’ve known Doug a big part of my life, and know better than to try!) I did not “crawl out of the woodwork.” Go back and look at Doug’s original posting. He raised the questions of theology. And yes, when I do re-read the book, I will be reading it through Lutheran eyes. I will also be reading through the eyes of a (yikes-first time admitting this) middle-aged male, married, four kids, homeowner, life-long Hoosier, etc. Who we are does shape the way that we encounter literature. We cannot turn off who we are when we read. In fact, Doug shared with us how he encountered this author through sharing his personal beliefs. I applaud him for that.
And no, I do not believe that Athiests read to fill a Spiritual void. I don’t vote to fulfill a religious agenda. ( A common belief that some have of Christians).
We do have some common ground. I love JS Bach (a fine Lutheran), too. I appreciate the brilliance of all his work, both religious and secular. I agree with you about the score. I read music, but need an orchestra to make all those parts on the sheet of paper come alive.
I look forward to future debates with you!
Branden,
Sorry, saw one more point in your post. “To regard [Bach] as a vessel for the divine spirit belittles his greatness.” Personally I am on the comlete opposite side. I give thanks that Bach embraced his God-given talents; to not do so would be to belittle God. But in saying that I do not ignore the fact that Bach was a brilliant man. That’s my view…
Let me be clear as well, Branden.
I don’t write what I write here to try to convert anyone, I really don’t think that is going to happen with text over the Internet. I don’t care if it is Christanity or the dumbness of DST.
I like hanging out here becuase there are people that have different views from me, and they are not scared to discuss them. I want to learn more about why people feel they way they do.
If I wanted to be around people that thought the way I did, I would just hang out with my bible group and high-five each other on how right we all are.
I’ve always thought the more intresting blogs to read are the ones were many views are shared (without flames), rather than the ones where there are 20 “YEAH, that’s right man!” and 3 “You are going to HELL for thinking that!” comments.
Wow! How’d I stumble upon this? I didn’t take Russian Lit at RHS, but did read some in college. Anyway Branden, I’m not sure why you made the the comments about Christians crawling out of the woodwork and proselytizing. Huh?
Both Jason and Rev. AJB have been regularly posting on a variety of topics here for quite some time. I read their posts as simply commenting on Doug’s take on a great novel, not proselytizing.
Of course, anyone and everyone can enjoy and appreciate the majesty and beauty of Bach’s music, whether or not they believe in God or are Christian. To recognize Bach’s faith as being integral to his music and why he wrote it is not to belittle him. And anyway, did anyone *here* say or imply that Bach was merely a vessel for God? No offense, but I don’t understand what Jason or Rev. AJB did to incite such harsh comments. Now, if they were all, “Hurray for DST!! It’s the best thing ever!” I might be understand. ;-)
Pila,
You’ll never get a hurrah for DST from me;) I grew up on “Indiana Time” and wish nothing more than to leave my clocks alone.
FWIW, I don’t think Bach observed Daylight Saving Time.
If Russian lit is today’s topic I’ll put in my two bits for Gogol. “The Nose” has to be the one of the most entertainingly savage pieces of satire ever written. That fact came through even in my own crude translation. Gogol on his own made taking Russian worthwhile.
Rev. AJB,
Thanks for your clarifications. I’m a bit of an old-timer on Doug’s blog, too, but I regret that I did not recall you specifically — my gripe was therefore inapposite as it applied to you. On the bright side, the most memorable people to be are usually the right-libertarians with whom I want to [rhetorically] brawl, and Doghouse Riley, upon whom I have an embarrassing man-crush.
For some reason, I have an acute sensitivity to Christians bodily picking up a discussion and dumping it in an evangelical corral; I probably see that specter even when it’s not actually present.
Jason,
I do recognize you, though not specifically as a right-libertarian. Whatever our differences, I’ll join you at the barricades to fight the scourge of DST. :D
Anyway, I reckon I’d better shut up and stop interfering with folks’ discussion of Russian lit. The books on my nightstand are Fowler’s UML Distilled and Cockburn and St. Clair’s The Politics of Anti-Semitism, and if I think Protestant Christianity is merely in orbit around Planet Karamazov, those two are relativistically red-shifted away from it…
Branden,
No problem! I come to the table as a Christian with a rather open mind. As an ELCA Lutheran, I am serving in a church (in the larger sense) that is not afraid to tackle the larger questions of evolution, sexuality, justice issues, etc. We look at Scripture in its historical and cultural contexts (like do the texts that speak against homosexuality speak about loving homosexual relationships, or against a culture that used homosexual rape to put enemies “in their place”), and how it is speaking to us today. We debate the areas where Scripture is silent (like Jesus said nothing-pro or con-about homosexual relationships). Like the Bishop of the ELCA said to a group of us the other day, “Fundamentalists say, ‘The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it.’ What we ELCA Lutherans believe is this, ‘The Bible says it. I believe it. That UNsettles it.'” To me the Bible is not static words to be taken literally. I dwell in the Word much the same way that you mentioned dwelling in liturature.
So yeah, my Christian viewpoints will creep into my postings on this blog. But this gives you a glimpse into how I live my faith.
BTW I walked next door to the library and checked out “The Borthers Karamazov” today. The intro in the version I have has some interesting background information on Dostoyevsky. He spent most of his life poor, and was even imprisoned in the Siberian work camps. He was even sentenced to death, led out to be shot, only to have the soldiers at the last minute say, “Just kidding! Your sentence is now hard labor!” The preface of the book then says, “The intense suffering of this experience left a lasting stamp on Dostoyevsky’s mind. Though his religious temper led him in the end to accept every suffering with resignation and to regard it as a blessing in his own case, he constantly recurs to the subject in his writings.” In other words, his belief is that suffering does have redemptive qualities to it.
I look forward to reading this classic again!
Doug,
I screwed up and didn’t close an “em” tag in my post #17, so all of Rev. AJB’s post #18 is now italicized against his will. Can you fix that, please?
Branden:
I apologize for being harsh with you. Guess I need to stop commenting on posts that weren’t necessarily directed at me.
Rev. AJB: Isn’t it funny how those of us from the eastern part of the state (or at least Wayne County) somehow managed to get by on the old Indiana time? Yet we were always being told by some people in the Central part of the state (read: Indianapolis business community) how “difficult” it was to be an hour behind points east for part of the year. I think it is pretty funny that somehow we hayseeds could figure out the time, but the city slickers couldn’t.
Uh-oh. Sorry for changing the topic. :)
Done! Two months later I’m fanally done! Thanks, Doug, for making me read this classic again.