Milton's 400th Birthday

This year is John Milton’s 400th birthday, and Stanley Fish has written a post about Ninth International Milton Symposium in London, which touches on the many things to appreciate about Milton.  Here are a couple of good quotes.  First, about why Milton matters:

Rather than being employed for its own sake, the poetry is always in the service of ideas and moral commitments, and it is always demanding that its readers measure themselves against the judgments it repeatedly makes – judgments about the nature of virtue, about the proper mode of civil and domestic behavior, about the true shape of heroism, about the self-parodying bluster of military action, about the criteria of aesthetic excellence, about the uses of leisure, about one’s duties to man and God, about the scope and limitations of reason, about the primacy of faith, about everything.

Apparently, the ghost of Shakespeare hangs over Milton studies constantly.  Another good quote, about the difference between Milton and Shakespeare, referring to the debates over who wrote Shakespeare’s plays:

Jonathan Rosen was getting at something like this when he said in a recent New Yorker piece, “No one would ever wonder whether Milton was really the author of his own work.”

Milton went blind in his mid-forties, prior to writing Paradise Lost: the magnificent epic that Milton is best known for was composed mentally and dictated to a series of secretaries, including one of his daughters and the poet Andrew Marvell, who wrote the poem “To His Coy Mistress,” a standard of English textbooks.

His blindness led him to compose one of the greatest poems in the English language, “On His Blindness,” which I memorized while I was unemployed following graduate school, wondering whether my long education would ever result in productive employment:

When I consider how my light is spent,
Ere half my days, in this dark world and wide,
And that one Talent which is death to hide,
Lodg’d with me useless, though my Soul more bent
To serve therewith my Maker, and present
My true account, least he returning chide,
Doth God exact day-labour, light deny’d,
I fondly ask; But patience to prevent
That murmur, soon replies, God doth not need
Either man’s work or his own gifts, who best
Bear his milde yoak, they serve him best, his State
Is Kingly.  Thousands at his bidding speed
And post o’re Land and Ocean without rest:
They also serve who only stand and waite.

A quick explication: Milton despairs at going blind, feeling that his one “Talent” (his ability as a writer) is now wasted, and, referring to the parable of the talents, fears that Jesus will return and question him as to why he has not put his talent to work.  (The work “fondly” here means “foolishly” – Milton’s retort that he can’t work because he’s blind, in other words, is a pretty stupid thing to say to the Lord of Heaven and Earth.)  The poem turns as Milton comes to realize that God does not “need” his work or “his own gifts” (i.e. Milton’s talent was a gift from God to begin with).  Instead, what God demands is his readiness to serve.  The image changes to a royal court: thousands of courtiers speed to and fro in their service to God, but “They also serve who only stand and waite.” Milton’s readiness would soon be repaid; a few years after this poem, Milton began work on Paradise Lost.

Psalm 42

Lately, the Psalms have grown in their importance to me.  I have been listening to John Piper’s podcast sermons from his recent series on the Psalms, and found myself meditating particularly on Psalm 42:

Why, my soul, are you downcast?
Why so disturbed within me?
Put your faith in God,
for I will yet praise him,
my Savior and my God. (Psalm 42, TNIV)

Here’s Piper’s sermon on Psalm 42.  Piper notes that the psalmist is confident in God’s love, though his current state of mind is depressed.  The psalmist speaks to his own soul, educating his soul in the truth of God’s love.

At Lakeside, I’ll be teaching a series, beginning next month, on the same psalms that Piper preached on.  We’ll be focusing on inductive study of the psalms, but I’ll be recommending Piper’s sermons as good listening for the week after our own study.

The Miracle of the New Testament

I am amazed at the miracle of the New Testament. To me, it’s mere existence is one of the touchstones of my faith in God.

Let’s assume for one moment that Jesus was not the Son of God, and that there is no Holy Spirit. Jesus wrote nothing himself; all of the records of his life and teaching come from his followers and his followers’ followers. According to some scholars, we can’t even be sure that he really said what his followers say he said. According to some other scholars, the rest of the New Testament after the Gospels – the letters of Paul, Peter, et al., the Revelation of John – are dramatically different than what Jesus “really” taught. Again, I’m not endorsing these thoughts, but just telling you what some people think.

What then are we left with? The text of the New Testament has spurred on some of the most profound moral achievements in the history of mankind: Augustine’s philosophy, the great monasteries, the life of Francis of Assissi, humanitarian projects like hospitals and orphanages, the dramatic rise of literacy in the West, the work of Martin Luther King Jr. and Mother Theresa. The list could go on and on. Not bad for a group of smalltown fishermen and merchants.

The New Testament was written by a small group of people, mostly from a couple of villages in Galilee. Luke and Paul probably had the equivalent of a university education, but the rest were tradesmen. Yet their writings triggered not only dozens of moral revolutions over the last 2,000 years, but also radically reinterpreted the Hebrew Scriptures, completely transforming an entire religion. Assuming that authorship is correct, then we have, at minimum, seven of the world’s greatest moral geniuses – the 4 Gospel writers, plus Paul, Peter, and James. I would argue that the work of any one or two of them would be enough to found a religion, yet we have at least seven, not even counting the anonymous author of Hebrews, or considering whether any of their attributed writings were written by someone else. And remember: most of these “geniuses” were Galilean tradesmen, considered uneducated by their neighbors. All of them were contemporaries with one another, and their collected works were written over a span of no more than 50 years. Along the way, they created from scratch a new literary genre (the Gospel), wrote the highest achievement in all of Jewish apocalyptic literature, and redefined the possiblities for letter writing.

Either this is the greatest coincidence that history has ever seen, or there’s something to this idea that Jesus is the Son of God and sent the Holy Spirit to teach and inspire his disciples.

Blog Conference

Here’s a cool idea: host an online conference through cross-linking blogs, featuring “plenary posts” and official responses.  And, of course, unofficial responses through comments, trackbacks, etc. 

The 2nd Annual Karl Barth Blog Conference is kicking off, and I’m pleased to discover that one of my friends and InterVarsity colleagues, Jason Ingalls, is one of the official presenters. 

For those not familiar with 20th-century theology, Karl Barth was one of the most important theologians of the past 100 years, and perhaps one of the most important theologians of the past 1,000 years.  Shortly after I became a Christian, I was looking through the University of Louisville library for good books of Christian theology, and I checked out Barth’s commentary, The Epistle to the Romans.  My InterVarsity mentor laughed when I told him what book I was going to read.  I soon found out why: I could barely make it through the first page!  I’ve not returned to Barth since then, but perhaps this conference will be a good excuse. 

My Favorite Book is…the Bible?

“Favorite books” is a stand-by question for personal information, and I see “The Bible” listed on many of these.  Recently, I was reading a profile of a professional basketball player in ESPN the Magazine.  When they asked for his favorite book, he said something like, “The Bible. But I don’t really read much of anything.  Oops…I’d better not say that, I’m working with Read to Achieve [the NBA’s literacy charity].” 

When people say that their favorite book is the Bible, do they mean that the Bible is a book they read regularly, that has lots of underlined passages, that they treasure in their personal library? Or is it a code for “I’m a Christian,” even if they haven’t opened their Bible in years?Â