A Metaphor for Mechanistic Neurology

The other day, my family had the chance to eat lunch with a great couple. The husband is a neurologist, and as we discussed our worldviews he explained his naturalistic materialism. He explained that part of the reason for his belief is that as a neurologist, he sees science discovering that the brain alone is where all human response to stimuli occurs. So, for example, if someone remembers something, a certain area of the brain shows activity. Or, if certain forms of energy are applied to areas of the brain, perception is altered.

I suggested that the brain would show responses if it were the filter or interface between an immaterial aspect and the physical body. He disagreed…

Later, I thought of the perfect metaphor.

Imagine finding a computer. Somehow, it was an unknown object to you, so you began to study it. From a purely physical point of view, one could look at all of the systems that comprise the machine, but when you came to the CPU you would see it responding to stimuli. Touch a key, and somewhere in the hardware a response would occur. Type a series of keys and the memory would be accessed and the drive would begin to spin. You could explain these actions in purely material terms.

But, then, we all know that the responses in the hardware occur because there is an immaterial software, stored information, that instructs the hardware how to work. Without those instructions, a picture cannot be made, a paragraph cannot be typed, a blog posting cannot be sent. Even in this very mechanistic machine, an immaterial part determines function and purpose.

How much more the human?

John 3:16 as a Parable

Once upon a time, in a land sort-of like our own, there lived a father and his children.  For some time, the family lived happily together.  That is, until one day when a traveler came through town.  He told the children stories of the gold and glory to be found in the big city. He told them how happy they could be there—much happier than in their old town.  There were riches waiting to be had for any who would take them, he said.  He even told them that he saw potential in the children; And if they ever had the good sense to leave home and go to the city they could live with him until they were wealthy enough to live on their own.

The traveler’s stories caught the imaginations of the children.  So they decided together leave their father’s house and travel after the stranger to the great city.  That is, all except the eldest son.  He was resolute and would not leave with the others.  He pleaded with the other children to reconsider their decision and remain with him at home.  He warned them to beware of the traveler and the unproven promises he made.  Their father had never mentioned such a city before, said the eldest son.  If it were so wonderful, would he not have told them of it?

The other children would not be persuaded, however.  The promise of wealth and wisdom and honor waiting them in the city was too much for them.  So, they packed up their belongings and, without a word to their father, set off on the journey.

The children began that day with high hopes and cheerful hearts.  As soon as they were out of sight of the town, thieves rode up and surrounded them.  Leading them was the traveler.  The thieves took everything they had brought along with them.  They took all of the good things the children had been given by their father; they took their money, their possessions, their private papers and treasures; they took their horses, their maps and compasses; they even took their clothes from them.  They finished by taking their purity, their honor, and their dignity.  When the thieves were done, the children were naked and ashamed.  They had nothing to live on and no way or will to find the road back home.

What would their father think of them now?

Those were the words of the traveler.  How could they return now, in such a terrible state?  Their father would be ashamed of them and their elder brother would scorn them.  No.  First, they must travel on to the city and work for the traveler.  He would help them to gain back their self-respect and their wealth.  Then, they would be able to ride back home triumphantly and show them how right they had been.  They would earn back their father’s grudging respect through hard work and difficulties.

The children saw no other choice than the one offered to them now.  Again, the traveler’s stories caught the imaginations of the children.  They would show them all who was right!  And so, they took the filthy clothes the traveler had with him and put them on.  They walked off behind the traveler as his slaves.

Down, down they traveled to the dark and dirty city of the traveler.  As the children followed him to the gates, they realized that he was the king of the place.  He was a powerful king and a tyrant over all who lived there.  No one could refuse to obey him, for he held such power and such terrors to strike them.  Over the gates was this inscription: “Work Hard and Be Free”.  Many believed that this meant that if they did everything right and slaved diligently that they would be free to leave.  But, no matter how hard they worked no one was set free.  The gates often opened to let people into the city but only the traveler and his thieves ever went out.

Although no people ever left the city, hard work and cold self-interest did have value.  By being shrewd and looking out for yourself, you could advance in the city.  Many were able to settle in private houses and purchase cleaner clothes.  Many accumulated treasures of the wooden coins that replaced gold and silver in that city.  They could have more food that was a little less rotten than the next guy had.  Some even were able to afford to pay for jobs in the traveler’s service.

After some time living in the city, the children began to forget about their father.  It began to appear to their minds that this was all they ever knew.  They still dreamed of the good food, and sweets, and gifts and treasures they once knew.  But these were only dreams to them and drove them to work harder for more wooden coins.

Sometimes, when someone would talk about his dreams of a past home, the children would sigh.  Wouldn’t it be nice to have a home like that? they would wonder.  Someplace safe, and restful, and happy, and loving—someplace out of this city?  But these thoughts would only drive them back to “Work Hard and Be Free”.

Although the children forgot their father, their father never forgot them.  The longer the children were away, the hotter his love for them burned.  He could not bear the thought of his little babies away from him; and especially of them suffering all of the sorrows and sufferings of the evil city.  The daily thought of his little ones alone, unprotected, deceived, despised, and defiled controlled him.  He would not, and could not, let them continue in their ruin.  He must bring his little babies back to himself.

The father sent a trusted servant to the city.  Go to the city, he told the servant, find my children and bring them back to me.  So, the servant left the safety of the town, rode through the desert, and approached the city.  Over the gates he saw these words written: “All Who Enter Here Perish”.  Beneath this motto was the name of the city, “Death of All Hope, All Good, All Truth, All Souls”.

Inside the city, the servant began his search.  Everywhere, there was filth and sorrow.  Finally, his efforts led him to a broken-down house in a broken-down neighborhood.  He knocked on the door.  Locks were unlocked and the door opened a crack.  An eye peered out through the opening.

It was one of the father’s children!  He had found them!  He began to tell the eye in the crack of the father’s love, of the assignment he was given.  Please, come out of this pit of destruction and come home to…

Click.  The door just closed.

The servant thought perhaps it closed to be unlocked and opened all the way.  He stood their waiting for some time.  And he realized it would not open.  So he knocked again, and again but harder.  He heard quiet conversation behind the door, so he pounded on it.  Your father loves you, he shouted, come back home with me, he called.  The door flung open suddenly.  The children grabbed the servant, pulled him inside, and beat him to death.

After the servant did not return, the father knew what had happened to him.  So he sent another servant, and another, and another.  All of his servants were refused and beaten to death.

Finally, the father sent his faithful eldest son, saying, “Surely, they will respect him”.  To his son he gave all of the authority of his name and commissioned him, saying, “Tell them I love them and miss them and want them to come home.”

So the eldest son went to the city.  The gates were closed, but he commanded and they were opened.  He went to the broken down house where the children lived and knocked on the door.  Again, locks were unlocked and the door opened a crack.  Again, an eye peered out through the opening.  Again, one of the father’s children looked out at the visitor.  There was not a trace of recognition in that face behind the door.  The eldest son had come to his own people and they didn’t even know him.  Nevertheless, the blank face opened the door and asked the man inside.  “Come in and welcome”, said the doorkeeper.

The eldest son knew however what waited inside.  He knew that it was really a trap.  The traveler had arranged with the children to have his governors in the house when the son would come.  When the son would step into the house, the governors would capture the son and put him to death.  The traveler’s plan was this: After the death of the eldest son, the traveler could take the town and possessions of the father.  By killing the son, he could become a real king over everything.  The son knew this; but he knew more than the traveler did, so he stepped inside.

The traveler wrote the words “Work Hard and Be Free” over the gates to hide the true words.  But they were, as all else, a lie.  There was no way to be free and leave the city alive.  The true words, “All Who Enter Here Perish”, were written there by the father himself.  The father built the walls and gate around the city of sorrows to warn away those who would enter.  But the children believed the traveler rather than the father and passed in the gate.  And yet, the father knew there was one way to free his children from the city.  Death was required to leave the city.  All who enter here perish.  But, another, blameless one could die on the behalf of the perishing ones.  Another could die their death and so give them his life and pardon.  If a faithful son died for them, the children might be free.

“No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man.  As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life.  For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.  He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.  For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.  But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.”[1]

You see, John 3.16 tells us a story.  It is a sad story about sorrow and suffering, about a faithful father’s unreturned love.  But, I said it is a sad story with a happy ending.

The eldest son, the faithful son, entered into the house and was killed.  There were many there, among the father’s children, who laughed with the traveler at the sight.  They thought it a weak and foolish thing to give one’s faithful son for rebellious children.  But there were others in the place who saw everything differently.  As if light came from a newly uncovered sun, they could suddenly see the truth.  They realized the truth in the words of the son.  They saw the father and his love for them in the death of the son.  Through these things, the shadows and facades of the traveler were removed and the work of the father’s love made visible.

In the clarity of their new sight they knew the TRUTH; they saw reality, and trusted its truth.  They believed and obeyed.  They saw the rags they wore and exchanged them for robes of right.  They saw the wages they worked for and gave up such worthless wealth.  They saw the food they ate and determined to eat the bread of heaven or starve.  Most of all, they saw the traveler for what he was, the king only of vanity, selfishness, cruelty, and hate.  They saw all as it was and refused to have anything but the true gifts of the father.  And in that day, live where they might, they became free.  In their hearts, they made the journey back beyond the desert to the town of their father.  And there they lived, in their hometown despite their outward address in the dark city.  And one day, the faithful son faithfully returned and led them out of the dark city back to paradise.

John 3.16 is a little like a celebrity, it is true.  But it is really a promise of everlasting love.  There it is, paraded among all the faces and colors of the crowd.  Or there, hanging from a balcony.  “John 3.16”.  Like a celebrity, many people know its name but know nothing else about it.  What is it really?  What does it say?  It says,

“Come back to me”.

“I love you”.

Signed, “Your Father.”

Are there such people as deaconesses in the Bible?

Let me begin by saying that the conclusions in this post are my personal opinions. I am merely laying out how I came to those opinions. They are not necessarily the viewpoint of my church, denomination, etc., etc., etc.

As I see it, there are two main issues in the debate over the propriety of female deacons: 1) whether this is an acceptable function in the church and, if so, 2) are they ordained? I will not address the second issue here.

In order to decide the first issue, we need to decipher the evidence in the Scripture. If the Bible was completely clear on this issue, there would be little reason for debate. So, we also want additionally to look at the historical record and see if there is any aid to our understanding in the early Christians’ practice.

The Biblical Evidence

There are two passages relevant to our understanding.

1. Romans 16.1:

I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church at Cenchreae

The text in question is “a servant of the church”. The Greek reads, “diakonon teis ekkleisias”. The word diakonon is translated in English as ‘servant’ or the transliteration ‘deacon’. One Greek dictionary defines diakonon as:

1. servant Mt 20:26; 22:13; Mk 9:35; specifically waiter J 2:5, 9. Agent Ro 13:4; Gal 2:17.

2. helper of people who render service as Christians—

a. in the general service of God, Christ, or other Christians 2 Cor 6:4; 11:23; Eph 6:21; Col 1:23, 25; 1 Ti 4:6.

b. in official or semiofficial capacity Ro 16:1; Phil 1:1; 1 Ti 3:8, 12. The later t.t.’s ‘deacon’ and ‘deaconess’ derive from this usage, [diaconate]

(Bauer, Walter, William F. Arndt (Ed), F. Wilbur Gingrich (Ed), Frederick W. Danker (Ed), F. Wilbur Gingrich; A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature; University of Chicago Press; 2nd edition (February 1, 1979).)

Note the specific reference to the passage in Romans, to indicate that this occurrence is to be translated “deaconess”. This is the standard interpretation among the different dictionaries.

So, was Phoebe a deaconess? The conclusion here is uncertain. It does seem that she was, but it is also possible that Paul is commending her as simply one who served the church in her town.

2. 1 Timothy 3.11

Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain.  They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience.  And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless.  Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things.  Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well.  For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus. (ESV, my emphasis)

• The word translated here ‘wives’ is a little more commonly translated ‘women’ in the New Testament, having both meanings; it can be a woman in general or a married woman.

• The word ‘their’ is supplied by the translators, not being in the original language, and is added as a result of interpretation. If the word means ‘wives’, whose wives are they? They must be the wives of the male deacons.

• The pattern of the text is instructive:

Deacons	Likewise	“semnos” dignified	Not double-tongued
			Not addicted to wine
			Not greedy
			hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience
			Tested first
Women	Likewise	“semnos” dignified	Not slanderers
			Temperate, or abstaining from wine
			Faithful in all things

There is clearly a correlation between the deacons and the women; they are both to be dignified like the preceding overseers, and they are not to misuse their speech or wine.

• Why is the word ‘women’ used rather than the feminine form of the word for deacon? I think it could be because the masculine and feminine forms are the same, so for a distinction to be made a clearly descriptive word was necessary.

• If this text refers to the deacon’s wives, why are they singled out for special requirements? Wouldn’t it be just as important, if not more so, that overseer’s wives meet certain standards of conduct?

• On the other hand, we must note that the term ‘women’ is used to mean ‘wives’ in this text before and after this instance referring to the requirement that overseers and male deacons have only one wife. But then, the same word can be used with a different meaning in close proximity. For example, I could say something like, “The prince’s ball was very nice. Everyone was on the ball preparing for the ball.”

I believe the evidence leans toward instructions on the character of male and female deacons, although I admit that the evidence is not totally clear. My reasons are the construction of the text, the similarities (and differences) of the two descriptions, and the lack of clarification that these are the ‘wives’ of the deacons.

The Historical Evidence

There are four relevant sources.

1. Pliny the Younger (about A.D. 100), from Pontus/Bithynia (modern northern Turkey).

This is an important reference. Pliny writes (Book 10, Letter 96, Line 8):

Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.

Pliny wrote in Latin, so the translation “deaconess” is not a direct reference to the Greek “diaconia”.

Quo magis necessarium credidi ex duabus ancillis, quae ministrae dicebantur, quid esset veri, et per tormenta quaerere. Nihil aliud inveni quam superstitionem pravam et immodicam.

However, two reasons lead me to assume these unfortunate women were Deaconesses.

• ‘Ministrae’ is rendered ‘deaconesses’ by translators. For example, Jeremy O’Clair at http://ancientstudy.wordpress.com/2008/07/09/ministrae-in-pliny-1096/ polls various editions to say:

It’s interesting that Sherwin-White, Radice, Walsh, and W. Williams translate ministrae as deaconesses.  Even the OLD has that as a gloss translation.  Commenting on the Latin, Williams (p. 143) writes, “The Latin word ministrae is probably used to translate the Greek word diakonoi, for Paul refers to Phoebe as the diakonos (servant) of the church at Cenchreae (Romans 16, 1).”

(His references are to Sherwin-White, A. N.; The Letters of Pliny: A History and Social Commentary; Oxford University Press, USA (December 19, 1985); Radice, Betty (transl.); The Letters of the Younger Pliny; Penguin Classics (August 30, 1963); Walsh, P. G. (transl.); Complete Letters; Oxford University Press, USA (December 11, 2006); Williams, W. (Ed.); Pliny: Correspondence with Trajan from Bithynia (Epistles X, Classical Texts Series); Aris & Phillips (December 1, 1990); Glare, P. G. W. (Ed.); Oxford Latin Dictionary; Oxford University Press, USA (March 24, 1983).)

• “duabus ancillis, quae ministrae dicebantur”, is roughly translated “two servant girls, who were called ‘servants’”. The term ministrae is clearly a title. Otherwise, it would be translated, “two servant girls who were called servants” which would be an odd statement. Since “deaconess” has the meaning “servant”, it makes sense that this is a Latin translation of the Greek diakonia and used as a title for two Christian women.

Therefore, I conclude that female deacons are historically recorded about A.D. 100 in northern Asia Minor.

2.   Not mentioned by Apostolic Tradition (about A.D. 220), from Rome.

An argument against the existence of female deacons at Rome can be made from this text, and several other authors around this time, who do not mention them. Looking at the geographical provenance of the relevant texts causes me to wonder if there was a difference between Western, Southern, and Eastern practices.

3. The Teaching of the Apostles (about A.D. 230), from North Syria

This text is about 150 years after the time of Paul. It declares that “in many other matters the office of a woman deacon is required” referring to tasks a man could not do with propriety, such as baptize women and visit female believers in the house of a non-Christian man. Clearly, by this time and in this region, deaconesses were in existence.

4. Apostolic Constitutions (about A.D. 380), from Eastern Christianity (perhaps an Arian text)

And let the deaconesses be diligent in taking care of the women; but both of them [deacons and deaconesses] ready to carry messages, to travel about, to minister, and to serve.

Although this text is so much later than the New Testament Scriptures, it is interesting that deaconesses were tasked with delivering messages, which was the role Phoebe seems to have played by delivering the Letter to the Romans for Paul (Rom 16.1-2).

Conclusion

For these reasons I judge that:

• The Bible does teach the existence of female deacons.

• They were a historical reality early, at least in the East.

I also conclude from the texts that in practice the office of deaconess was different from that of male deacons, focusing on ministry to women and supporting the work of the male deacons. But that is another discussion for another time!

Holy Sonnet XIV by John Donne

John Donne was a remarkable poet in 1600′s England. As he aged, his writing became more somber and religious reflecting the sorrows, stresses, and course of his life. He is the often unknown source of phrases such as “Death be not proud” and “For whom this bell tolls” and “no man is an island”.

One of his great poems is the Holy Sonnet 14. In it he develops the contradiction that for him to be faithful to God he needs God to break him into submission. God has so far treated him tenderly and John believes he needs a stronger treatment.

Batter my heart, three-personed God; for you
As yet but knock, breathe, shine, and seek to mend;
That I may rise and stand, o’erthrow me, and bend
Your force to break, blow, burn, and make me new.
I, like an usurped town, to another due,
Labor to admit you, but O, to no end;
Reason, your viceroy in me, me should defend,
but is captived, and proves weak or untrue.
yet dearly I love you, and would be loved fain,
But am betrothed unto your enemy.
Divorce me, untie or break that knot again;
Take me to you, imprison me, for I,
Except you enthrall me, never shall be free,
Nor ever chaste, except you ravish me.

He sees 2 issues at the heart of his unfaithfulness. First is the failure of reason. He sees reason as a governor of his life that should lead him to God, but instead his reason is flawed and misleads him. The other is the captivity of love. He loves God, and eagerly desires God’s love, but finds himself “married” to God’s enemy Satan, and cannot freely give his love to God.

Donne sees the kindness of God insufficient for his case; he needs God’s severity to free him from his captivity that he might be “imprisoned” faithfully in God’s love.

A Contradiction

Ravi Zacharias speaking about a call-in program he once appeared on:

One woman phoned up rather irate, very angry. She said, “I know what your agenda is, as men and as Christians. I know what your agenda is.” And then she somehow brought out the whole issue of abortion.

I said, “Madam, did either of us even mention that issue? That is not even the issue under debate.”

She said, “I know, but that’s what’s behind all of this talk anyway.” And she said, “I cannot, I cannot accept the right of God” in this and that and she really began to get irate and angry and wouldn’t even let us talk.

I said, “Alright, can you just allow me to ask you one question, just one question? If you answer my question, I’ll let it go. Since you brought it up, Madam, this is my question to you: You have just spent the last few minutes defending your absolute right, as a moral right, to make the determination of what you have called your own body and that life within your own body. You’ve arrogated to yourself that absolute right and called it ‘your moral right’ to do as you will. I’ve been on campuses where someone has said something like this: A plane crashed in such-and-such a place. 50 people died, 20 people lived. What kind of a God are you worshipping who arbitrarily chooses 50 to die and 20 to live? He’s not a very good God, is He? Not a very moral God?”

I said, “Can you explain this conundrum for me? When God is blamed for arbitrary choices, that He allowed some to live and some to die, and you call Him ‘evil’; when you give to yourself the right to determine the life of someone else you call it a ‘moral right’. Can you explain this contradiction for me?”

>Click<

From Unplugging the Truth in a Morally Suicidal Culture by Ravi Zacharias. Click here for more.

Relativists of Convenience

I was listening to R. C. Sproul awhile ago and caught this evaluation of Relativism in our culture:

Alan Bloom astonished the publishing world several years ago when his book The Closing of the American Mind reached number one on the best-seller list. Nobody expected that to happen. What he was saying in that book was that, by the time the American high school student graduates from high school, 95 percent of them or so have already bought into Relativism. When they go to institutions of higher learning, the college, the university, that mindset is set in concrete so that by the time they leave college it’s up to 98 percent who have embraced Relativism. That to which the American mind has been closed is the idea of objective truth.

Now, the bad news is you have this endemic understanding of Relativism. The good news is… nobody’s a relativist. I mean people are only relativists when it suits them. Relativism is a forced and temporary worldview. The most confirmed relativist when he drives his car down the street and comes to an intersection and sees a Mack truck coming knows there can’t be a Mack truck there and not be a Mack truck there at the same time and in the same relationship and he puts his foot on the brake. You can’t survive in this world for 24 hours as a committed relativist unless you’re in a padded cell under 24 hour surveillance. Now it’s a very small percentage of the population that enjoys that luxury.

What drives the popularity of Relativism, however, is not so much a philosophical skepticism of our inability to reach objective truth; but what drives this is a desire to be out from under objective principles of conduct. It’s our immorality that drives us to say there are no absolutes; we say there is no such thing as objective truth, because if that’s true, then as Dostoevsky understood it, then all things are permitted and I can behave however I want to behave with impunity.

My emphasis. Check out Dr. Sproul here.

Who Will Catch the Catcher?

I recently finished reading Salinger’s The Catcher In The Rye. For me, a pretty depressing read.

In the story, the main character, Holden Caulfield,  is in the process of a nervous breakdown, which we know upfront because the novel is his reminiscence of events leading him to being on the West Coast for treatment.

I’ll just tell you about this madman stuff that happened to me around last Christmas just before I got pretty run down and had to come out here and take it easy. (pg. 1)

So, it is not unexpected when the first main motif of the novel, the word “madman”, is repeated on every third page or so throughout the book and, as the story progresses, synonyms for mad begin to appear.

The second motif, the red hunting cap the protagonist wears, is as blatant but less easily grasped.

The heart of the book is Caulfield’s reply to his younger sister’s request for him to “Name something you’d like to be.”

I keep picturing all these little kids playing some game in this big field of rye and all. Thousands of little kids, and nobody’s around–nobody big, I mean–except me. And I’m standing on the edge of some crazy cliff. What I have to do, I have to catch everybody if they start to go over the cliff–I mean if they’re running and they don’t look where they’re going I have to come out from somewhere and catch them. That’s all I’d do all day. I’d just be the catcher in the rye and all. I know it’s crazy, but that’s the only thing I’d really like to be. I know it’s crazy. (pg. 173)

Three things. 1) A cliff that 2) kids fall off and Holden 3) has to stop them from doing so (and again, it’s crazy). The idea of a fall shows up several times, notably in the jumping suicide of a bullied fellow student and in the experience of Caulfield towards the end of the novel.

I had this feeling that I’d never get to the other side of the street. I thought I’d just go down, down, down, and nobody’d ever see me again. (pg. 197)

Here’s where the red hat plays it’s role; he has given the hat to his sister and she, in effect, catches him from falling and then gives it back to him.

The idea of children needing to be rescued from falling into (insane?) adulthood plays out in Holden’s rambles, as he walks between childhood and adulthood, but more poignantly in his relationship with his sister. She idealizes everything noble about childhood. The critical passage is at the very end of the narrative. As Holden and his sister wander around Central Park they come across a carousel, one that they both rode on as children. Holden asks her if she wants to ride the carousel, but she resists because she’s “too big”. She does. As she rides for the second time, Holden muses:

I felt so … happy all of a sudden, the way old Phoebe kept going around and around. I was … near bawling, I felt so … happy, if you want to know the truth. I don’t know why. It was just that she looked so … nice, the way she kept going around and around, in her blue coat and all. God, I wish you could’ve been there.

And so, his sister Phoebe remained safe from falling for a little while longer as she rode the beat-up brown horse of childhood, a horse that probably wouldn’t look ratty to a child.

Thoughts

Salinger’s book is a version of “Toyland”, the song that sweetly mourns the passage from childhood to adulthood. There is a real loss, one that parents feel strongly as well, as children wake up to the realities of the world they are a part of. On the other hand, I would say that we are not meant to remain children but to become adults. Childhood is a preparation for increasing understanding and responsibility that comes with age. For Salinger, the youth caught in the transition may become depressed if he really sees what is happening around him. Unfortunately, I believe that reading this novel during adolescence might spur one to interpret this transition with the author’s viewpoint, causing youth who understand the book to become depressed themselves.

The idea of a catcher (and the need to be caught from a fall from innocence) is an old one. The original fall from innocence into the madness of adulthood happened in the Fall of mankind. As our first parents ate the fruit of the forbidden tree, their eyes were opened; not their physical eyes but their awareness. Innocence was lost. Where they had been naked yet unashamed, now they felt exposed. They saw there was something wrong with them and it had to be covered and hidden. Jesus is the One who snatches us back from falling where “nobody’d ever see me again”. Unlike the Catcher, Jesus doesn’t want to keep us safely locked up in childhood. The desire of redemption is that the person would progress out of a metaphysical adolescence into true human adulthood; that we would transcend the current state of mankind towards the goal of adult members (sons) of the family of God.

But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. (Galatians 3:25-26)

It is not a solution for our problem to retreat into childhood, whether personal or collective. Rather, we must advance through and beyond the turmoil of our age to the transformation offered in redemption in Jesus Christ.