Reflective Wanderer

You cannot know western history without reading Homer. That’s a bold statement, here’s how it’s backed up; say you wanted to better understand Protestant history. You do not really care about the story of the mythical war with Troy, all you want is to better know your Christian tradition from the 16th century. Why start with Homer? Because to understand the Reformers you must understand them in relation to the backdrop of the medieval mind. To understand the medieval mind you must study the Christianization of Europe; before you read the Venerable Bede’s missionary stories of England you need to have read the early Church Fathers. The Church Fathers borrowed from and fought against ideas of Greek thinkers like Plato, so now an understanding of Plato is also needed. And to get an accurate glimpse into the world of Plato you need to read some Homer. Ideas do not happen in a vacuum; one idea, good or bad, leads to others. 

The influence of old Greco/Roman culture is still felt; indeed the Reformers and English Puritans constantly quoted classics for pertinent examples, simply because there was a wealth of stories and important questions raised by these old writers. Is there a danger here? Perhaps, depending on how one uses them; each generation must oppose different gods. In the first century A.D. there were still temples to Zeus around. At the time of the Puritans there were no temples to these forgotten deities, and no one would be tempted to worship Hera; it was safe to use the beautiful writing as examples in sermons or poetry. Homer is an antique relic of a historic past that is both beautiful and alarming from the perspective of 2,000 years of Chistianity, and it should be dealt with as such. Early philosophers like Plato and Aristotle have their place as well.  Apart from Scripture no one can develop a solid philosophy based on truth; but because of common grace and the revelation of God through nature, some truths can be deduced and some questions can be asked that are pertinent to the philosophic discussion. This cannot be denied. Furthermore, a lot of these men are critical for understanding the history of ideas. They also should be studied with care. After the Christianizing of the west, all writers had to deal with a Christian worldview. Some accepted it, some built upon it for God’s glory, and some tried to destroy it, but no one could escape it. Nothing was the same after. 

Think of William Shakespeare’s King Lear versus the Greek tragedian Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex; in both plays there is a King whose life is ruined by family circumstances and things go from bad to awful quite quickly. The causes of the troubles are very different. In Oedipus Rex men are innocent, and it is the gods that are the culprits for all misfortune. The system of the universe is cracked, people are not fallen, and it is fate that makes them fall; and fall they must, for there is no help for it. In King Lear evil befalls, and one consequence falls from another, because of the wrong choices of the king. There is a Christian morality about Shakespeare; right is right and wrong is wrong, and humanity is responsible for their actions.  Shakespeare might not have been a born again Christian, and some of his writings seem a bit dark, but that’s because the heart of man can be a dark place. The Bard shows us both what the heart and world feel like, not only what it ought to be like. King Lear is about a world full of meaning, because people will sow what they reap.  One may prefer a scene at the end of Biblical repentance, no doubt, but whether he liked it or not, Shakespeare was “Christ haunted,” to borrow a phrase from O’Conner. Indeed the scripture references are abundant in all his works, and he died a faithful member of the Anglican Church. He could not outrun his Christian heritage. The influence Christianity had on western literature runs deep, whether the author appreciates the faith or rejects it. Not all modern classics are created equal. John Milton, Jane Austen, Charles Dickens, Fyodor Dostoevsky, William Cowper or Walter Scott, to name a few examples, are far more faithful to a Christian idea of life and faith than say Thomas Hardy. Yet even Thomas Hardy, in attacking the faith with his stories, cannot help but be instructive, for he painted a picture of a culture beginning to lose its religion and the bleakness without that guiding light. The young reader could read a Dickens novel and be edified, while the mature student ought to read Thomas Hardy to further grapple with the questions beginning to erode late 19th century via the writers of the day.

The good in art and cultural expression results from the shared experience of mankind. Imagine a linear continuum. There is literature that is produced as Christain literature (think The Pilgrim’s Progress). Then there is the literature of common experience, maybe influenced by Christianity but not exactly containing the stated purpose of being a “religious book”, however, it accurately portrays reality at some level (think William Shakespeare). Finally, there is on the far end expressly anti-Christian works (think The Origin of Species). Across this continuum there are a great variety of works, and the Christian, with discretion, should benefit from works of great minds, whether they are writing an evangelistic treatise or not. Indeed, the Apostle Paul himself quotes from different classical Greek poets and philosophers. “In Him we live and move and have our being” is from De Oraculis by Epimenides (Acts 17:28). The verse that follows (Acts 17:29) “we are also His offspring,” is from The Phenomena, in the 3rd century B.C. by Aratus. In Acts 26:14, speaking to king Agrippa, Paul alludes the to famous playwright Aeschylus and his play Agamemnon (Acts 26:14); about the Cetans the Apostle quotes “one of their own prophets” (Titus 1:12). It should be noted that Paul is not quoting these classical writers to refute them but to build his point. He does not necessarily approve of the writers themselves, but he clearly is endorsing the thought. Saint Augustine states that, “A person who is a good and true Christian should realize that truth belongs to his Lord, wherever it is found, gathering and acknowledging it even in pagan literature, but rejecting superstitious vanities.” (On Christain Doctrine, Augustine). The Christian ought to use cultural expression expressly to glorify God; the image of the Creator in men enables them to create some great works of art and literature that are beautiful, though at times marred by the fall. The Christain should be the most culturally creative, and, as Schaeffer writes, “use these arts to the glory of God, not just as tracts, mind you, but as things of beauty to the praise of God. An artwork can be a doxology in itself.” This is God’s world, and all that is true and beautiful comes from Him. 

The Greeks and Romans built a civilization that had some elements, by the common grace of God, that were good, albeit containing a lot that was false. The early church contended with and built upon the culture they came out of and turned the world upside down with the message of the person of Christ. The west has been acting in and reacting to the faith ever since. There is a movement to get away from teaching the classics and reading only what is scrubbed clean and exactly in line with what you believe. To do this is to be ignorant of history, to lose the chance at wrestling with the great texts of the western world, and to pretend like the person of Christ did not affect the course of western culture.